Bombay High Court
Gyanoba Narayan Derne And Ors vs State Of Maha on 29 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:2412
{1} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2004
1. Gyanoba S/o Narayan Derne
Age: 66 years, Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Niwgha, Tq. Hadgaon,
District Nanded
(abated as per Courts order dated 14.11.2024)
2. Saraswati W/o Gyanoba Derne,
Age: 61 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Niwgha, Tq. Hadgaon,
District Nanded
3. Datta S/o Gyanoba Derne,
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Niwgha, Tq. Hadgaon,
District Nanded.
(abated as per Courts order dated 26.09.2024) .... Appellants
(Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 3)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
......
Ms. Surekha G. Chincholkar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. V.M. Jaware, APP for Respondent - State
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
–
1. In this appeal, exception has been taken to the judgment and
order dated 05.08.2004, rendered by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2003, recording the guilt
of the appellant for offences punishable under section 498-A read
{2} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
with Section 34 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that, deceased Mangala was
married to present Gajanan Derne in the year 1996 and after
marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband. After the marriage,
Gajanan maintained his wife peacefully and properly about one year.
Deceased Mangala was residing with her husband at Himayatnagar
with her children. Prior to eight days of the incident, accused no.2
Saraswatibai came to the house of deceased Mangala and quarrelled
with her and abused her. So also, prior to 2 to 3 months, accused
No.1 Gyanoba came to the house of deceased and quarrelled with her
and abused her. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were allegedly visiting the
house of the deceased and demanding money from time to time.
Therefore, on 22.01.2003, between 05:00 p.m. and 06:00 p.m.,
Mangala allegedly poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire,
resulting in her death by suicide
After investigation, charges were framed against accused
persons, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-
law of the deceased Mangala. Precise indictment was on allegation
that, there was physical and mental cruelty in the backdrop of
{3} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
demand of money. On trial, case of prosecution was accepted and
learned Trial Judge rendered above judgment of conviction. Precisely,
the same has been taken exception by way of instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant :
3. At the threshold, learned counsel for appellants pointed out
that, in this case, three accused were chargesheeted, however, during
pendency of appeal, father-in-law and brother-in-law have expired,
and as such, appeal stands abated against them, and consequently,
appeal now remains against only mother-in-law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is
appellant’s false implication. That, there is no convincing, cogent and
legal acceptable evidence. That, there is only evidence of near and
dear ones and no independent witness like neighbour has been
examined. That, general and sweeping allegations are made against
in-laws regarding alleged demand, taunting and insulting. Learned
counsel pointed out that, in fact, deceased and her husband i.e. son
of accused nos.1 and 2 were residing separately since marriage itself,
whereas appellants resided at distinct place. That, none of the
witnesses has elaborated specific role of the any of the appellant and
{4} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
rather omnibus allegations are levelled. Allegations are made that
there are taunting on complexion and not preparing food, but such
allegations are general in nature, and who amongst the three accused
taunted and when has not been stated by any of the witnesses.
Learned counsel pointed out that, only two visits of deceased to her
parents house has come on record i.e. during Diwali and Panchami.
That, marriage is of the year 1996 and during which year of such
festivals, there was reporting has not been stated by witnesses.
Resultantly, according to the learned counsel evidence as regards to
offence under Section 498-A of the is weak and fragile.
5. Learned counsel pointed out that, as regards to offence of 306
of IPC is concerned, it is pointed out that, there is no material
suggesting presence of the appellants and further they too have
indulged in abetment, inducement or instigation in any manner to
commit suicide. Learned counsel pointed out that appellants
admittedly being residing at distinct place and their visits to the
house of deceased are not coming on record so as to hold continuous
harassment of any manner. Learned counsel pointed out that,
complaint is out of annoyance because appellant, father-in-law did
not purchase agricultural land in the name of husband of deceased,
even when it was allegedly agreed. Therefore, according to learned
{5} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
counsel, the allegations are apparently false and after thought.
Learned counsel further pointed out that dying declaration itself is
clear that deceased ignited herself in the rage of anger, and as such
appellants ought not to have been held guilty for abetment to commit
suicide. For above reasons, learned counsel criticizes the manner of
appreciation, the reasons and the findings reached at by learned Trial
Judge and prays to interfere by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of State :
6. Per contra, learned APP, who supported the judgment
submitted that parents-in-law and brother-in-law subjected deceased
to cruelty, both physical and mental. That, there was demand of
money and on account of non fulfillment, there was harassment
coupled with continuous taunting, insulting. That, deceased reported
it to her parents, brother and even her own sister in law, i.e. daughter
of appellant. They have all consistently report. Learned APP pointed
out that, deceased gave dying declaration, which is voluntary and
credible. Appellants are named by deceased. Therefore, appellants
being responsible for suicide, they are rightly held guilty, and so
prayer is raised to dismiss the appeal.
{6} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
STATUS AND ROLE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
7. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as
eleven witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of
their evidence can be summarized as under :
PW1 Dnyandeo Sahadeo Mukale is father of the deceased. He
deposed at Exh.19 as under :
” 1. The deceased Mangala was my daughter. She was
married with one Gajanan Gyanoba Derne, on 10/5/1996. After
marriage, my daughter Mangala went to the house of her
husband for cohabitation. At the time of settlement of marriage
I have paid Rs. 25000/- to the Gajanan for completion of his
D.Ed education. piror to the marriage of my daughter with
Gajanan he has again demanded Rs. 10000/- in excess which
was not agreed by me. At that time I have called mediater and
disclosed that Gajanan again demanding Rs. 10,000/- in excess
Mediaters have convinced Gajanan for not demanding the
excess amoint while marriage was solemnize with Gajanan.
After marriage, Gajanan Maintained his wife peacefully and
property about one year. Inthe year 1997 Gajanan was
appointed as a teacher.
2. The accused No. 1 father-in-law of my daughter accused
No. 2 is mother-in-law and accused No. 3 is brother-in-law of
my daughter. My daughter. My daughter and her husband and
her parents-in-law were residing jointly after the marriage of my
daughter Mangala. Accused Gyanoba and Datta were having
four acres land each, where as Gajanan was not having any
land. Three acres land which was adjoining to the land of
accused Nos. 1 and 3 was offered for sale and accused have
agreed to purchase the said land in the name of Gajanan, my
{7} 499-04 CRIAPEALson in law. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 have purchased the
agricultural land in the name of accused Datta instead of
Gajanan. Gajanan has paid the consideration for purchase of the
land out of his salary, therefore, dispute arose between Gajanan
and accused Nos. 1 to 3 as said land was purchased in the name
of accused No. 2 Datta. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 by visiting the
house of Gajanan at his service place and were demanding
money to his time to time. The accused No. 1 to 3 demanding
Rs. 10000/- to my daughter, whenever they used to visit the
house of Gajanan and my daughter, On that count, quarrel was
going on between my daughter Mangal and accused persons.
Accused were abusing to my daughter by using filthy language
and insulting her, and also about her character. The accused
Nos. 1 to 3 were quarreling with Mangal saying that she was
black in colour, nor preparing the meal properly and other
grounds, and also telling her she was insisting her husband for
demanding the agriculture land newly purchased and creating
quarrel between them. The accused Datta was creating terror
with my daughter under the influence of liquor. My daughter
was educated and she was B.A.Bed. and due to illtreatment and
harassment by accused persons she was mentally disturbed.
3. Whenever my daughter used to visit my house at the
time of Deewali and panchimi festival Ashe had narrated the
entire incidents of illtreatment and harassment given by the
accused on account of demand of money from her parents. On
19th of Jan. 2003 my daughter has talked with my wife on
phone from Himayat nagar, stating that her mother in law came
to her house on 8th Jan.2003 and was demanding money which
was agreed prior to her marriage, and quarrelled with her/ and
abused her and also disclosed that she will solemnize second
marriage of her son. And also threatend to kill her. This message
was conveyed to me from my wife.
{8} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
4. On 22/1/2003, had received message on phone by my
distant relative Shri Dhongade stating that my daughter was
burnt and they were taking her to civil hospital, Nanded for
treatment. Therefore, My self ‘my wife’ son and brother came to
Nanded by jeep. She was admitted in private hospital of Dr.
Degloorkar for treatment. I had enquired with my daughter
Mangala about the burning incident, she started narrating and
disclosed that, her mother in law on 8th of Jan. 2003 came to
her house and mother in law had demanded money, she herself
and her husband have give some amount but she has not
satisfied. She also disclosed that, her mother in law has abused
her and insulted her, therefore, she was depressed and further
disclosed prior to 2 months her father in law and brother in law
also came to her house and demanded money and on that count
they quarrelled with her and abused her and also disclosed her
father in law has refused to give landed property to her
husband. On this count she was mentally depressed and
committed suicide by burning herself After four days of her
admission in the hospital & Dr, Deglooka, she succumbed to
death The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for committing
suicide by my daughter by burning.”
PW2 Fakirrao has acted as pancha to inquest panchanama Exh.21.
PW3 Pandurang has acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exh.23.
PW4 Dr. Ramesh Waghmare, was the Assistant Lecturer, Department
of Forensic Science, Government Medical College, Nanded,
who had conducted the postmortem examination and prepared
P.M. report Exh.25.
PW5 Indubai Mukale is mother of the deceased. At Exhibit 26, she
{9} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
deposed as under :
” 1. Mangala was my daughter. She was married with
Gajanan on 10/5/1996. prior to the marriage of Gajanan my
husband has paid Rs. 25000/- to him for completing D.Ed,
education. After completing D.Ed, education the marriage of
Mangala was solemnized. On the date of marriage, accused
persons have demanded Rs. 10000/- in excess, on that count
there was quarrel between accused and my husband. My
husband has refused to pay excess amount of Rs. 10000/- and
he told the accused already Rs. 25000/- were paid for the D.Ed.
education of Gajanan. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized.
After the marriage, accused have maintained my daughter
peacefully and properly for one year. On 19/1/2003 I had
received message from my daughter Mangala on phone stating
that, on 8th of Jan, her mother in law came to her house at
Himayatnagar and she has demanded the amount to my
daughter Mangala. My daughter has refused to pay the amount
to her mother in law and further disclosed her mother-in-law
had quarrelled with her severely, and also disclosed her mother-
in-law had abused her and threatened to kill and also
threatened to solemnize second marriage of her son Gajanan.
On the phone I had given understanding to my daughter
Managala and told her I will send to her father to her house.
2. On 22/1/2003 at about 6.00 p.m. a message was
received on phone from Himayatnagar stating that, Mangala
was burnt and taken to Nanded for treatment. Thereafter, My
self, my husband, brother in law and son came to Nanded and
came to the Hospital of Dr. Degloorkat and saw Mangala, she
was taking treatment in the hospital. she was completely burnt.
I had enquired her about the occurrence of incident and she was
burnt, she also disclosed that her mother in law came to her
house at Himayatnagar and quarrelled with her on account of
{10} 499-04 CRIAPEALdemand of money from her parents and threatened to kill her
and also threatened to solemnized second marriage of her son
Gajanan., and also refused to give share in the agriculture land.
she further disclosed that the abuses and illtreatment given by
mother in law could not tolerated by her and due to anger, she
was burnt herself by pouring kerosene on her person, she also
stated in the hospital, her brother-in-law had quarreled with her
and refused to give share in the land to her husband and abused
in filthy language. The father in law demanding money and on
that count he was quarreling with her. The accused Nos.1 to 3
are responsible for committing suicide by Mangala by burning
herself”
PW6 Dr. Ganesh Degloorkar, Private Practitioner at Nanded, in his
Hospital, deceased was admitted for treatment. At Exh. 28, he
deposed as under :
“1. On 22/1/2003, the patient Mangal Gajanan Dherne was
admitted in my private hospital for treatment as indoor patient
at 8.30 p.m. The patient was burnt I had enquired with the
patient as to what happened she disclosed that she was burnt.
Immediately, I informed the police Vazirabad. The patient was
burnt 98%. The letter now shown tone is sent to P.S.I. Vazitabad.
It bears my sighature, same is at Exh. 29. The patt patient was
died on 26/1/2003 at 10.30 p.m. I also informed the police
Vazirabad by letter. The letter now shown to me is the same. It
bears my signature, its contents are true and correct, it is at Exh.
30. I had given antiboitic saline to the patient during her
treatment. The patient was burnt entirely except some part.
Thereafter police referred the dead body to civil hospital,
Nanded for P.M.”
{11} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
PW7 Vitthal Bulbule, Special Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded
the dying declaration of deceased. At Exh. 35 he deposed as
under :
“1. On 17/1/2003 to 23/1/2003 I have worked as a S.J.M.
at Nanded. On 22/1/2003 at 10.15 p.m. I received requisition
from P.S. Vazirabad, for recording D.D. of injured Mangal
Gajanan Dherne. Thereafter, Immediately, went to private
hospital of Dr. Degloorkar. The requisition now shown to me is
same. it bears mt endorsement and for receipt of requisition. It
is signed by me. It also bears signature of PSO Vazirabad,
Nanded, same is at Exh. 37. Thereafter, I have contacted with
the Dr. Degloorkar, and disclosed him that I have to record
statement of patient Mangal Gajanan Dherne. Thereafter, Doctor
took me to the room of patient and them doctor has examined
the patient in my presence At that time, patient was
unconscious therefore Doctor gave endorsement to that effect
and requested me to record her statement on next day.
2. Thereafter, on 23/1/2003 at 10.30 A.M. I again went to
private hospital of Dr, Degloorkar and disclosed him that I have
to record statement of Mangal then doctor has examined the
patient and disclosed that patient is conscious and well oriented
for recording statement, and made endorsement to that effect
vide Exh. 32. Thereafter, I have asked the relatives of the patient
to go out of the room, Before recording the statement of the
patient. I ascertained and satisfied that the patient is conscious
and they I recorded her statement. I had enquired her name,
place of residence, hunsband’s name, she had given answers to
the questions. Thereafter, I started recording statement of
injured in the question answer form. I have asked her what is
her name, she has disclosed her name as Mangal Gajanan
Dherne and then I asked second question where and when the
{12} 499-04 CRIAPEALincident had taken place, she had answered that it was taken
place at 6.00 p.m. in her house at Himayatnagar I put third
question about occurrence of the incident. She had answered
that her mother-in-law, father-in-law were quarreling with her,
and her brother in law had assaulted her therefore, she herself
put kerosene on her person and set on fire. I have read over the
contents of statement to her. She has admitted it as true and
correct. Therefore, I obtained her C.D. on her statement. Then I
issued certificate stating that D.D. is recorded as per the say of
patient, it is read over her, she admit it as true and correct and I
believe that the D.D. is given voluntarily. It is completed at
11.05 a.m. and I have signed below the endorsement.
Thereafter, Doctor has make endorsement stating that, patient
was conscious through out the statement and she was well
oriented. The statement now shown to me is the same. It is in
my own hand writing, it’s contents are true and correct. It is at
Exh. 38, and the certificate is at Exh. 39.
PW8 Sanjay, i.e. brother of deceased, is examined at Exh.43, wherein
he deposed as under :
“1. Mangal was my younger sister. Her marriage was
solemnized with Gajanan on 10 the May 1996 at Dhanora.
Savita is daughter of accused Dnyanoba. She is my wife. The
accused No. s1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law of my
sister and accused No. 3 brother-in-law were harassing and
illtreating my sister Mangala on account of demand of money.
After marriage, accused have maintained my sister peacefully
and properly for one year and they started to ill-treat her, on
account of demand of money. The brother-in-law of Mangal
accused No. 3 was assaulting my sister on account of demand of
Money and ill treating her. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were ill-
treating to my sister on the ground that she was black in colour
{13} 499-04 CRIAPEALand were refusing to give the share in the land to the husband
of my sister. On this count, all accused were ill treating mentally
and physically to Mangal.
2. On 7/1/2003. the accused No. 2 who is my mother in
law came to my house at Nanded, at that time she was telling
that she has to go to Hinnyatnagar, where my sister Aangal was
residing. I told accused No. 2 not to go to Himayatnagar for
illtreating my sister. and also not to quarrel with her and not to
demand her money. without giving any response to se on next
day 1.e. On 8/1/2003 accused No. 2 Saraswatibai went to
Himayat nagar. Thereafter, 8 to 10 days, Mangal has disclosed
me that her mother in law Saraswatibal came to Himayat nagar
and further disclosed that she has abused her and was
demanding money.
3. Thereafter, on 22/1/2003, I had received a massage on
phone stating that my sister Mangal was burnt and she was
bringing to Nanded for treatment. Thereafter, she was admitted
in the private hospital of dr. Degloorkar, and met to Mangala
who was taking treatment and enquired with her how she was
burnt, she told me her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother
in law were always demanding her money and quarreling her
and giving her illtreating and refused to give share of her
husband in agricultural land. On 8/1/2003 and further
disclosed, On 8/1/2003 her mother in law accused No. 2 came
to Himayatnagar to her house and was demanding money when
she has refused to give the money, her mother in law annoyed
and started abusing her in filthy language, and refused to give
the share in the agri. land and also threatened that she will
marry of her son with another girl. My sister disclosed all these
facts to me in the hospital.
PW9 Savita, i.e. sister-in-law of deceased, is examined at Exh.53,
{14} 499-04 CRIAPEALwherein he deposed as under :
“1. The accused No. 1 is my father and accused No. 2 is my
mother and accused No.3 is brother. Deceased Mangala was my
sister-in-law. She was married accused have maintained my
sister in law Mangala peacefully and properly and thereafter,
they started to ill-treat her on account of demand of money.
Wheneber accused were quarrel to deceased “angala at that
time husband of Mangala keeps silence. Whenever, deceased
Mangala came to my house at that time she used to disclosed
about the ill-treatment by her in-laws and when ever I used to
go to the house of my parents, the accused were ill-treating
Mangala on account of demand of money. Number of times I
have given understanding to my parents and brother not to ill-
treat Mangal and maintain her properly and I also sent letter
stating to maintain Mangala peacefully and properly and not to
ill-treat her. I have sent letter on 1/8/2002 i.e. prior to the
incident. In that letter I have written to my parents to maintain
Mangala peacefully and properly and not to ill-treat and harass
her on account of demand of Rs.10000/-. I can identify the
letter if shown to me. The letter now shown to me is the same.
It is my in my own hand writing. It is signed by me and its
contents are true and correct. same is at Exh. 54.
2. Prior to incident at the time of Dasra festival, Mangala
was brought to my house, at that time she was weeping and
disclosed me her in laws were ill-treating her on account of
demand of money. Thereafter, I have sent above letter Exh. 54.
to my parents. After sending letter at the time of Nagpanchimi
festival I went to the house of accused who are my parents. At
that time my parents and brother had quarrelled with me and
saying that. whether I was too wise and why I had sent them
letter. Accused No. 3 is drunker and he ins thrown the said letter
to wards me. Thereafter, I took the said letter and kept it in
{15} 499-04 CRIAPEALsuitcase and on next day with anger I returned back to my
house.
PW10 Anil Kottawar, ASI, who has recorded the statement of
deceased and other witnesses and prepared arrest panchanama
Exh.69.
PW11 Vithal Lathe, API, is the Investigation Officer.
8. Defence has also adduced evidence of one witness namely
Gajanan, i.e. husband of deceased. At Exh. 76, he deposed as under :
“1. The accused No.1 and 2 are my parents and accused No. 3
Datta is my brother. Deceased Mangala was my wife. My marriage
with Mangal was solemnized on 10/5/1995. During wedlock period
my wife has begotten two children by name Shubham and
Krushikesh. My son Krushekesh is born on 21/8/1996 and date of
birth of shubham in 23/1/2002. I am H.S.C. D.Ed. After completing
D.Ed. Course, I got job of teacher. I joined the service after 7 to 8
months of the marriage.
2. My brother Datta is doing agriculture work. My father and
brother by name. Gyanoba and Patta were having 10 acres of land
at Niwgha. My father had purchased the land in his own name,
admeasuring 4 acres. My brother Datta is having 6 acres of land in
his own name. Initially accused No. 3 Datta was cultivating gairan
land adm. 4 acres and Datta was entered his name as cultivator and
thereafter he purchased 2 acres land adjacent to above 4 acres land.
3. Accused No. 3 Datta is residing separate with his wife and
children at Niwgha, prior to my marriage, he is elder to me. The
incident is dated 22/1/2003 at 6.00 p.m. At the time of incident, I
was present in my house There are two rooms one toilet and bath
{16} 499-04 CRIAPEALroom in my house. One is drawing room second is kitchen room. I
am residing in rented room at Himayat nagar having ceiling of
R.C.C. At the time of incident, my wife Mangal was preparing meal
on stove. At the time of incident Mangal was wearing polyester
Saree. At the time of incident I was sitting in front of my house. I
heard the noise of blast in my house, therefore, immediately rushed
in side the house and went to kitchen. I saw there my wife Nangal
was burnt I tried to extinguish fire by taking my wife towards bath
room and pouring water on her person. My both hands were burnt
Thereafter, immediately I took my wife to private hospital for
treatment at Himayatnagar, Doctor advised me to take the injured to
civil hospital, Nanded for treatment. Immediately after the incident,
I informed to my parents and parents of my wife and asked them to
come to Nanded. I brought my wife in private hospital Nanded, of
Dr. Degloorkar at 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, my parents and parents of
Mangal came to hospital, immediately. My wife was admitted in the
hospital of Dr. Degloorkar, The father of my wife has deposited
advance of Rs. 5000/- to doctor for treatment. Thereafter, treatment
was continued. Thereafter Doctor demanded further advance of Rs.
25000/- at that time my father in-law has told me to deposit that
amount- At that time my parents have raised objection for
depositing the advance money by me. At that time my mother in law
annoyed to my parents stating why they were any objection when I
was ready to deposit the amount. Thereafter, there was dispute
between my parents and the parents of my wife. Thereafter, my
mother in law was intent to file report against my parents and they
filed the report.
4. From the time of admission till death of my wife, I was in
hospital with my wife. My mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-
in-law were present near my wife, where as my parents were not
near my wife. My wife was fully burnt, and she was receiving burnt
injuries. Her both hands, legs and other part of her body were
severely burnt, Her face was having swelling due to burn injured.
{17} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
She was unable to talk. I did not talk with my wife in hospital while
she was taking treatment, nor she talk with any other person in the
hospital. Thereafter, police came in the hospital and enquired with
the parents of my wife about the occurrence of incident, as per their
say police recorded statement of my wife. A Magistrate also came in
the hospital. While Magistrate was recording statement of my wife
at that time I was present near my wife. My wife was not in a
position to give statement to Magistrate. My wife died on
26/1/2003 and her funeral was completed at the house of her
parents at Dhanora. I my self has present at the time of funeral of
my wife. My parents and in other relatives were also present at that
time.”
ANALYSIS
8. Before adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it would be
apt to discuss the settled legal position on the aspect of charge under
Law on Section 498-A IPC :
There are series of judgments wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has
repeatedly observed and held that in case of general, vague and
omnibus allegations without specifying role or giving specific
instances of cruelty, charge of Section 498-A would not automatically
get attracted. Such observations are reflected in Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab and others [Appeal (crl.) 688-90 of 1993 decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 26.04.2000]; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.
{18} 499-04 CRIAPEALMadhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582; Neelu Chopra and another v.
Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184; Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012)
10 SCC 741; Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Monica and Ors AIR
2014 SC (Supp) 1310; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana ;
(2018) 14 SCC 452 wherein, as to what constitutes offence under
Section 498-A and when it can be said to be made out has been dealt
and discussed.
Even very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573 observed that,
to constitute offence of cruelty, there has to be incessant or
continuous form of cruelty.
Likewise, in the case of Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of
Maharashtra (2024) SCC Online SC 2989, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that, by way of evidence, specific acts and role of accused
has to be demonstrated for attracting Section 498-A IPC.
Again, in the most recent case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and
others v. State of Telangana and another 2024 SCC Online SC 3682,
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed, “mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegation, indicating their active involvement should
be nipped in the bud”.
{19} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
Charge under Section 498-A.
9. Witnesses can be categorized as family members, medical
experts and authorities, who recorded dying declarations and finally
Investigating Officer. Here, crucial evidence of father, mother, brother
and sister-in-law of deceased, i.e. daughter of present appellant.
Their examination in chief has already been reproduced in aforesaid
paragraphs.
10. Informant, father of deceased seems to have deposed that after
marriage, his daughter went to cohabit with accused, who resided
jointly, however, in his cross, he categorically admitted that, his
daughter and son in law Gajanan were staying at Nanded. Whereas
the accused parents in law and brother in law are apparently resided
at different place. Father-informant has testified that initially
appellants had agreed to purchase land in the name of Gajanan, but
actually it was purchased in the name of Datta, i.e. accused No.3.
Then, he alleges demand of Rs.10,000/- being raised, and accused
persons quarreling with his daughter abusing her in filthy language,
insulting her and even suspecting her character. However, who
amongst the three did it has not specified or clarified. He alleges
taunting on complexion and for not preparing meals properly, but
{20} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
again, who amongst the three indulged in such behavior has been
elaborated by him. It seems that, he alleges hearing about abusing
and insulting his daughter during her visits to maternal house at the
time of Diwali and Panchami. Here, marriage is of the year 1996 and
suicide is in the year 2003. Therefore, during festival of which year
above reporting was made by deceased has not been stated by him.
Then, he alleges mother-in-law visited house of his daughter on
08.01.2003 and demanded money, which was allegedly agreed at the
time of marriage. It is to be noted that the said visit is attributed in
the year 2003. He claims to have learnt about above visit of mother
in law from his daughter on 19.01.2003 i.e. after almost after 12
days. Above all, his testimony that there was demand of excess
amount; initial agreement of purchasing of agriculture land in the
name of Gajanan, but it being purchase in the name of Datta; about
accused persons abusing in filthy language; insulting her or
suspecting her character; taunting on complexion and inability to
cook food properly are apparently shown to be omissions, which he
admits in para 10 of cross to be not finding place to his statement to
police.
11. As regards to PW-5, mother of deceased is concerned, even she
alleges demand of Rs.10,000/-, but her such allegations are directed
{21} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
against all accused. Whereas her husband/informant attributed
demand to Gajanan. Further, this witness has not deposed like her
husband about any agriculture land earlier decided to be purchased
by the accused persons in the name of Gajanan, but later on it being
purchased in the name of Datta. Her testimony is regarding receiving
phon calls from her daughter on 19.01.2003 regarding visit of
accused mother in law to her house on 08.01.2003 and putting up
demand of money, abusing her and even threatening to kill. This
witness has not defined role of father in law and brother in law and
has made general allegations by stating that all accused demanded
and ill-treated to her daughter. Likewise, by this witness answer
given in the para 6 shows that, there is material omissions regarding
accused persons demanding excess Rs.10,000/- and about demand
and ill treatment by mother in law and it becoming intolerable, and
hence, her daughter committing suicide.
PW-8, bother of deceased testified about harassment and ill
treatment to his sister by accused persons on account of demand of
money. Thus, he too has raised sweeping allegations against all. It is
pertinent to note that he does not depose about demand of
Rs.10,000/- as deposed by his parents. He also gives contrary version
by deposing that accused No.3 assaulted his sister, which is not
{22} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
coming from the mouth of his parents. He also defers from his
parents by stating that, accused persons refused to give share to the
husband of his sister, which is also not stated by his parents. His
version further deferes from his parents, because he deposed about
mother in law first coming to his place on 07.01.2003 and he giving
her understanding to not to ill treat his sister, but she still going to his
sisters place and putting up demand of money. Such version is not
stated by his own parents. In paragraphs 10 of cross, omissions are
brought regarding ill treatment to his sister on the basis of her
complexion.
PW-9 is also crucial witnesses for prosecution and surprisingly,
she is none other than daughter of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and sister
of appellant No.3. She claims to have learnt about ill-treatment to
her sister in law and claims to have learnt from deceased and further
claims that whenever she visited house of her own accused parents,
they were ill treating her sister in law on account of demand of
money. She has not stated that, demand of Rs.10,000/- towards
excess amount, which was agreed, but had remained unpaid. Firstly,
she has not stated when exactly she went to the house of accused,
and when exactly deceased reported her. She claims that, she even
communicated by way of letter to her accused parents, requesting
{23} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
them not to harass deceased on account of demand of Rs.10,000/-
and she also identified said letter Exhibit-54, but surprisingly, while
under cross, she admitted that police never recorded her statement
and gave explanation that she was ill. Her answers in pargraph 5 of
cross shows that she is ignorant about her father purchasing land
way back in the year 1972. She admitted that her brother Data-
accused No.3 resided at his own house at Niwgha with his family and
children. She answered that the letter that she had brought back
from her parents house was tried to be given to police, but it was not
accepted by police and further suggested her to tender it directly in
the Court. In cross, she claims to have learnt about ill treatment to
deceased from parents of deceased, but in chief she has already
stated that during her visits to her parents deceased had herself had
told her. The letter which is taken on record, is not proved to be
author by her. However, her testimony, does not show exactly when
she met deceased and learnt about demand and ill treatment, and
she makes general allegations that there was ill treatment to
deceased by her own parents, but she has not give specific instances
or nature of ill treatment and by which of the accused.
Consequently, to sum up the above evidence of parents and
brother of deceased it is emerging that, they are all leveling
{24} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
sweeping, general and omnibus allegations. Particulars and instances
of physical and mental harassment has not been stated by any of
them. Here, there are three accused. Specific roles are not made
clear. Marriage is of the year 1996 and report is of the year January,
2003. For above reasons, when there is nothing to show that there
was continuous or incessant demand followed by harassment, charge
of 498-A cannot be said to be brought home.
Charge under Section 306 of the IPC.
12. According to prosecution, deceased immolated herself because
of cruelty and harassment at the hands of accused persons, who are
her in laws. For attracting said charge, it has to be demonstrated that
there was abetment, inducement or enticement to commit suicide.
Law is loud and clear by umpteen judgments that there has to be
active participation in abetting suicide. It has to be demonstrated that
accused persons charged with the said offence had means rea. It has
to be established that harassment was with sole intention that
deceased should end life or it should be shown that accused persons
created circumstances, which were of such nature that, deceased was
forced to end up life. Law to this extent has been expounded and
reiterated time to time and few landmark known cases that could be
{25} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
referred as under:
13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life
by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which
the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a
given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilt.
14. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, it
is observed that, “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically
be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite
{26} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
15. In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police ,
(2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of
Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under :-
“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention
of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting
the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.”
16. In Ude Sing & others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accused
under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular
crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It
was observed as under :-
” 16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of
{27} 499-04 CRIAPEALan offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation
for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person
would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of
the accused which compels the person to commit suicide;
and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the
time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would
be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
{28} 499-04 CRIAPEALcase may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If
the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if
the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on
its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased.”
17. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab , (2020) 10 SCC 200, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that whenever a person instigates or
intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing,
a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the
offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability.
{29} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
18. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another (2021) 19
SCC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provision of
Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section
107 IPC and observed as under :
“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
…
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to
do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word
‘instigate’ as under :-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do ‘an act’.”
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed
repeatedly by this Court. In the case or S.S. Cheena v.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was
observed as under : –
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act
on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
{30} 499-04 CRIAPEALcommit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
19. In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, after referring to the above referred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
“44. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being
any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the person
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable.”
20. In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 575, it is observed that to bring the case within the
purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an
evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge
under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard
to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to
{31} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
drive a person to commit suicide.
21. In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana 2024
DGLS (SC) 224/(2024) 3 SCC 573 it is observed that, had there been
any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which
the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it
could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of
his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1)
foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions
continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of
culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is
achieved when both these components are actually present in the
accused’s mind (a “subjective” test).”
22. In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of
Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations are
made:
“39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (2011) 3
SCC 626 , this Court observed that abetment would
involve a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
{32} 499-04 CRIAPEALcommitting suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Delineating the intention of the legislature and having
regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it
was concluded that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It would also require an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no other option and that this act of the accused must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
23. Bearing above legal precedents in mind and reverting to facts,
here, marriage of Gajanan and deceased is of 10.05.1996. Suicide by
immolation is of 22.01.2003. Prosecution witness themselves admit
that deceased, her husband and accused persons resided at distinct
places. Parents of deceased deposed about learning from deceased
about demand and ill-treatment during her visits at the time of
Diwali and Panchami, but of which year has not been clarified. Dying
declaration of deceased has been recorded resulting into registration
of Crime. Said DD for proper comprehension is reproduced as under:
“STATEMENT
Myself Sau. Mangal W/o Gajanan Dharne, Age 25 years,
Occupation: Household work, R/at HimayatNagar, Nanded.
Upon asking personally states that, I am residing at the above
mentioned place and got married 6 years ago and have two children.
Me and my husband resides in Himayatnagar with children as my
husband is a teacher.
{33} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
Prior to 8 to 10 days my mother-in-law, Saraswati Bai, came to
me and she started quarreling with me and saying that she does not
give us anything like farm at the village. Before that, two or three
months ago, my father-in-law Gyanoba came and abused me too.
Dated 22 01. 2003, on the morning of Dated 22.01.2003, my
husband went to his work place as usual and came back in the
evening. At that time, when my husband was at home, I took out the
kerosene can from my house, poured kerosene on my person and set
myself on fire. So my whole body is burnt.
My In-laws and brother-in-law Datta always used to come to
Himayatnagar and abused me, I got tired of their trouble and set
myself on fire by pouring kerosene on my body. However, I am
praying that legal action should be taken against them.
My this statement is written as per my say and read over to
me, it is correct and true as per my sayings.”
24. It is clearly emerging from above DD that, deceased poured
kerosene on herself and ignited herself in her own house on
22.01.2003. In her statement, she has reported that 08 to 10 days
back, mother in law Swarswatibai had come, quarreled with her for
not giving anything like farm at village and that 2 to 3 months ago,
father in law came and abused her. On 22.01.2003, when her
husband went to his workplace, and returning the evening and while
they both were in the house, she poured kerosene on herself and set
herself on fire and thereby holds parents in laws, brother in law for
coming to her house, troubling her.
What is discerned from above text is that, on 22.01.2003, none
{34} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
of the appellant is around deceased. Only she and her husband are in
the house. Visit by mother in law is of said to be 8 to 10 days back
and visit of father in law is said to be 2 to 3 months back. Visit of
brother in law is not stated by her. Therefore, in proximity to
22.01.2003, when neither of the appellants had come in contact with
deceased by any mode, or form, the question of they abetting her
suicide does not arise at all. There is apparently a gap of almost 2
weeks between alleged visit of sole surviving appellant to the house
of deceased and therefore, said suicide, by no means can be
attributed to mother in law.
25. Perused the judgment and the observations of learned Trial
Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, appreciation of
evidence is not on the line of legal requirements. Settled principles
have not been taken into account. General and sweeping allegations
are accepted and charges are held to be proved. Resultantly, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the above appreciation apparently
being incorrect, cannot be allowed to be sustained. Therefore, it is a
fit case for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass following order :
{35} 499-04 CRIAPEAL
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2004 is allowed.
(ii) The conviction awarded to appellant No.2 Saraswatibai
W/o Gyanoba Derne in Sessions Case No.90 of 2003 by
the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded
on 105.08.2004for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Gyanoba Derne
stands acquitted of the offence punishable under 498-A,
306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The bail bonds of appellant no.2 stand cancelled.
(v) The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to
appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Gyanoba Derne after
the statutory period.
(vi) It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
in respect of disposal of muddemal.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
S P Rane
[ad_1]
Source link