SHASHIKALA D/O. AMBADAS BHANGEversusSANJAY ASARAM DALE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:36854


                                                   {1}        CrAppeal-306-2019


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2019

                 Shashikala wd/o Ambadas Bhange,
                 Age 47 years, Occupation Labour Work,
                 R/o Bhavi Nimgaon,
                 Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.         … Applicant

                            Versus
                 1.   Sanjay Asaram Dale,
                      Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 2.   Surekha Sanjay Dale,
                      Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 3.   Gitabai Asaram Dale,
                      Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 4.   Changdev Asaram Dale,
                      Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 5.   Mirabai Changdev Dale,
                      Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 6.   Dnyandeo Asaram Dale,
                      Age 42 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 7.   Janaka Dnyandeo Dale,
                      Age 40 years, Occu. Agri.,

                 8.   Surekha Alias Vaishali Dnyandeo Dale,
                      Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,

                      All R/o Bhavi Nimgaon Shivar,
                      Shelke Vasti, Taluka Shevgaon,
                      District Ahmednagar.

                 9.   The State of Maharashtra                 … Respondents
                                 {2}            CrAppeal-306-2019


                                 …..
Mr. Sachin S. Panale, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. R. K. Temkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8
Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent No.9-State.
                                 …..

                    CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                   RESERVED ON   : 17 AUGUST, 2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON : 18 AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT :



1.   Original complainant, who set law into motion resulting into

registration of crime bearing no. 33 of 2017 for offence under

Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and in turn which resulted into trial of

Sessions Case No. 115 of 2017, hereby assails the judgment and

order of acquittal dated 30.11.2017 passed by learned Adhoc

Assistant Sessions Judge-4, Ahmednagar.



                    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     In short, it is the case of prosecution that, informant

Shashikala’s daughter Surekha (accused no.2) was married to

accused no.1 in 2000 and after marriage she went to cohabit with

husband in in-laws at village Bhavi Nimgaon. In 2004, Surekha

conceived and to help her and to take care of her, informant’s

another daughter, i.e. deceased Sonali was taken to the house of
                                   {3}             CrAppeal-306-2019


accused and accordingly she stayed in the house of accused from

03.05.2005 to 13.09.2005. According to prosecution, during such

period, accused persons maltreated Sonali with physical and mental

harassment, as a result of which she was compelled to end up her life

by consuming insecticide on 14.09.2005. On report of Shashikala,

above crime was registered, investigated and accused persons were

duly chargesheeted and also tried, but finally acquitted as above.

Hence, the appeal.



                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant/Informant :

3.     Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, there

was clinching evidence and moreover, there was no denial that Sonali

was residing with her sister, i.e. accused no.2 Surekha from

03.05.2005 to 13.09.2005 i.e. for a period of four months. That,

accused persons, who are sister Surekha, her husband and in-laws,

inflicted physical and mental harassment. Getting fed up of the same,

finally on 14.09.2005 Sonali consumed insecticide. There was no

other reason for taking the extreme step of ending her life. That CA

report was positive, but still learned trial court acquitted the accused.

According to him, there is misreading and non-appreciation of
                                  {4}               CrAppeal-306-2019


evidence in its correct perspective. That, essential ingredients for

attracting the offence of abetment of suicide were very much

available. The same as well as settled law has not been taken into

account by the learned trial court. That, minor omissions and

contradictions are given undue importance and therefore, the

impugned judgment of acquittal is faulted at and it is urged to set

aside the same by allowing the appeal and the accused respondents

be convicted.



On behalf of the Respondent State :

4.     Learned APP adopted the above submissions of learned

counsel for the appellant. She also submitted that, there was both,

physical and mental cruelty. That, deceased could not bear the

maltreatment and therefore she consumed insecticide. Accused

persons are solely responsible for the same and there was no other

reason for the deceased to end her life and therefore, she also prays

to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal.



On behalf of Respondents/Accused :

5.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-original

accused would submit that, there is false implication. He pointed out
                                  {5}            CrAppeal-306-2019


that, at the outset, there is hopelessly delayed FIR meaning thereby

that it is a manufactured and afterthought story. He pointed out that,

occurrence is of 14.09.2005 but FIR is lodged on 21.01.2017 that i.e.

after more than 11 years. According to him, the above implication is

false because the demand of property owned by accused no.4 to be

parted with and transferred in the name of informant was refused,

and the informant had dispatched legal notice to accused no.4 in that

context. He further pointed out that, though as many as six witnesses

are examined, their testimony is neither convincing nor reliable on

the point of suicide. He pointed out that initially AD was registered,

but subsequently, with ulterior motive, it was converted into offence

under Section 306 IPC. That, learned trial court has considered and

appreciated the evidence of each and every witness meticulously and

has also tested the case of prosecution on the touchstone of legal

requirements. Resultantly, he prays to not to disturb the well

reasoned finding and judgment.



                     EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

6.    In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in

all 6 witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of

their evidence can be summarized as under :
                                 {6}            CrAppeal-306-2019




PW1 Informant Shashikala in her evidence at Exhibit 18 deposed
      about she having two daughters, namely, Surekha and Sonali.
      Surekha to be married with accused no.1 in 2000. After four
      years, her daughter accused Surekha conceived and in the
      sixth month of pregnancy, accused asked informant to send her
      daughter deceased Sonali for taking care of accused no.2 and
      accordingly she was sent and she stayed with accused persons
      for four months. Informant deposed that, deceased used to
      make phone calls on the landline of cousin Sanjay and inform
      that accused nos. 1, 5 and 7 troubling her. On one Wednesday
      she received phone call that accused no.2 Surekha had fallen
      from vehicle and so when informant went to the village,
      accused no.2 told her that, deceased Sonali suffered brain
      fever and expired and last rituals were performed. Accused
      nos. 1 and 2 stayed at informant’s house for six months and in
      spite of repeatedly being asked, she was merely told that
      deceased died due to brain fever. After 15 days, she claims to
      have visited Shevgaon police station, where constable Puri told
      her that Sonali had died due to consumption of medicine.
      According to her, accused had mentally harassed Sonali and
      killed her and therefore, in consequence to the order in writ
      petition, police lodged report followed by recording of her
      statement.


PW2 Santosh acted as pancha to the spot panchanama Exhibit 22.


PW3 Bhaskar, who is brother of deceased, also deposed at Exhibit 23
                                 {7}            CrAppeal-306-2019


      that, in the year 2005 as his sister accused no.2 Surekha was
      pregnant, to help her in the household work, accused no.1
      took deceased Sonali with him on 03.05.2005. That on
      12.09.2005 he learnt from his mother about receipt of call
      from Sonali complaining of harassment at the hands of in-laws
      of accused no.2. He also learnt on 14.09.2005 that his sister
      died due to brain fever. He claims that he used to question how
      his sister died and why she cried on phone, but accused nos. 1
      and 2 avoided to answer and as they were not allowing him
      and informant to talk with other relatives, suspicion about
      death of Sonali grew. According to him, on 05.10.2005 when
      his mother went to Shevgaon Police Station, she learnt that
      Sonali died because of consumption and on report of his
      mother, crime being registered.


PW4 is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem on the dead
      body of Sonali and preserved viscera for CA and on going
      through the CA report, he deposed that death was due to fatal
      poisoning involving methyl gameton.


PW5 and PW6 are Investigating Officers who conducted investigation
      at respective times.



                             ANALYSIS

7.    Here, admitted position is that, deceased Sonali was put up

with accused no.2, her elder sister, who was pregnant, for the period

from 03.05.2005 to 13.09.2005 i.e. for taking care. Consumption of
                                  {8}            CrAppeal-306-2019


insecticide is said to be of 14.09.2005. Prosecution story is that,

accused persons, including accused no.2 elder sister of deceased,

subjected Sonali to physical and mental harassment and therefore,

she committed suicide. Now, it is to be seen whether there was

indeed any abetment at the instance of accused persons, or not.

Relevant evidence is of mother and brother of deceased, i.e. PW1 and

PW2, as they are immediate family members of the deceased and

acquainted with the facts of the case.



8.    Substance of the Examination-in-chief of both above witnesses

is already reproduced above.



9.    In cross para 3 and 4 of PW1, material omissions and

contradictions are brought. It is emerging that there is omission

about she telling police that her daughter Sonali was sent with

accused Sanjay and that she stayed with accused persons for four

months. She admitted in para 4 about not informing in the police

report that Sonali made phone calls on landline of her cousin or that,

she learnt from deceased Sonali on phone that accused Sanjay,

Changdeo and Dnyandeo troubled her. She admitted about not

informing that she had asked her accused daughter Surekha about
                                  {9}              CrAppeal-306-2019


injuries suffered by her and more importantly, she did not state in her

police report that she learnt from constable Puri about Sonali dying

due to consumption of medicine. Rest is all denial except the

omission that field block no. 58 to be in the name of accused no.3.



10.   Likewise, PW3 Bhaskar, who is brother of deceased and son of

PW1 informant, in his cross has merely denied all the suggestions

given to him.



11.   Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306

IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, the

Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have reiterated that, apart

from inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has to

be mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is also

time and again clarified while dealing with above provision.



      Few cases that could 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
                                   {10}           CrAppeal-306-2019


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.



12.   In the instant case, in order to attract charge of Section 306

IPC, in view of the judicial precedent, it was incumbent upon

prosecution to substantiate that there was abetment at the end of

accused persons, or inducement or any active participation by

accused persons in the alleged consumption of insecticide by

deceased Sonali. But apparently, prosecution evidence is miserably

lacking on this count. PW1 and PW3 have mere hearsay information.

What exactly happened on or before 13.09.2009 is not clear so as to

hold accused persons responsible. Unless, there is positive and overt

act with mens rea by any of the accused, the charge of abetment to

commit suicide does not get gravitated. Here, prosecution evidence
                                 {11}            CrAppeal-306-2019


was lacking the required essential ingredients of offence under

Section 306 IPC. Resultantly, no fault can be found in the judgment

and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. Appellant

failed to demonstrate how trial court committed error or misread the

evidence or passed perverse judgment. Hence, for want of merits, the

following order is passed :



                              ORDER

              The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.




                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                JUDGE




vre