Supreme Court: Material omissions amounting to contradiction and material improvement in the evidence of prosecution witness, the court should disbelieve prosecution evidence

14. Material Contradictions:

While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan and Anr.   MANU/SC/8113/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 152).

15. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh   MANU/SC/0446/1998 : (2009) 11 SCC 106).

16. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh   MANU/SC/0279/2009 : (2009) 11 SCC 334).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2011 All M R (Cri.) 288 (SC),2010 INSC 770, MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in case of abetment of suicide of wife if evidence shows that everything was going on smoothly in her matrimonial home?

The evidence of complainant (PW 2) and other witnesses show that Mangalabai died within one and half months of the marriage. Out of this period, she lived in the house of her parents for more than 20 days. The evidence of complainant shows that even during the Mango season, she stayed with her parents for 10-15 days continuously. She was sent back to parents house as per custom on every occasion and the accused persons never prevented her from going to the house of her parents. All the customary rites and functions were arranged by the accused and also by the family of the complainant. The husband never avoided to visit the house of his in-laws. The message about the incident was given by the family of the accused to complainant immediately. They also approached police after the incident. It appears that in the early hours of 24.6.1992, they noticed that Mangalabai was dead. She had probably consumed poison on the night between 23rd and 24th. No neighbour of the accused is examined and all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. These circumstances need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence given by the complainant and his relatives. {Para 9}

10. The defence has not disputed that Mangalabai died due to consumption of insecticide. There is evidence of doctor and there is C.A. report to show that death took place due to insecticide. The evidence on record shows that accused persons do not own agricultural land and they are working as barber, having their hair cutting shop in the village. The evidence of complainant during cross examination and also the mention in the complaint show that accused No. 4 was living in Sillod due to his service. Thus, on the day of incident accused No. 4 was not there, but he was also involved in the case. No investigation was made by police to find out as to how and from where the deceased procured the insecticide, when accused are not agriculturists. These circumstances also need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence of witnesses. Suggestions are given by the defence to prosecution witnesses that Mangalabai had no intention to cohabit with the accused for some reason and due to that she committed suicide. Though these suggestions are denied, the fact remains that for most of the period after the marriage Mangalabai was staying with her parents.

11. It was arranged marriage. The evidence of complainant and other witnesses show that the accused had seen the deceased atleast twice and the husband had approved her for marriage. It is not the case of complainant that at the time of settlement of marriage, something was demanded by giving excuse that Mangalabai was black in complexion or her tooth were not properly arranged and she was looking ugly. As it was arranged marriage and Mangalabai was approved by Ganesh, it does not look probable that immediately after the marriage, accused Ganesh started saying that she was not liking Mangalabai. On the contrary, Ganesh took her to religious places after the marriage and all the ceremonies were performed and attended by Ganesh. It is not version of complainant that Ganesh had directly expressed to him that he was not liking Mangalabai. 

12. In any case, the story given by the interested witnesses do not appear to be probable in nature. Accused No. 3 was already having a colour T.V. set in his house. As it was settled marriage and accused No. 3 had approved the deceased for marriage, it does not look probable that such demand was made subsequent to marriage. If the complainant and his family had really promised to meet the demand at Diwali festival, there was no reason for the accused to give ill-treatment to the deceased. In any case, the stay of the deceased in the house of the accused was so short that there was no possibility of giving ill-treatment to the deceased as defined under section 498-A of I.P.C. It is already discussed that investigation was not made to find out as to how the deceased procured the bottle of insecticide. The evidence of Police Officer shows that after registration of A.D., some statements were recorded. Those statements were not brought before the Court. The neighbours of the accused are not examined. It appears that the trial Court had given much emphasis on so called conduct. The death took place in the night time and probably insecticide was consumed in the night time by deceased. Thus, there was no opportunity for the accused to know about the consumption of the insecticide. In view of all the circumstances, the appellate Court has acquitted the respondents. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the decision given by the first appellate Court. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2000

Decided On: 28.01.2013

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramrao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2013 ALL M R (Cri) 3454,MANU/MH/1858/2013.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should held that deceased wife committed suicide due to ill treatment on account of demand of dowry if no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage?

