THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPARSHURAM MARUTI BARBADE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46383


                                                                      CrAppeal-312-2017
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2017

                 .     The State of Maharashtra
                       Through : The Police Inspector,
                       MIDC Police Station, District Ahmednagar.         ….Appellant

                             Versus
                 1.    Parshuram Maruti Barbade
                       Age: 24 years, Occu.: Service.

                 2.    Dada Maruti Barbade
                       Age: 27 years, Occu.: Service.

                 3.    Smt.Joti Dada Barbade
                       Age: 20 years, Occu.: Household.

                 4.    Smt.Chhaya Sukdev Bhambe
                       Age: 32 years, Occu.: H.H.

                       All R/o. L&T Colony,
                       Tq.Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.          …..Respondents
                                                                    (Ori. Accused)
                                                 …..
                 Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Appellant.
                 Mr.Z.H.Farooqui, Advocate for Respondents.
                                                 …..

                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on        : 01-10-2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 05-10-2026
                 JUDGMENT :

                 1.    State hereby challenges Judgment and order dated 06-04-2016

                 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions

                 Case No.107 of 2013 acquitting respondents from charge under

                 Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
                                                    CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -2-

                  BRIEF FACTS OF PROSECUTION CASE

2.    Case of prosecution in trial Court was that, deceased Dhanashri

was married to accused no.1 on 24-06-2012. For initial period of 3

months, she was properly treated, but thereafter, in the backdrop of

demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of a transport vehicle, she was

subjected to cruelty. On failure to meet said demand, ill treatment

was aggravated as a result of which, according to prosecution,

deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Hence, on report by

father of deceased PW1, crime was registered, it was investigated and

accused persons were chargesheeted and made to face trial. As trial

ended up in acquittal of accused, State, who is aggrieved, has

preferred instant appeal.

                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.    Learned APP would submit that, there is no dispute that

accused no.1 was married to deceased Dhanashri. That, after proper

treatment for initial period of three months, husband and in-laws put

up demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of a transport vehicle. That,

they subjected deceased to physical and mental cruelty.        That,

deceased reported it to her family members. That, understanding was

given to accused persons, but they did not mend their ways. That,

finally getting fed up of the harassment, she committed suicide.
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                  -3-

According to learned APP, accused persons are responsible for the

same. That, deceased hanged herself in the house of accused and

therefore, they owe explanation as to how she met unnatural death.

Thus, according to learned APP, when prosecution witnesses are

consistent about demand and harassment, learned trial Court ought

to have accepted their testimonies and convicted accused, but it

having failed to do so, learned APP urges for re-appreciating the

evidence and to allow the appeal by setting aside impugned

judgment.



On behalf of Respondent/original Accused :

4.    While answering the above, learned counsel for respondents

would point out that, prosecution has miserably failed to bring home

the charges. According to him, there is delayed reporting, which is

apparently false and afterthought. That, there was no allegations at

the time of registering A.D. even when all family members including

informant were around. That, subsequently when their illegal

demands were not met, there is false implication. He would point out

that, even otherwise prosecution evidence is very weak and

allegations about demand and cruelty are general, omnibus, vague

and sweeping in nature.      That, witnesses are not consistent and

therefore, as ingredients for attracting offence under Section 498-A of
                                                    CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -4-

the IPC were not available, he justifies the order of acquittal with

regard to that charge.



5.    As regards to offence under Section 306 of the IPC is

concerned, he submitted that, there is no evidence about inducement,

abetment or cruelty of such nature or creation of such circumstances

which impelled deceased to take extreme step of ending her life.

According to him, prosecution evidence is silent about what triggered

suicide and therefore, he justifies even the order of acquittal for

charge under Section 306 of the IPC and ultimately prays to dismiss

appeal for want of merits.



           APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

6.    Admittedly, marriage of accused no.1 with deceased Dhanashri

was not under challenge or disputed and as such, relations of accused

and deceased are also not disputed.

      PW1 Annasaheb Pandurang Shinde, informant in his evidence

at Exhibit 72 gave date of marriage of his daughter as 24-06-2012.

He deposed that after marriage, his daughter was residing with

accused at matrimonial house, which was 1 km away from his

residence. According to him, his daughter was treated properly for

three months and thereafter, accused No.1 demanded Rs.1,00,000/-
                                                      CrAppeal-312-2017
                                  -5-

for purchasing a transport vehicle. According to him, he used to

harass her and his daughter informed this witness whenever she came

to meet him. He claims that, on 30-09-2012, he assured accused

about giving amount whenever it is arranged, but according to him, ill

treatment was aggravated. He further deposed that, accused used to

abuse and ill treat his daughter. In the month of December 2012, he

received news about his daughter to be unconscious and when they

reached the house of accused, they came across her dead body and

therefore, he lodged report.

