GOVIND S/O. SHRIPATI SHELKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38964


                                                                    CriAppeal-109-2026
                                                     -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.109 OF 2016

                 Govind s/o Shripati Shelke                             .. Appellant
                       Versus
                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station Officer,
                 Police Station, Shirur Anantpal,
                 Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.                      .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellant.
                 Mrs. A. S. Mantri, APP for respondent/State.
                                                   ...

                                                 CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                 Reserved on : 28.08.2026
                                                 Pronounced on : 29.08.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    This appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 09.02.2016

                 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions

                 Case No.13 of 2012, recording conviction under Sections 498-A, 306

                 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].

                                      BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
                 2.    PW1 brother of deceased Deepa lodged report Exhibit-42

                 stating that his sister Deepa was married to appellant/accused No.1.

                 Accused No.2 was his mother. After marriage, his sister went to

                 cohabit at matrimonial place i.e. Khadak Omerga. According to him,

                 his sister was treated properly for two years, but thereafter she was

                 beaten by husband under influence of liquor and there was demand
                                                       CriAppeal-109-2026
                                   -2-

of Rs.2,00,000/-. His sister reported him about the ill-treatment and

demand. Understanding was given by seeking indulgence of Sarpanch

and others, but ill treatment continued. On 18.11.2011, he learnt

from accused No.1/husband that husband slapped her and she left the

house and was therefore duly searched, but as was not found. Initially

missing report was lodged.      Subsequently, dead body of his sister

spotted floating in the well water. After the funeral and last rituals, he

lodged report Exhibit-42 resulting into registration of crime bearing

No.113 of 2011 for offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 323 read with

Section 34 of IPC against husband and mother-in-law of his sister.


3.       After charge-sheeting both accused, they were made to face

trial.    At trial, prosecution has adduced evidence of in all seven

witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence, which was duly

appreciated and after hearing both sides, case of prosecution came to

be accepted by recording the guilt of the accused and by passing

impugned judgment, which is now the subject matter of the present

appeal.

                             SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant/original accused No.1 :-

4.       Learned Counsel for appellant pointed out that there is false

implication. According to him, there was no cruelty or demand as
                                                       CriAppeal-109-2026
                                   -3-

alleged. That, at no point of time, previously, there was any report of

demand or cruelty at any place. According to him, only interested

witnesses like brother and mother are examined. That, independent

witness Sarpanch has not completely supported the prosecution case

and that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on the point of

vague, general and omnibus allegations. According to him, even

mother and brother are not consistent and are rather at variance on

material counts i.e. on the point of when, how and for what purpose

there was demand. Finally, he submitted that there is no evidence on

the point of cruelty so as to attract Section 498-A of IPC.


5.    As regards the charge under Section 306 of the IPC, he would

strenuously submit that there is no evidence of any inducement,

abetment or instigation to commit suicide. He submitted that there is

no evidence to show that, immediately prior to the alleged suicide,

there was any overt act on the part of the accused which impelled the

deceased to commit suicide. According to him, at the first part,

prosecution has not proved that it was suicide by jumping or it was an

accidental fall, as initially brother himself has lodged A.D. report.

Resultantly, he questioned the conviction accorded by the learned

Trial Court for the charge of abetment to commit suicide.
                                                      CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -4-

On behalf of respondent/State :

6.    Per contra, learned APP would support the judgment and order

of conviction, as according to her, there is cogent and reliable

evidence on the point of cruelty in the backdrop of demand. He

further pointed out that only because of said cruelty, deceased ended

her life by jumping in the well. She therefore urged to dismiss the

appeal.


               EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT


7.    Heard. Re-appreciated the entire evidence adduced by

prosecution in the trial Court. As many as seven witnesses seem to

have examined by prosecution.       Crucial evidence is only of PW1

brother of deceased, PW3 mother of deceased and PW4 and PW6,

who are independent witnesses.


8.    On appreciating the evidence of PW1 brother of deceased, he

seems to have testified that after two years of cohabitation, his sister

was ill treated. According to him, husband beat her under the

influence of liquor in the backdrop of demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. His

sister reported him about the same and then he states that on

18.11.2011 he received phone call from accused/husband regarding

quarrel between him and deceased, in which he had allegedly slapped
                                                     CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -5-

deceased and since then she left the home. Therefore, on next day,

she was searched and he himself lodged missing report Exhibit-40. He

further deposed that on next morning, he learnt about a dead body in

the well, so he went there and identified it to be of his sister and

therefore, again went to police station and gave report Exhibit-41

which is A.D. and after funeral, on the next day, he gave report

Exhibit-42.


      His cross-examination shows that Exhibit-42 is not at his

instance. He admitted upbringing and fixing of marriage of his sister

was by PW6. He admitted that since fetching out the dead body till

postmortem was done, police were present. He admitted that at the

time of filing missing report, PW6 as well as other relatives were also

present with him.


      Paragraph No.7 of his cross-examination shows that there are

omissions on material points like accused/husband consuming liquor

and under its influence assaulting deceased in the backdrop of

demand of Rs.2,00,000/-; about his deceased sister informing him

about the ill-treatment; that on 18.11.2011 around 1.30 hours he

getting call from accused/husband regarding there to be quarrel

between him and deceased and deceased being slapped by him.
                                                    CriAppeal-109-2026
                                 -6-

9.    PW3, mother of the deceased, in her evidence at Exhibit-51

testified that her daughter went to cohabit with accused persons. She

deposed that there was ill-treatment to her daughter and both

accused insisted her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing Tempo and

whenever she came, she reported about ill-treatment and demand.

According to her, eight days prior to the demise, she had come to the

parental house and was taken back by the accused. That, in the

midnight, accused No.1 made phone call to her son to know the

whereabouts of deceased and, therefore, she was searched for and on

the third day, it was learnt that her dead body was found in the well.

According to her, deceased died because of ill treatment at the hands

of accused.

      While under cross-examination, omissions are brought about ill

treatment given to deceased after birth of first child and about

relatives being indulged to convince the accused. She admitted that

prior to demise, there was no complaint against accused. She

admitted that her daughter, after marriage, frequently visited PW6

and marriage expenses were borne by them. Rest is all denial.


10.   PW4, an acquaintance of both deceased as well as informant,

deposed at Exhibit-49 that after marriage deceased went to cohabit

with husband and was treated properly for two years, but thereafter
                                                    CriAppeal-109-2026
                                   -7-

there used to be frequent quarrels and accused used to beat deceased.

He testified that there might be demand from her maternal house.

That, eight days prior to the incident, she had come to his house, but

in examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that she did not inform

him anything and, therefore, finding him not supporting, learned APP

chose to cross examine this witness


11.   PW-5, also a common acquaintance of the deceased and the

informant, deposed that, after the marriage, marital life of deceased

was good, but thereafter, dispute arose between the husband and

wife. The husband insisted her to bring amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, but

her brother expressed his inability to pay the said amount and,

therefore, a dispute arose. He further stated that, when he and others

had been to the matrimonial house of deceased, in their presence, the

accused assured them that he would not ill-treat the deceased and

would rather treat her properly.


      But while under cross-examination, this witness unable to state

when he had given statement and admitted that no demand was

made in his presence. He admitted that at the time of death of Deepa,

accused was having cash from the sale of his land. He also admitted

that Deepa was maintained and married off by PW6.
                                                     CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -8-

12.   PW6 deposed that as he was issue less, he and his wife

maintained deceased since she was of two years of age and she was

raised as their own daughter. In paragraph No.2 of his examination-

in-chief, he has stated that marital life of Deepa was good, however,

occasionally, there used to be quarrels between husband and wife that

too on domestic count and that Deepa died due to falling in well.

That, he was unaware how she died. Therefore, finding him not

supporting, learned APP chose to cross-examine this witness, but

nothing fruitful could be elicited from his cross-examination.


13.   PW7 is the Investigating Officer.


                              ANALYSIS


14.   From above discussed evidence, it is clearly emerging that,

according to brother PW1, after two years of marriage, there was ill

treatment, however, he has not elaborated the form of such ill-

treatment. He merely stated that husband beat his sister under

influence of liquor in the backdrop of demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, but

he has not stated for what purpose the said demand was made.

Though he has deposed about beating under influence of liquor, he

himself in paragraph No.7 has admitted that he has not stated so in

his report and, therefore, on the point of cruelty, there is material
                                                   CriAppeal-109-2026
                                 -9-

omission.


15.   Even PW3 mother merely speaks about ill-treatment started to

deceased, but when and on what count has not been stated. Again,

contrary to her own son PW1, she has deposed that both accused

insisted her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of Tempo. This is

not the story of PW1. Her evidence is also silent about beating by

accused No.1.


16.   As regards to rest of the witnesses, i.e. PW4, PW5 and PW6 are

concerned, PW4 has deposed only about quarrel between husband

and wife. He does not seem to be sure, because he has stated that

there might be demand from Deepa’s maternal house. Even during

visit of deceased to his place, there was nothing informed by her.