The High Court after reappreciating the evidence confirmed those findings. The High Court has held that the whole story regarding demand of dowry was unnatural and improbable in view of the fact that Rajeeva was married to respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that before or at the time of marriage they had not demanded any dowry and that they also knew that financial condition of the father of Rajeeva was not such that he could have given a scooter, a fridge, an almirah, a water filter and cash of Rs. 2000/-. {Para 5}

6. On going through the judgments of both the courts and the evidence, we find that the reasons given by the two courts for not placing reliance upon the aforesaid two witnesses are not at all improper. PW 1-father of Rajeeva, happened to be a friend of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. His daughter was married to respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was also not disputed that while fixing the marriage, no demand for dowry was made. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is not believable that within seven days of the marriage, they would have started demanding such articles. Even in the letter, Ex. P.4 produced by the friend of Rajeeva - PW 5, there is no mention of demand of dowry or ill-treatment, by any of respondents. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 136/94

Decided On: 08.01.1998

Meka Ramaswamy Vs. Dasari Mohan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.T. Nanavati and S.S.M. Quadri, JJ.

Judgement Pronounced by G.T. Nanavati, J.-

Citations: AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 774,1998 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 156/1998 ALL M R (Cri) 419 MANU/SC/0042/1998.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can draw presumption U/S 113A of evidence Act, if there is no complaint of ill-treatment after resumption of co-habitation?

 It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that after resumption of co-habitation till unfortunate incident of drowning, there is no evidence to show that during this period of 3 months the deceased was subjected to cruelty except a bald statement of PW1 Ramchandra Bawane.

19. Though Exhibit 41 dated 10.5.1995 is available on record, which shows that on 10.3.1993 appellant Anandrao poured kerosene on deceased Sangeeta. According to the prosecution, it is under the signature of deceased Sangeeta. The said report was addressed to the Kothari Police Station. However, record shows that actually the report was not lodged with the Kothari Police Station. Said report Exhibit 41 is coming on record during the course of investigation by PW7 Subhash Shinde. His evidence shows that during inquiry, PW1 first informant Ramchandra handed over copy of Exhibit 41 to him. Learned Judge of the Court below, in my view, has rightly discarded the said document since PW1 first informant Ramchandra is totally silent about said report in his FIR lodged against the appellant. and also evidence of PW1 Ramchandra does not have any reference about same.

20. PW1 first informant Ramchandra has admitted that no report was lodged with the police after resumption of co-habitation. Non-filing of report after resumption of cohabitation has its own importance. Exhibit 35 is not only signed by appellant Anandrao, deceased Sangeeta, and pancha witnesses but signed by PW1 first informant Ramchandra also. Exhibit 35 was required to be executed because according to the prosecution, deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty and only on execution of Exhibit 35 deceased was allowed to have co-habitation with appellant Anandrao.

Had there was any ill-treatment after execution of Exhibit 35 and prior to incident of drowning, it would have been a natural reaction on the part of PW1 Ramchandra to report the matter to the police or at least to Panchayat before whom Exhibit 35 was executed to point out them that in spite of execution of Exhibit 35, still appellant Anandrao is persistent in committing ill-treatment to deceased Sangeeta. Nothing such has happened. In my view, therefore, importance cannot be attached to bald statement made during the course of recording of evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that after execution of Exhibit 35 ill-treatment continued. Therefore, I reject the evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that there used to be ill-treatment even after execution of document Exhibit 35.

21. It is the obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On such proof only, the prosecution can press into service statutory presumption as available to it under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In absence of proof of cruelty, merely because deceased Sangeeta met with an unnatural death within a span of 2 years of her marriage, ipso facto the prosecution cannot take recourse to Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Re-appreciation of the prosecution evidences shows that there was no ill-treatment after resumption of co-habitation after execution of document Exhibit 35 till the date of unfortunate incident on 20.5.1995. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2001

Decided On: 11.07.2017

Anandrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2017 ALL M R (Cri) 3436,MANU/MH/1454/2017.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Non disclosure of ill treatment to wife by her family members to independent witness prior to her death whether fatal U/S 306 of IPC?

It may be seen that there is no independent witness, to whom any of the family members of the victim had ever reported before her death that, the victim was subjected to ill-treatment. All the allegations about ill-treatment came after the unfortunate incident. Though the witnesses are parents and siblings of the victim, they speak in different voices. There is no unanimity amongst them as to what was the cause of the victim's ill-treatment and how it was meted out. It, therefore, seems that the entire story about ill-treatment is afterthought. The victim did not have any issue. {Para 13}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1996

Decided On: 13.01.2006

Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Chavan, J.

Citation: 2006 ALL M R (Cri) 975, MANU/MH/0859/2006.

Print Page

Forensic Delay and the Duty of the Sessions Court: Judicial Control Over Missing Scientific Reports in Sessions Trials

Delay in receipt of a material scientific report can paralyse a sessions trial, weaken the truth-finding process, and undermine the constitutional expectation of speedy justice. Indian criminal procedure does not contemplate that the court should remain a silent spectator when a forensic report, especially one central to the prosecution case, is withheld or indefinitely delayed. The governing judicial approach is one of active case management: the court must insist on accountability, preserve trial momentum, and ensure that essential scientific evidence is brought on record within a reasonable time.

The doctrinal foundation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, Creditor making phone call to the debtor for return of his money will not amount to abetment to Suicide?

The only basis on which the charge-sheet has been

laid against the accused is the suicide note

coupled with the call detail records which indicate

that 40 phone calls were made by the appellant to

the deceased in last six months. As far as the

suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks

material particulars regarding the nature of those

threats and the time and place when those threats

were extended. Moreover, the suicide note indicts

as many as 9 accused without specifying the role of

any one of them. It is not the case of the

prosecution that all accused belong to one family

or were harassing the deceased as a group. Further,

the deceased has painted all creditors with one

brush. Therefore, a trial based on such a suicide

note would be a futile exercise. Besides, if a

creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for

return of his money that being a lawful act, it

cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute

the creditor. Moreover, the deceased may have

committed suicide on account of depression for not

being able to clear of the debt.

14. In such circumstances, particularly when

there is no material to indicate that the deceased

was beaten or physically assaulted to return the

dues, we are of the view that there is hardly any

material on basis whereof it could be inferred that

the appellant by demanding his dues abetted

commission of suicide by the deceased. In our view,

therefore, the continuance of the proceedings

against the appellant would be a futile exercise

and would amount to abuse of the process of the

Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is

necessary that the same be quashed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026

SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4644/2025

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI PATEL LOTWALA  Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 

Dated: March 10, 2026

Print Page

From Suspicion to Suicide: Unraveling Third-Party Liability in Marital Tragedies – A Legal Deep Dive

The Village Drama That Ended in Tragedy

In a quiet Indian village, a simple conversation between a wife and her co-villager spiraled into suspicion. The husband, troubled by what he perceived as evidence of an extramarital affair, found himself confronting not just his wife, but the co-villager as well. Tempers flared, quarrels ensued, and, overwhelmed by emotion and suspicion, the husband consumed poison—ending his own life.

Can the third person—the co-villager—be held criminally responsible for abetment of suicide under Indian law?

Decoding the Legal Labyrinth: What Does the Law Say?

Print Page

When Love Turns Lethal: The Legal Tightrope of Abetment to Suicide in Marital Disputes

 The Case That Reveals Complex Legal Realities

In the tragic intersection of domestic conflict and criminal law, a deeply disturbing case unfolds that challenges our understanding of legal culpability and human nature. A wife, overwhelmed by marital discord and harassment over giving birth to three daughters, threatens suicide. Her husband's chilling response: "If you commit suicide, I will be free to perform a second marriage." When she tragically follows through, burning herself alive, the question becomes not just moral but legal—can the husband be held criminally liable for abetment of suicide?

Print Page

The Non-Collection of Call Detail Records: Implications for Testimony in Legal Proceedings

 The non-collection of Call Detail Records (CDR) can significantly impact the testimony of the deceased's parents in a case where the prosecution relies on telephonic communication as the primary evidence of ill-treatment for the following reasons:

1. Burden of Proof

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of CDR, it becomes challenging to substantiate the claims made by the deceased's parents regarding telephonic communication. 

 2. Materiality of CDR

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere Scolding Of Student is Not Abetment Of Suicide

Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find

it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted

by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no normal person

could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a

complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to

the student so scolded taking his own life. Further, as

submitted, such scolding was the least, a correspondent was

required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the

deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial

measures effected. In the considered opinion of this Court,

under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be

attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to

abatement of suicide committed by the deceased. {Para 8}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9099 OF 2024

THANGAVEL   Vs THE STATE, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. 

Dated: MAY 22, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court must draw presumption under S 113A of Evidence Act if there is no cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment

The law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable Under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code is now well settled. It appears that the Courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "the Evidence Act"). Sections 113A {S 117 of BSA} & 113B of the Evidence Act {S 118 of BSA} talks about presumption. Sections 113A {S 117 of BSA} and 113B {S 118 of BSA}respectively read thus:{Para 12}

113A. {S 117 of BSA} Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

113B.{S 118 of BSA} Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

13. It is relevant to note that Under Section 113B {S 118 of BSA}, the Court shall presume dowry death unlike Section 113A {S 117 of BSA} where the provision says that Court may presume abetment of suicide. This is the vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke Section 113A and presume that the Accused abetted the commission of suicide.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015

Decided On: 09.01.2025

Ram Pyarey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 71,MANU/SC/0074/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Abetment Of Suicide' Offence Can't Be Invoked Only To Assuage Feelings Of Family

Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 11868 OF 2023)

MAHENDRA AWASE  Vs  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Dated: 17th January, 2025.

Citation:2025 INSC 76.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The appellate court while confirming the conviction is also expected to get satisfied on the adequacy and sufficiency of sentence awarded by trial court

To sum up, for above reasons, only charge of Section 498-A IPC stands proved but only against surviving appellant father-in-law. Learned trial court has sentenced him under Section 498-A IPC to suffer imprisonment for two years. However, as stated above, only allegation which stand substantiated is regarding beating. For his such act, sentence of two years appears to be on higher side. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 in the case of Right to Privacy of adolescents with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024, the appellate court while confirming the conviction is also expected to get satisfied on the adequacy and sufficiency of sentence awarded by trial court. {Para 29}

30. Learned counsel submitted that appellant is over 70 years of age. On visiting the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court, it is evidence that at that time appellant was 57 years of age, and hence there is reason to hold that as on today, he is more than 70 years old. Therefore, in view of above discussion and also taking into account that the episode in question had taken place almost two decades back and appellant as on today is reported to be over 70 years of age, keeping in mind the sentencing policy that sentence should commensurate with the gravity of the act, the sentence from two years is required to be scaled down.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2005

Decided On: 28.11.2024

Prabhakar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

 Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:27774, MANU/MH/7154/2024.

Print Page

What essential facts the prosecution must prove for proving an offence U/S 306 of IPC?

 CHARGE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC :

In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/1310/2022 : 2022:INSC:1073, 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."

In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0187/2023, it is observed that to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 of 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 of 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 drive a person to commit suicide.

In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0146/2024 : 2024:INSC:149 : 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)."

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 MANU/SC/0161/2011 : 2011:INSC:168 : (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 committing 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."

25. On re-appreciating evidence in this context, it is emerging that, PW2 Shiwaji who had been to fetch deceased returned without her on 19.02.2002. Deceased allegedly met father on 03.03.2002 and reported that ill treatment and harassment to be aggravated. Again no specifications or details as to in what form was the ill treatment and at whose hands has not come on record. Thus, allegations are omnibus. Even, there is no reference in this regards in the alleged letters authored by deceased. Deceased suffered burns on 09.03.2002. There is a gap of almost a month or so, since deceased met father on 19.02.2002. There is total vacuum from 19.02.2002 up to 09.03.2002. It is pertinent to note that, deceased herself has conveyed in the letter that mother-in-law would send her after 9th month of pregnancy. Such material indicates that it is not so as claimed by prosecution that, deceased was not to be send unless their demand is met. Consequently, what exactly happened on or in proximity to 09.03.2002 is not coming on record. Unless there is evidence suggesting positive and active participation by husband and other in-laws in abetting, instigating or inciting deceased to end up her life or that they desired that she should commit suicide and with such sole intention they maltreated her; or there was creation of such circumstances by them, due to which deceased was left with no other alternative but to end up her life, charge of section 306 of IPC cannot be said to be made out. More particularly, in the backdrop of legal requirements spelt out in the above reproduced numerous judicial pronouncements, here there is no live-link in proximity to suicide to connect either husband or in-laws. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, as essential ingredients for attracting section 306 of IPC, not being available, it is unsafe to attribute suicide to any of the accused including husband.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence when prosecution put forth the case that wife was pregnant when she has committed Suicide?

 Here while advancing submissions, learned APP fairly pointed out that prosecution's evidence in trial court does not show deceased Manisha to be pregnant. Therefore, at the threshold it is required to be ascertained as to whether it is so. It assumes significance because very prosecution version is that deceased was not sent for delivery unless their alleged demand was met. {Para 9}

10. In above backdrop, it has become imperative for this court to first study the evidence in that regard and for the same evidence of medico - legal expert, i.e. PW8 Dr. Kiran Patil is required to be visited. His evidence at Exh.74. While under examination-in- chief deposed about conducting post mortem (Exh.41) and testifying about contents therein to be true and correct. He deposed that, if a lady was carrying pregnancy is ablazed and if she sustains burns, she could get aborted because of such burns, immediately.

However, while under cross at the hands of defence, he answered that, on the basis of post mortem report, it is his say that, the patient Manisha was not carrying pregnancy.

11. Apart from above evidence, if we visit post mortem report (Exh.41), in paragraph no.21 as regards to organs of generation and state of contents of stomach, remark is "uterus empty". In trial court, Exh.40 is finding place which is certificate issued by autopsy surgeon in response to letter dated 08.08.2002 communicating that "as per your letter received on 08.08.2002 in 462/2002, PM No.152 OF 2002 Manisha @ Munni Satish Patil A/P Jamod was found not pregnant, "uterus empty" at P.M. and final cause of death is "shock due to 100% mixed thermal burns."

PW4 Shobha, a nurse, who is also examined by prosecution to show that deceased was pregnant and accordingly card (Exh.57) was issued by Primary Health Centre, in examination- in-chief, stated that, deceased was examined in "Shibir" (Health Camp). That, her mother-in-law had informed that, her menstruation cycle had stopped. Witness stated that, on examining Manisha, she found her to be carrying pregnancy, but while under cross she answered that, she has studied up to 12th standard. She answered that, after putting her palm on the stomach of Manisha, she could "guess" that she was carrying pregnancy. She admitted that, when pregnant woman expires, autopsy is conducted, then there must be mentioned the fact of pregnancy in post mortem report. She further answered that, she did not make enquiry with Manisha whether she was prescribed any medicine by any doctor. She answered that, as her belly was found in bigger size, she deposed that, she was pregnant. She also answered that, she has not brought a book carrying record of issuance of card.

12. Taking into account above discussed material on behalf of very prosecution, here there are serious doubts about alleged pregnancy of deceased Manisha. More particularly, autopsy surgeon has in writing as well as before the court, admitted that, uterus was empty. Meaning thereby, there was no fetus and as such no pregnancy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether demand of articles towards customary rituals amounts to Dowry demand attracting prosecution U/S 498A of IPC?

 Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, whatever allegations are made about demand, is not illegal demand towards any dowry. According to him, demand was towards customary rituals which are acknowledged in the community. Hence, according to him, rigors of section 498-A of IPC would not be attracted. {Para 20}

21. Here, father and uncle of deceased have both deposed about demand of "Mul". As stated above, learned APP herself clarified that, when newly wedded bride visits her parent's place for the first time or during first visit after conception and delivery, there is a custom of giving articles. Informant narrated that on 19.02.2002, his brother PW2 Shiwaji was sent to fetch deceased, but she was not allowed to go, saying that, said customary 'Mul' is not given.

22. Though above demand of articles is customary, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SC/0210/2015 : 2015:INSC:161 : AIR 2015 SC 1359, observed that, any demand made by husband or his relatives before, during or after the marriage are considered as a dowry. This view is again reiterated in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0027/2022 : 2022:INSC:30 : (2022) 5 SCC 401.

In view of above, though demands are termed as 'customary' in view of above ruling, every demand is to be held as dowry demand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: In-laws of wife should not be prosecuted for an offence U/S 498A of IPC based on general, sweeping and omnibus allegations without giving specific role and distinct allegation

As regards to other accused i.e. brothers-in-law are concerned, as discussed above, there are general and omnibus allegations. Apparently, allegations are directed against husband for beating, though on instigation of mother-in-law. However, it is pertinent to note that, at the time of judgment, age of accused Vijay is noted as 19 years. Judgment is passed on 17.06.2004. FIR is of 10.03.2002. This shows that, on the day of occurrence, accused Vijay was merely 17 years of age and thus a minor. It is also emerging that accused no.5 Kailas @ Diwanj was resident of Nashik. Informant has admitted that, he had shifted there since 10 to 15 years. However, though he has volunteered that he used to visit Jamod intermittently, specific visits are not coming on record. Therefore, as regards to allegations against both brothers-in-law are concerned, there are omnibus allegations about instigation. Even as against mother-in-law allegations are non specific except stating that she instigated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the very recent case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others; MANU/SC/0163/2022 : 2022:INSC:163 : (2022) 6 SCC 599, observed that, general, sweeping and omnibus allegations without giving specific role and distinct allegation does not warrant prosecution itself. 

{Para 19}

23. Consequently, here, role of husband alone is getting crystallized. Though there are three letters (Exh.44, 45, and 46) as regards to maltreatment is concerned, only Exh.44 carries material regarding conduct of accused husband and mother-in-law. Allegations against mother-in-law is coming to the extent of instigation, but for what is not clear. Therefore, there is no convincing evidence as regards to section 498-A is concerned against both, brothers-in-law as well as mother-in-law and as such it would be unjust and improper to involve brothers-in-law and mother-in-law by invoking section 34 of IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution must prove recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased to prove the offence of homicide or suicide

Non-recovery of trace of poison (pesticide)

41. There is one more aspect in this case. In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial.

46. In this case, the doctors who had treated the deceased in the first nursing home and later on in the Mission Hospital, were not examined by the police. They were also not summoned as court witnesses. Their testimony could have been crucial. They could have thrown light into the nature of intake of the Organophosphate compound: whether by way of injection or consumed orally? Whether they could detect the smell of Organophosphate compound emanating from the patient? This serious lacuna is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution had failed to recover any syringe or needle from the crime scene. No container or bottle containing the pesticide were also recovered from the room where the deceased was found lying on the floor or in any part of the house. There is no evidence to suggest that police had made an endeavour to search for such container or bottle. If the deceased had injected the poison herself, considering the multiple injection marks over the front of both the elbows, then the syringe and the needle would have been there, in and around her. If she had orally consumed the poison, then also the bottle or the container of the poison would have been present in the crime scene or near about. There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. There is also no evidence to show as to how the deceased had acquired the pesticide. In addition to non-recovery of the syringe or the needle or the container, the police were unable to show the source from where the particular pesticide was obtained by the deceased. If the prosecution case is to be believed, then the syringe and the needle or the container must have been present in the scene of occurrence itself. Those were not found by the prosecution. Neither any trace of pesticide was seen by the investigating officer in the room. The FSL report as well as the chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of the pesticide was detected from any of the seized articles. Prosecution is silent as to why no investigation was done in this regard. In a case of this nature, where the oral evidence including that of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not at all convincing, the absence of the container or the bottle containing the pesticide from where the deceased had orally consumed the pesticide, becomes very crucial. Similarly, recovery of syringe and needle if the deceased had injected the poison, is also crucial. As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011

Decided On: 01.03.2024

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024:INSC:156:[2024]3S.C.R. 329,MANU/HP/1742/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page