VINOD S/O PRABHAKAR SASANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41544


                                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                                    -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2016

                 Vinod S/o Prabhakar Sasane
                 Age: 28 years, Occu.: Presently Nil.,
                 R/o. Galli No.2, Vishranti Nagar,
                 Tq. and District Aurangabad.                 ….Appellant

                               Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station Mukundwadi,
                 District Aurangabad.                         …..Respondent

                                                 …..
                 Mr.Arun S.Shejwal, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mr.S.M.Ganachari, APP for Respondent.
                                                …..

                                            CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                            Reserved on       : 08-09-2026
                                            Pronounced on     : 09-09-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.       Appellant, a convict, hereby challenges Judgment and order of

                 conviction dated 05-12-2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions

                 Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.173 of 2014, for offence

                 under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, 323 of the Indian Penal Code

                 (IPC).
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -2-

             BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE

2.    In short, case of prosecution in trial Court was that, appellant

(original accused No.1) was married to deceased Radhabai on

09-10-2011. After marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband

and in-laws. It is the case of prosecution that, for initial six months,

deceased was treated properly, but thereafter, there was demand of

Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motorcycle and there was said to be ill

treatment for non-fulfillment of said demand. Getting fed up of mal-

treatment, deceased immolated herself.        On report of informant

brother, crime was registered and upon investigation, accused

husband and in-laws were tried vide Sessions Case No.173 of 2014,

which ended up in acquittal of accused nos.2 to 4, but as accused

No.1 alone is convicted, he has preferred instant appeal.



                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, there is

false implication. According to him, there was no cruelty in the

backdrop of any demand. That, on the point of cruelty, there are

general and omnibus allegations.        That, there is no convincing

evidence except testimony of informant brother and neighbour. He

emphasized that, informant brother has mere hearsay information,
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -3-

whereas in view of the cross-examination of neighbour, it is doubtful

whether he was party to any overt act allegedly played by accused

persons like beating to the deceased. It is submitted that, there is no

evidence to show that immediately prior to the burns suffered by

deceased, there was any ill treatment for not meeting money demand.

Thus, according to him, there is weak or no evidence on the point of

cruelty or appellant to be responsible for death on account of any

dowry demand. According to him, deceased suffered accidental burns

and prosecution has failed to prove that, there was any abetment or

instigation to commit suicide, He pointed out that, husband alone is

convicted and rest of the accused are acquitted on the same set of

evidence.   According to him, learned trial Court has failed to

appreciate and consider the evidence in its correct perspective and

erred in recording guilt. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned

Judgment by allowing the appeal.



On behalf of State :

4.    Per contra, learned APP, while justifying the order of

conviction, pointed out that admittedly, unnatural death of deceased

has taken place in the very house of accused.         That, there are

accusations of subjecting deceased to ill treatment on account of

demand of Rs.50,000/-. On such count, there used to be beating.
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -4-

According to him, PW4 Vishal, a neighbour had heard cries of

deceased due to beating and he has deposed to that extent. That,

evidence of brother of deceased and neighbour has remained

unshaken in cross-examination.         Consequently, he justifies the

Judgment and order of conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal for

want of merits.



      BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT

5.    PW1 Parmeshwar Waware, informant, who is brother of

deceased, deposed at Exhibit 18 about his sister being married to

appellant on 09-10-2011. According to him, after marriage, his sister

was treated properly for six months, but thereafter he alleged that,

husband and in-laws started beating her on trivial issues. Then he

deposed that, accused started demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of

motorcycle and whenever his sister came to their house, she narrated

about the above demand. That, the said demand was met, but even

thereafter, there used to be harassment to his sister i.e. by making

scars on her body by means of blade or by giving burns and that

understanding was given to the accused, but it went in vain. On

03-01-2014, he learnt from accused no.1 that deceased immolated

herself.   He claims that, one day before suicide, all accused beat

deceased in pursuance to demand of dowry and said incident was
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -5-

reported by his sister on phone and getting fed up of ill treatment, his

sister committed suicide, therefore, he lodged complaint Exhibit 19.

      While under cross-examination, he admitted that, at the time of

engagement with accused no.1, he had visited house of accused, and

had enquired about occupation of accused no.1 and his father and

they had learnt that they had separate jobs. He admitted that, they

found that accused persons are in sound financial condition and

therefore, they performed marriage of Radhabai with accused No.1.

He admitted that, his sister delivered a differently abled child and

said child to be maintained by accused No.4. He also admitted that,

thereafter his sister conceived and she had come for delivery to their

house. He further admitted that, within 4-5 days of delivery, the girl

child died and due to this, his sister was in grief. He admitted that,

his friends accompanied him at the time of lodging complaint and

there to be consultation between them.

      Omission is brought to the extent of his sister reporting the

incident on phone.



6.    PW2 Sadanand Gaikwad is spot pancha. Spot panchanama is

at Exhibit 32.



7.    PW3 Satyabhama Raut, a neighbour, as has not supported and
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -6-

having resiled, was cross-examined by prosecution itself.



8.    PW4 Vishal Vaijinath Jogdand resides in the front house of

accused and he in his testimony at Exhibit 40 stated that, there is 15

feet road between his house and house of accused. According to him,

for 5-6 months, accused properly treated deceased, but according to

him, later on, they started beating her on trivial issues. According to

him, deceased used to state about ill treatment to persons, who used

to talk about the same that accused were subjecting deceased to

cruelty for the reason that she was unable to prepare food, and she

was not looking good. They beat her for such reason. According to

him, in the night of 02-01-2014, all accused beat deceased. That, her

cries were loud and even noise of quarrel was audible to all the

residents of the lane. On 03-01-2014, there was assault on Radha

and she set her ablaze between 11:00 to 11:30 a.m. i.e. getting fed up

of ill treatment.

      While under cross-examination, he admitted that, road between

the house of accused and his house has traffic as it goes to Railway

Station. He also admitted that, it is not audible to accused if talks

takes place in his house. According to him, in 2014, he was in 12 th

Standard.    He admitted that, he never talked with Radha.          He

answered that, Anita was his mother and he admitted that, she has
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -7-

filed complaint against accused No.3 six months prior to the incident

of Radha in Mukundwadi Police Station and since then relations

between accused and them were not good. Rest is all denial.



9.    PW5 Rajkumar Padvi, is the Investigating Officer, who deposed

about steps taken by him during investigation till filing of

chargesheet.


                               ANALYSIS

10.   Charge against four accused persons in trial Court was under

Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC.

      As regards to cruelty is concerned, it is the case of prosecution

that, after six months of marriage, there was demand of Rs.50,000/-

for purchase of motorcycle and on account of non-fulfillment of said

demand, there was beating to deceased.



Charge under Section 498-A :

      Before appreciating prosecution evidence on this count, a brief

snapshot of settled legal position needs to be stated and the same is as

under :

Judicial Precedent :

      The essential ingredients of the offence are as follows:
                                                             CrAppeal-5-2016
                                     -8-


(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 relation or her husband


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

Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177,              the Hon’ble Apex Court gave

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
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -9-

      (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.”



11.   Here, out of five witnesses examined by prosecution, crucial

evidence is of informant PW1 i.e. brother of deceased and PW4

neighbour as rest of the witnesses are PW2 spot pancha and PW3, a

neighbour, who had turned hostile and PW5 Investigating Officer.

Similarly, there is no dispute about relations between deceased and

accused persons i.e. after marriage of accused no.1 with deceased

dated 09-10-2011.

      On carefully going through evidence of PW1 Parmeshwar,

brother of deceased, he is found to be deposing that, after six months

of marriage, accused beat his sister on trivial issues. Then he stated

that, there was demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motorcycle.

Said demand was also met, but according to him, harassment

continued and accused used to inflict scars by blade and inflict burns.
                                                         CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -10-

However, he does not speak about accused No.1 husband indulging in

such acts or which of the remaining three in-laws inflicted the said

harassment.    In examination-in-chief, he states about receiving a

phone call from accused No.1 at around 01:30 p.m. on 03-01-2014

about deceased setting her ablaze. Apparently, FIR is lodged on the

next day i.e. 04-01-2014 and witness has admitted that, at such time,

there was deliberation and consultation prior to lodging FIR.

      In his cross-examination, he has admitted that financial

condition of accused No.1 was sound and therefore, his sister was

married with accused No.1. He also admitted that, accused No.1 and

his father has distinct jobs. He has admitted that, deceased had given

birth to a differently abled child and unfortunately, had lost second

girl child merely after 4-5 days and as such, she was in grief.



12.   The other crucial witness is PW4 Vishal, a neighbour residing at

a distance of 15 feet away from the house of accused. However,

though in examination-in-chief he deposed that, deceased cohabited

properly for six months, as like PW1 brother, he also attributed

allegation of beating that too on trivial issues. Sweeping allegations

are made by him also like PW1 about all accused beating deceased.

Though he deposed that, there was ill treatment at the hands accused,

it is conspicuously noticed that, he does not speak about demand of
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -11-

Rs.50,000/- as stated by PW1 brother.      Rather according to him,

deceased used to state to persons to whom she talked that there was

ill treatment for not preparing food and for not having good looks and

that accused used to beat her on such counts. This is not the story of

prosecution nor her very brother PW1 has testified to that extent.

Therefore, he gives a very different version than the PW1 informant.

Moreover, in cross-examination he has admitted that deceased never

had talks with him. With his such answers, it is clear that, he has no

personal knowledge nor had he seen harassment or beating.

Moreover, it has been brought in his cross-examination that, his

mother had lodged a complaint against accused No.3 herein i.e.

Prabhakar Sasane     prior to six months of incident of Radha, at

Mukundwadi Police Station and since then there were strained

relations between them.      Therefore, there is also possibility of

deposing due to animosity. Moreover, his statement is not shown to

be recorded immediately but is recorded on 06-01-2014.

      For above reasons, complete reliance cannot be placed on the

testimony of above witness, more particularly, when he is at complete

variance on the point of demand and nature of harassment.

      Therefore, in view of above discussed evidence, charge under

Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be said to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt and to be in consonance with legal requirements.
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -12-

Charge under Section 304-B :

13.    Second accusation of prosecution is that, within seven years of

marriage, accused subjected deceased to cruelty and harassment in

the backdrop of dowry demand.

       Again a brief snapshot of settled legal position on the point as

to when charge under Section 304-B would get gravitated, needs to

be stated and the same is as under:


Judicial Precedent :

      “304-B. Dowry death. -
      (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
      bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
      circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
      shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
      cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
      husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
      such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such
      husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her
      death.


      Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry”
      shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
      Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).


      (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
      imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -13-

      years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”



14.    In Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, while considering case under

Section 304-B, cruelty has to be proved during close proximity of time

of death and it should be continuous and such continuous

harassment, physical or mental, by accused, should make life of

deceased miserable, which may force her to commit suicide.



15.    In State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal , (2013) 15 SCC 269, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the period which can come

within the term “soon before” cannot be put within the four corners of

time-frame. It is left to the Court for its determination depending

upon the facts and circumstances of each case. On facts, though in the

past there was cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry

demand, yet there was no evidence on record to come to a definite

conclusion that soon before her death the cruelty and harassment

which the deceased suffered was for or in connection with any

demand of dowry, in such situation the presumption under Section

113-B of the Evidence Act also cannot be drawn.



16.    Likewise, in Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 9 SCC
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -14-

645, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, as per definition of

“dowry death” in S. 304-B IPC and wording in presumptive S.113-B,

Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both

the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been “soon

before her death” subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in

connection with the demand of dowry”. The Hon’ble Apex Court

further observed that the proximity test has to be applied keeping in

view the facts and circumstances of each case and the facts must show

existence of a proximate live link between effect of cruelty based on

dowry demand and death of the victim.



17.   Similarly, in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, there must be live link and

proximity between cruelty emanating from dowry demand and death

of woman. The words “soon before her death” indicate that there

must be a live link between the cruelty emanating from a dowry

demand and the death of a young married woman, as is sought to be

indicated by the words “soon before her death”, to bring Section 304-

B into operation; the live link will obviously be broken if the said

cruelty does not persist in proximity to the untimely and abnormal

death. It cannot be confined in terms of time. The demand for dowry

should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -15-

continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide

under Section 306 IPC.



      The germane of above provision is that soon before death,

deceased must have been shown to be subjected to cruelty in the

backdrop of dowry demand and consequently, death must have been

unnatural one.



18.    Thus, for attracting charge of Section 304-B of the IPC, it is

incumbent upon prosecution to prove two essentials i.e. firstly

unnatural death taken place within 7 years of marriage and secondly,

soon before her death, it has to be demonstrated that there was

harassment or cruelty by husband or his relatives with connection of

any demand of dowry.

      Here, PW1 brother does not speak about any dowry demand

except stating that he learnt from his sister that there was demand of

Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. Marriage is admittedly of

2011, unnatural death is admittedly of 03-01-2014.         Therefore,

apparently death has taken place within seven years of marriage.

However, further essential requirement is that, it is incumbent upon

prosecution to substantiate that, soon before the death, there was

cruelty or harassment in the backdrop of dowry demand.
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -16-

      PW1 brother has stated that there was proper treatment for

initial six months and thereafter, he claims that there was harassment

to his sister by all accused.   Apparently, sweeping allegations are

made without giving specific instances or roles on the point of mal-

treatment by accused persons.       It is not demonstrated that on

03-01-2014 or immediately in proximity to it, there was harassment

and cruelty more specifically in the backdrop of demand of

Rs.50,000/- for motorcycle. PW1 Brother’s evidence is silent on any

harassment and demand on either 02-01-2014 or 03-01-2014.

      Even, evidence of PW4 neighbour is silent about any demand of

Rs.50,000/- for motorcycle. Consequently, though deceased suffered

burns on 03-01-2014, it is not demonstrated that said burns were only

and only on account suicide due to harassment and not otherwise.

Therefore, essential elements of demand and harassment in proximity

to the suicide are not forth-coming on record from the prosecution

evidence.



Charge under Section 306 :

19.   According to prosecution, the harassment and cruelty was of

such nature that deceased was left with no other alternative but to

immolate herself.
                                                              CrAppeal-5-2016
                                       -17-

Judicial Precedent :

20.       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-


          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
                                                          CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -18-


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


21.   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 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 the charge in such a

situation.



22.   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
                                                       CrAppeal-5-2016
                                 -19-

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.



23.   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

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
                                                        CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -20-

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.



24.    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,

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
                                                          CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -21-

      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.”




25.    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

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
                                                         CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -22-

criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed.



      In the case of Geo Varghese (supra), relied by learned counsel

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


26.   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
                                                           CrAppeal-5-2016
                                   -23-

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.



27.    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
       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
                                                           CrAppeal-5-2016
                                   -24-

      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.”


28.   Here, though it is the case of prosecution that deceased

immolated herself, there is no distinct evidence that it was nothing

but a suicide. When there was charge of Section 306, it was expected

of prosecution to substantiate that there was abetment, inducement

or instigation by accused persons. Coupled with mens rea, there has

to be positive role played by accused person in compelling deceased

to end up her life. Here, it is not specifically shown that, firstly it was

suicidal death and not accidental. None of the witnesses has thrown

any overt act on accused for creating such circumstances that

deceased had left with no other alternative but to end up her life.

Consequently, even charge of Section 306 of the IPC, in the

considered opinion of this court, fails.



29.   In the present case, it is noticed that in all four accused persons

were chargesheeted and tried i.e. husband and three in-laws.

However, on appreciating the entire evidence, on same set of

evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted accused nos.2 to 4 from all

charges of Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
                                                         CrAppeal-5-2016
                                   -25-

When same set of evidence is applied against them, it is noticed that

they are given acquittal and only accused No.1 husband is held guilty.

      It is fairly settled position that, on same set of evidence, if co-

accused are acquitted then other accused also deserves to be

acquitted on the ground of parity. One comes across proposition to

this extent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed

Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1012/2023

wherein earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. and Others reported in (1982) 2 SCC

101, was referred to and it was observed in paragraph 15 as under:


     “When there is similar or identical evidence of eye
     witnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same
     or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and
     acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both accused
     will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle
     means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike,
     and in such cases, the court cannot make a distinction
     between     two    accused,     which    will   amount      to
     discrimination.”

      Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Yogarani v. State by the Inspector of Police, reported in

MANU/SC/1046/2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the

judgment of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi i.e. above judgment and
                                                            CrAppeal-5-2016
                                      -26-

reproduced paragraph 15, which is reproduced in aforesaid

paragraph.


        Likewise, again the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of

Vaddi     Ratnam    v.   State   of     Andhra   Pradesh,    reported   in

MANU/SC/1344/2025, in paragraph 9 reiterated the above law.



                             SUMMATION

30.     On critical evaluation of entire evidence, it is emerging that

there is material omission in the testimony of PW1 informant brother

about deceased informing him on phone about earlier incident. There

are sweeping allegations against all accused for beating and raising

demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. Evidence of PW4

neighbour is unsafe for reliance because he is at complete variance on

the nature of harassment, which PW1 brother has not at all stated and

he remained silent on the point of demand of Rs.50,000/- for

purchase of motorcycle.



31.     For above reasons, on complete re-appreciation of evidence,

this Court has noticed that, there is weak evidence on the point of

charge of Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 323 of the IPC. Learned

trial Court ought not to have convicted accused No.1 alone when
                                                         CrAppeal-5-2016
                                  -27-

remaining accused were acquitted by applying the same evidence.

Hence, interference is called for.       Accordingly, following order is

passed :

                                ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is allowed.


II.   The conviction awarded to appellant Vinod S/o Prabhakar
      Sasane by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in
      Session Case No.173 of 2014 under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A,
      323 of the Indian Penal Code, on 05-12-2015 stands quashed
      and set aside.


III. The appellant Vinod S/o Prabhakar Sasane stands acquitted of
      the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A, 323 of
      the Indian Penal Code

IV. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.


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


VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
      regarding disposal of muddemal.




                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



SPT