      In cross-examination, he admitted that, family of accused is

joint family. He admitted that, transport was not the business of

accused. He admitted that, accused No.1 gifted his daughter a mobile

handset.

      In paragraph 10, omission is brought about informing in Exhibit

73 regarding ill treatment and harassment to his daughter in the

backdrop of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of a transport

vehicle.   He also denied that, they had met accused in jail for

settlement of the case. Again omissions are brought about accused

being told in September that amount would be paid after it would be

arranged and that still there was aggravated ill treatment.



7.    PW2 Sau.Leelabai Annasaheb Shinde, mother of deceased also
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -6-

in her evidence at Exhibit 78 has stated that there was demand of

Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of a transport vehicle and that there was

ill treatment to her daughter.    She also deposed about receiving

message of her daughter to be serious and they accordingly going

there and coming across her dead body.

      All suggestions are denied in cross-examination.



8.    PW3 Raju Vithoba Karale is maternal uncle of deceased and

according to him, after 3 months, there was demand of Rs.1,00,000/-

for purchase of a transport vehicle and according to him, there was

harassment and cruelty to his niece for non-fulfillment of above

demand. He also deposed about giving understanding to accused in

September 2012 and about receiving news of his niece to be

unconscious on 06-12-2012 and coming across her dead body.

      Omission is brought to the extent of ill treatment by accused

No.1 and about visit to house of accused on 30-09-2012.



9.    PW4 Deelip Dagadu Sinare is pancha.        He did not support

prosecution.



10.   PW5 Sunil More (PHC), PW6 Shakurkhan Pathan (ASI) and

PW7 Laxman Maruti Gavand are Police officials, who participated in
                                                       CrAppeal-312-2017
                                    -7-

the investigation.



11.     Here, there is charge for offence under Sections 498-A and 306

of the IPC.



Charge under Section 498-A :


The essential ingredients of the offence are as follows:

(1) A woman was married,

(2) She was subjected to cruelty,

(3) Such cruelty consisted in -

  (i)    Any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to
         commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life,

  (ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet
         unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on
         account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to
         meet the unlawful demand;


  (iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or
         any relatives of her husband


Judicial Precedent :

        In a landmark case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of

Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177,             the Hon’ble Apex Court gave
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -8-

succinct enumeration of the object and ingredients of Section 498-A

IPC as under :

     "3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid
     "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific
     statutory   meaning     attached    thereto    as   noticed
     hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note
     of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is
     expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a)
     involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the
     woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or
     (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and
     physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity,
     in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but
     the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive
     harassment which obviously as the legislative intent
     expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury :
     whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally
     serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the
     same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in
     terms of Section 498-A.”



      In the case in hand, in the light of above requirements, it was

incumbent upon prosecution to demonstrate that there was consistent

demand followed by consistent cruelty. Here, it is noticed that none

of the prosecution witnesses are specific about nature of harassment

and cruelty. Specific instances are not stated and rather sweeping
                                                          CrAppeal-312-2017
                                       -9-

allegations are made against husband and all in-laws.           Therefore,

such evidence is not sufficient to attract rigors of Section of 498-A of

the IPC.



Charge under Section 306 :

12.         Here, there is also charge of Section 306 of the IPC. For

attracting offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is obligatory on the

part of prosecution to prove the essential ingredients which are as

follows:


          (1)      There was suicide of a person;
          (2)      It was committed in consequence of abetment of the
                   accused.


          The sine qua non for above charge is abetment to commit

suicide. As to what amounts to abetment is provided in the statute

itself.

          “306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide,
          whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
          punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
          which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to
          fine.”


          “107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a
          thing, who-
                                                          CrAppeal-312-2017
                                   -10-


      First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or


      Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons
      in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
      illegal omission takes place in pursuance of said conspiracy,
      and in order to the doing of that thing; or


      Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
      doing of that thing.”


Judicial Precedent :

13.   There are numerous and series of judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court on above penal section. A few landmark judgments could

be enumerated as under:

      In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and another ,

1995 Supp (3) SCC 438: (AIROnline 1995 SC 94), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was considering a situation where the accused was

alleged to have remarked to the deceased ‘to go and die’ and

thereafter, the deceased committed suicide. Even in such a situation

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if they

were to be accepted as it is, did not prima facie reflect mens rea on

the part of the accused and it was also found that the deceased did

have time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he

ultimately ended his life. It was held that the accused need not face
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                  -11-

the charge in such a situation.



14.   In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), relied by

learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

considering a situation where the deceased had left behind a suicide

note, wherein it was specifically stated that the accused was

responsible for his death. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered the liability of the accused to face investigation and

prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC, in the context of Section

107 thereof and it was held that the word “instigate” denotes

incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to

stimulate or incite, further holding that presence of mens rea,

therefore, was a necessary concomitant of instigation. It was found

that in the said case the alleged abusive words were used by the

accused against the deceased, two days prior to the date when the

deceased was found hanging. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court found it fit to quash the criminal proceedings.



15.   In the case of Madan Mohan Sing v. State of Gujarat and

another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010 AIR SCW 5101) , the accused was

alleged to have instigated his driver to commit suicide. There was a

suicide note of 15 pages left behind by the deceased and the accused
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -12-

had approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR and the

criminal proceedings, but his prayer was rejected, as consequence of

which, the accused was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking

relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court applied Section 306 read with 107

of the IPC and found that there has to be proximity between the

alleged acts of the accused and the extreme step taken by the

deceased of committing suicide. It was held that the allegations made

and the material ought to be of a definite nature and not imaginary or

inferential. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went into the suicide note of

about 15 pages and found that the contents thereof expressed the

anguish of the deceased, who felt that his boss (the accused) had

wronged him, but it was noted that the contents fell short of depicting

an intentional act on the part of the accused for driving the deceased

to commit suicide. On this basis, the judgment of the High Court was

set aside and the FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed.



16.   In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and

another (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 AIR SCW 4938) , the Hon’ble

Supreme Court considered the facts of the said case and after

referring to Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, found that the High

Court had erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings. Reference

was made to a series of judgments on the aspect of abetment,
                                                         CrAppeal-312-2017
                                   -13-

particularly in the context of instigation. It was observed in the said

judgment as follows:-

      “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 this Court is clear that in order to
      convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
      clear mens rea to commit 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.


      26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
      hypersensitive    to   ordinary     petulance,   discord   and
      differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human
      sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.
      Different people behave differently in the same situation.”




17.    In the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of

Maharashtra and another (2018) 7 SCC 781 : (AIR 2018 SC 2659) ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that there were

indeed two lines of cases in the context of quashing of criminal

proceedings, when the accused was facing charge of offence under
                                                       CrAppeal-312-2017
                                  -14-

Section 306 of the IPC. After taking note thereof, in the said

judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused may face

trial if the material on record prima facie shows that the situation was

created deliberately by the accused so as to drive the victim to suicide.

On the facts of the said case, it was found that the FIR and the

criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed.



18.   In the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another,

(2021) 19 SCC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

      “23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of
      suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an
      allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to
      the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations
      of harassment of the deceased by another person would
      not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of
      such actions on the part of the accused which compelled
      the commission of suicide. Further, if the person
      committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations
      attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
      expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the
      extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to
      hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what
      is required is an examination of every case on its own facts
      and circumstances and keeping in consideration the
      surrounding circumstances as well, which may have
                                                        CrAppeal-312-2017
                                   -15-

       bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the
       psyche of the deceased.”


19 .   In the case of Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

and others (order dated 26/07/2021 passed in SLP (Cri) No.

7284/2017) : AIR Online 2021 SC 761, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

relied upon earlier judgment in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra) and

held that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of

the accused proximate to the time of occurrence, which led to the

suicide, would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the

IPC.



20.    Further, in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10

SCC 797, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave a clear exposition of Section

107 of the IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:


       “6. Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
       offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
       provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when
       (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)
       engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy
       for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act
       or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things
       are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word
       “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or
                                                     CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -16-

      bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment
      may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as
      provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109
      provides that if the act abetted is committed in
      consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the
      punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be
      punished with the punishment provided for the original
      offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the specific
      offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
      which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
      linked with the proved offence.”


21.   Admittedly, here deceased hanged herself. However, though

deceased died due to hanging, there is no iota of evidence whatsoever

to hold that there was abetment, inducement or instigation by

accused or deceased being subjected to physical and mental cruelty

only in the backdrop of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Unless there is evidence suggesting positive act of accused in the

alleged suicide, they cannot be held guilty. Moreover, here initially

A.D. was registered.     Complainant party was residing barely a

kilometer away but there was no previous complaint at any point of

time and even no immediate reporting of ill treatment or cruelty at

any point of time. As prosecution has not demonstrated that accused

persons are solely responsible for suicidal hanging by deceased,

charge under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be fastened against them.
                                                       CrAppeal-312-2017
                                 -17-




22.   Perused the Judgment under challenge.           It is noticed that

learned trial Court has analyzed and appreciated entire evidence in its

correct perspective.   Evidence is appreciated on the touchstone of

legal requirements.    There is no perversity of illegality so as to

interfere. No case being made out on merits, appeal deserves to be

dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

                 Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



SPT