Again, PW5 does not speak about beating in the backdrop of demand

of Rs.2,00,000/- as is stated by other witnesses and he merely speaks

about disputes between husband and wife. Similarly, PW6, who

raised deceased from childhood till her marriage, only deposed about

quarrels between husband and wife and that too on domestic counts.


17.   Resultantly, on the point of cruelty, there is weak or no

evidence. For attracting charge under Section 498-A of IPC, it is

incumbent upon prosecution to demonstrate and substantiate
                                                       CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -10-

maltreatment, which is of continuous in nature.


18.   So far as Section 498-A of IPC, law to this extent is clarified by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of

Assam, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330, wherein it has been clarified

as to what is meant by “cruelty” which is contemplated under Section

498-A of IPC. It is held that, cruelty must be assessed contextually

which is distinct from its usage in other statutes. The germane of the

accusation which is expected to be established is that, the woman was

subjected to cruelty “continuously” or “persistently” or at least in close

proximity to the time of lodging complaint. There has to be willful

conduct to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury to her life, limb or health (mental and physical). It has to be

demonstrated that there was harassment with the view to coercing

her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand and harassment

was on account of failure to meet the same. The above propositions

are also echoed and reiterated in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

reported in 2025 INSC 1051.


19.   Here, for above reasons, as testimonies of witnesses are not

consistent and when informant’s evidence itself is full of material

omissions and contradictions, the charge of Section 498-A cannot be
                                                      CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -11-

said to be proved.


20.   Appellant was also charge-sheeted for offence under Section

306 of IPC. For attracting said charge, it is the duty of prosecution to

prove that there was inducement, instigation or abetment to commit

suicide. There has to be live link on the point of cruelty and abetment,

which compelled deceased to take the extreme step of committing

suicide. Law to that extent is repeatedly reiterated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in numerous cases, and the few cases which can be named

are Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S.

Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as

well as M. Mohan v. The State represented by The Deputy

Superintendent of Police MANU/SC/0161/2011, wherein standard of

“instigation” is elaborately dealt and discussed.


      Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Hon’ble Apex

Court has reinforced “proximate trigger” doctrine emphasizing that

there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the

conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment,

without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the

charge.
                                                      CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -12-

21.   Here, on testing the evidence on the touchstone of above

requirements, it is noticed that the deceased allegedly left the house

on 17.11.2011. The informant-brother received a phone call at

around 1:30 hours on 18.11.2011 and learnt from none other than

the appellant/husband that, as he had slapped the deceased, she had

left the house. She was duly searched for on 18.11.2011, however,

she was not found, and therefore, PW1 lodged a missing report. Even

in the missing report, there is no reference of any beating or slapping

by husband, which is improvised by PW1 in the testimony before the

Court. Even after dead body of Deepa was traced and fetched out of

the well, informant himself has lodged A.D. and at that point of time

also, there were no allegations of any nature. Only after last rituals,

on the next day, report Exhibit-42 seems to have been lodged.


22.   Be it so, evidence of prosecution is completely silent regarding

the alleged occurrence of 17.11.2011 or even the night of 18.11.2011.

There is nothing on record to show that, except for the alleged

slapping, the deceased was subjected to any beating on account of the

alleged demand or its non-fulfilment, or that she was subjected to

such a degree of cruelty that she was left with no other alternative but

to commit suicide. What part appellant played has not been

demonstrated    by    prosecution.   Resultantly,   the   evidence    of
                                                      CriAppeal-109-2026
                                  -13-

prosecution falling short of necessary ingredients like abetment or

inducement to commit suicide. Even said charge cannot be said to be

proved and the same fails.

                             CONCLUSION

23.    Perused the judgment under challenge. The learned Trial Court

appears to have failed to consider the aforesaid evidence in its proper

perspective and in the light of the settled legal requirements. Hence,

such judgment cannot be allowed to sustain and is required to be

interfered with. Hence, the following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


 I.    The appeal is allowed.


 II.   The conviction awarded to the appellant Govind s/o Shripati

       Shelke by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in

       Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 under Sections 498-A, 306 of

       Indian Penal Code, on 09.02.2016, stands quashed and set

       aside.


 III. Appellant - Govind s/o Shripati Shelke stands acquitted of the

       offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal

       Code.
                                                    CriAppeal-109-2026
                                    -14-

 IV. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.


 V.   Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant

      after the statutory period.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm