Rane 1/5 Appeal-623-2003
26.10.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ….Appellant/
(Orig. Complainant)
V/s.
1. Subhash Yeshwant Kale
Age : 27 years,
R/o. Parvati Nivas,
2/11, Tekdi Bangla,
Naupada, Thane.
2. Sau. Shakuntala Yeshwant Kale,
Age : 63 years, R/o. Parvati Nivas,
2/11, Tekdi Bangla, Naupada,
Thane. ….Respondents
(Orig.Accd nos.12)
****
Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the appellant.
Mr. Rohan Surve, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J .
26TH OCTOBER, 2018.
JUDGMENT :
1. The accused were prosecuted for allegedly
::: Uploaded on – 29/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
Rane 2/5 Appeal-623-2003
26.10.2018
subjecting Supriya to cruelty in furtherance of their
common intention and abating her to commit suicide
The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thane vide judgment and order dated 24 th January,
2002 acquitted the accused of the offences punishable
under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) against which this Appeal is preferred by the
State under Section 378(1) Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.).
2. Heard learned APP for the State and learned
Counsel for the respondent-accused.
3. Supriya suffered suicidal death within three
months of her marriage i.e. on 28 th March, 2000 due to
deep burn injuries. Her brother thereupon lodged a
complaint and alleged that Supriya was subjected to
recurring harassment at the hands of the accused for
not paying them Rs.40,000/-. He alleged that, the
harassment was with a definite object to meet unlawful
::: Uploaded on – 29/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
Rane 3/5 Appeal-623-2003
26.10.2018
demand of Rs.40,000/- and as such recurring
harassment drove Supriya to commit suicide. On this
expression, the offence under Section 498A and 306
was registered.
4. The prosecution in support of its case has
examined brother, mother and two sisters. Neighbour
(P.W.3) of the deceased was also examined. The
Learned trial Judge found the evidence of the relatives
has not established a fact that, Supriya was subjected
to harassment with definite object to force her to meet
unlawful demand of Rs.40,000/-. With the assistance of
the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel
for the respondents, I have gone through the evidence.
It neither establishes the fact of “unlawful demand”, nor
consequent harassment at the hands of the respondent-
accused for not meeting such demand. The evidence of
these witnesses is more or less cyclostyle in nature
and as such I do not see any reason to interfere with the
finding recorded by the Learned trial Judge.
::: Uploaded on – 29/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
Rane 4/5 Appeal-623-2003
26.10.2018
5. It is settled law that, under sub-clause (b) to
Section 498A, each and every harassment does not
amount to cruelty. The harassment has to be with an
object to coerce a woman or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand.
6. In the case in hand, the evidence has not
proved at the first place that, there was any “unlawful
demand” and further has not proved that Supriya was
subjected to harassment and/or forced to meet the
demand of Rs.40,000/-.
7. Admittedly Supriya suffered suicidal death.
However, to prove the charge under Section 306 IPC, it
is to be established that suicide had occasioned on
account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as
to lead a reasonable person placed in similar
circumstances to commit suicide.
8. Here, the defence successfully brought on
::: Uploaded on – 29/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
Rane 5/5 Appeal-623-2003
26.10.2018
record, a ‘Note’ of the deceased through prosecution
witness-P.W.3. The Note is at Article-A wherefrom it
appears, Supriya was feeling herself guilty of
suppressing some material facts from her husband-
accused no.1. It probabilises defence.
9. Be that as it may, even if the said Note
(Article-A) is excluded from consideration, the evidence
on record is falling short of requirements to prove the
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The reasons recorded by the trial Court is
based on the evidence and the view taken by the
Learned Judge is a possible view. Thus, I do not see any
reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. In the
result, the Appeal deserves no consideration. It is
dismissed accordingly.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)
::: Uploaded on – 29/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
