Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

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