Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Ramesh Narsingh Hire vs. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:11097) - (High Court of Bombay) (19 Jun 2024)

Mere bald allegations without narrating details, would not be sufficient to gravitate charge under Section 498A of IPC

MANU/MH/3594/2024

Criminal

Appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction recorded by trial Court, thereby convicting for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Appellant pointed out that, there was apparently false implication. Prosecution has failed to establish the charges by leading cogent and reliable evidence.

General and omnibus allegations by using the term ill treatment are levelled. What was the exact mental and physical cruelty inflicted is not elaborated by any of the witnesses and even no specific instances are quoted by any of them. Therefore, mere bald allegations without narrating details, would not be itself sufficient to gravitate charge of 498A of IPC. Cruelty as contemplated under law is not met in the evidence.

Accused is convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide. For bringing home the said charge, it is duty of prosecution to prove that there was abetment to commit suicide. Accused persons should intent that deceased should end up her life. With that object in mind, if they deliberately create circumstances, which are of such nature, that deceased is left with no other alternative but to end up her life, only then charge of abetment to commit suicide can be said to be successfully brought home. Abetment is equally an essential factor to be proved by prosecution.

Spot panchanamagoes to show that, episode of burn has taken place near earthen chulha. Burnt pieces of clothes are said to be lying near the cooking place. On the strength of such material, inference can definitely be drawn that, burns were suffered while cooking activity.

Therefore, as there is nothing to infer that only because of ill treatment and demand, deceased immolated herself, case so put-forth by prosecution cannot be straightaway accepted. Presence of accused is not marked or demonstrated at the time of alleged episode to hold him responsible for her burns. In fact, prosecution's own witness suggests that deceased suffered accidental burns. Resultantly, there is weak and fragile evidence regarding offence of Section 498A and 306 of IPC. Cruelty and abetment as contemplated under law has not been established. Apparently, there is improper appreciation of evidence. No satisfactory and sound reasons are assigned for accepting the case of prosecution. The conviction awarded to appellant for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), stands quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved