Bombay HC: Insolvency Cannot be Used to Evade a Family Court’s Maintenance Order  ||  Kerala HC: Forklifts and Factory Cranes Are Motor Vehicles and Must be Registered under MV Act  ||  Guj HC: Edible Crude Palm Kernel Oil Qualifies for Duty Exemption; End-Use Condition not Applicable  ||  NCLAT Delhi: Advance under Land-Development MoU is not Financial Debt and Cannot Trigger CIRP  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Cannot Change Capital Structure of a Legally Compliant Successful Auction Purchaser  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigation and Long Delay in Filing Chargesheet Can Justify Quashing Case  ||  SC: Landowners Accepting Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Claim Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  Supreme Court: Indian Courts Cannot Appoint Arbitrators for Arbitrations Seated Outside India  ||  Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report    

Satish and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:5953) - (High Court of Bombay) (18 Mar 2024)

Sole admission under Section 313 of CrPC in absence other corroborative piece of evidence, cannot be made basis of conviction

MANU/MH/1811/2024

Criminal

Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, thereby convicting husband and in-laws (Appellants) for offence punishable under Section 498A read with section 34 and recording guilt of husband accused no.1 alone for offence punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), is assailed by filing instant appeal. Appellants submits that, prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, there is no independent evidence and only interested witnesses are examined. That, testimonies of witnesses are full of inconsistencies, variances, material omissions and contradictions.

On taking overall survey of prosecution witnesses on the point of 498A of IPC, apparently witnesses are not consistent about since exactly when ill treatment began. Evidence on the point of cruelty and ill treatment is weak or fragile. It has also come in the evidence that some of the accused are residing separately. Therefore, it was expected of prosecution to give specific instances, but evidence to that extent is missing.

There is no distinct evidence regarding performance of second marriage. For such charge, independent evidence could have been readily available, if there had been second marriage being performed. Law is fairly settled that, sole admission under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in absence other corroborative piece of evidence, cannot be made basis of conviction.

There is little, weak or no evidence on the point of ill treatment. Learned trial court has already acquitted accused for 306 of IPC. There is no iota of evidence whatsoever in support of charge of 494 of IPC. Therefore, as none of the charges are cogently proved, case of prosecution cannot stand.

Learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence as well as law. Therefore, interference is called for. The conviction awarded to appellantsfor the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 and section 494 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved