THE STATE OF MAHversusGAJANAN RAMSINGH SATHE

2026:BHC-AUG:37775


                                                   {1}               CrAppeal-582-2006


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2006

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through PI Jilha Peth Police Station,
                 Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.                 ….Appellant


                       Versus

                 Gajanan s/o Ramsingh Sathe
                 Age: 23 years, Occupation : Service,
                 Resident of Jamnthi, Taluka Bodwad,
                 At present residing at Kedarnagar,
                 Pimprala, District Jalgaon.                …..Respondent
                                                            (Ori Accused)
                                                  …..
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Appellant.
                 Ms. Shilpa Magre, Advocate for Respondent (Appointed).
                                                  …..

                                      CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                      RESERVED ON   : 20 AUGUST, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 21 AUGUST, 2026
                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.   In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of

                 acquittal dated 07.03.2006 in Sessions Case No.56 of 2005, by which

                 respondent herein, who was tried for offence under Sections 498-A,

                 306 of Indian Penal Code [for short “IPC”], stood acquitted.
                                    {2}             CrAppeal-582-2006


                      BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.        Prosecution was lodged against present respondent on the

premises that deceased Shraddha was married to respondent on

23.05.2004.     Informant reported that amount of Rs.31,000/- was

incurred towards the said expenses. After marriage, when she went

to cohabit with accused, it is alleged that under influence of liquor,

accused beat Shraddha. There was demand of Rs.50,000/- for

purchase of plot. On account of non fulfillment of demand, it is a

case of prosecution that deceased was subjected to maltreatment.

Accused used to threaten to kill her and throw her on the railway

track. On 17.01.2005, dead body of Shraddha was spotted on the

railway track. Therefore, P.W.1 set law into motion on the strength of

which Crime was registered bearing No.09 of 2005 for above offences

and after completion of investigation, he was duly charge-sheeted

and tried, but ultimately came to be acquitted. Hence, appeal by

State.

                            SUBMISSIONS


On behalf of Appellant – State :-

3.       Learned APP would apprise this Court about the prosecution

case i.e. after marriage, accused used to beat deceased under

influence of liquor and raised a demand of Rs.50,000/- for
                                  {3}               CrAppeal-582-2006


purchasing a plot and on account of non-fulfillment of said demand,

subjected the deceased to cruelty. He pointed out that prosecution

has rested its case on evidence of as many as six witnesses. He

pointed out that informant happens to be the uncle of deceased and

P.W.2 is her father. That, they both are consistent about cruelty and

demand. That, there was continuous harassment for amount of

Rs.50,000/- and that deceased duly reported to informant, who in

turn reported her father and there is deposition to that extent, which

has remained unshaken.


.     Learned APP further pointed out that the suicide note was also

recovered by the investigating machinery. However, learned Trial

Court failed to consider and appreciate said vital piece of evidence

and acquitted the accused. According to learned APP, there was

cogent reliable evidence in support of the charges, but due to

incorrect appreciation of evidence, trial ended up in acquittal and so

the impugned judgment is sought to be set aside by allowing the

appeal.

On behalf of respondent – original accused :-

4.    Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused would support

the judgment and order of acquittal by submitting that prosecution
                                    {4}             CrAppeal-582-2006


has miserably failed to bring home the charges. According to him,

there are general, vague and omnibus allegations. Specific instances

of cruelty are not spelt out by any of the prosecution witnesses. As

essential ingredients for attracting the charges were not available in

the prosecution evidence, it is submitted that learned Trial Court

rightly appreciated the evidence.


.     As regards the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, it is

submitted that the prosecution evidence is bereft of any evidence of

abetment, inducement or instigation to commit suicide. There is no

iota of evidence that accused indulged in any positive act with sole

intention that deceased should end her life by committing suicide.

Hence, he supports the judgment and order of acquittal and prays to

dismiss the appeal for want of merits.


          BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT


5.    Though prosecution has adduced evidence of as many as six

witnesses, crucial evidence is of P.W.1 informant and P.W.2 father of

deceased. There is no challenge in the Trial Court about marriage of

respondent and deceased to be performed on 23.05.2004 and

deceased died due to unnatural death on 17.01.2005. In view of the

charges, it is to be seen whether deceased was subjected to physical
                                  {5}                CrAppeal-582-2006


and mental cruelty in the backdrop of demand and only getting fed

up of the same, deceased committed suicide by jumping before the

running train.


6.    Re-appreciated and reanalyzed the entire evidence. Sum and

substance of the evidence of relevant witnesses is as under :-


.     P.W.1 Prakash, in his evidence at Exhibit-12, deposed that after

marriage, accused started ill treating Shraddha. He used to beat her

after consuming liquor. She informed the said fact to him on phone.

Accordingly, he informed her father and they both tried to convince

her and gave understanding to the accused, but there was no

improvement. According to this witness, rather, the ill-treatment was

aggravated, and the accused made a demand of Rs.50,000/- for

purchasing a plot, which was also informed to him by the deceased.

According to him, she also informed him about the threat given by

the accused to cause her death if the demand was not fulfilled, and

she also stated that the accused would kill her by throwing her onto

the railway track. Then, he deposed about receiving a telephonic

message on 17.01.2005 and, accordingly, going to Jalgaon Civil

Hospital and noticing the dead body of the deceased. According to

him, on 18.01.2005, after the funeral, police recovered a chit, which
                                   {6}                CrAppeal-582-2006


was a letter written by the deceased and addressed to him and his

wife. He identified the letter as well as accused before the Court.

      Relevant cross-examination is dealt herewith. While under

cross-examination, he admitted that the marriage of the deceased

was solemnized in a mass marriage ceremony. He is unable to state

from where deceased telephoned him. He admitted that he learnt

from the father of deceased that the behavior of accused was good.

Omissions are brought in paragraph No.8 of his cross-examination

about he informing police that accused beat deceased under

influence of liquor. There is also omission about he informing this

fact to P.W.2. He also admitted that he is unable to State when

demand of Rs.50,000/- raised and told to him by deceased.


.     P.W.2, father of the deceased, at Exhibit-15, also deposed about

the date of marriage of his daughter and the expenses incurred in the

marriage. Even according to him, after marriage, accused started ill

treating his daughter by raising demand of Rs.50,000/- to purchase

plot and that he often beat her and threaten to throw her on the

railway track and kill her. However, he claims to have learned about

this from his brother-in-law at Dhule on phone. Then, he deposed

about telephonic message being received on 17.01.2005 and he

accordingly, going to Jalgaon and learning about death of his
                                   {7}                  CrAppeal-582-2006


daughter. According to him, police told him that they found

handwritten chit at the spot i.e. railway track.

      While under cross-examination, he admitted that he did not

have notebook written by his daughter. He also admitted that police

never asked him whether the writings were of Shraddha and he

admitted never handing over Exhibit Nos.16 to 20 to Police. In

paragraph No.7 of his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that

his daughter never, on her own accord, told him about demand of

Rs.50,000/-by accused for purchase of plot. He admitted that he had

never been to the house of daughter since marriage till her death and

also admitted that he never inquired with her daughter regarding

demand of money or ill treatment. Rest is all denial.


.     P.W.4 is the aunt of the deceased and, in her evidence at

Exhibit-24, deposed that the deceased was residing 1,000 feet away

from her house and that the deceased told her that accused had

demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a plot and that he used to beat

her after consuming liquor. She claims that prior to death of

Shraddha, Shraddha had been to her house and accused had

followed her. That, he demanded Rs.50,000/- and also assaulted

Shraddha in her presence by slapping her. She claims that on

17.01.2005 deceased met her and told that accused beat her for non
                                      {8}               CrAppeal-582-2006


fulfillment of demand. She claims that, thereafter, when she went to

pay the house tax, she learnt from her daughter-in-law that Shraddha

had gone to Pradip Kaka. She thereafter received a phone call from

Pradip informing her that Shraddha’s uncle, namely, Prakash, could

not come and that he would come after two days. Shraddha was

thereafter searched for, and ultimately, they learnt from the police

that the dead body of the deceased had been noticed on the railway

track.

         While under cross-examination, there is simplicitor denial to

every suggestion.


.        P.W.3 is the panch.


.        P.W.5 is the railway staff, who noticed dead body.


.        P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer.


.        Accused has examined himself as D.W.1 at Exhibit-39 and he

deposed that Exhibit Nos.16 to 20 are not in the handwriting of

Shraddha and Exhibit-34 does not bear her signature.

                                  ANALYSIS

7.       On complete re-appreciation of above evidence, it is noticed

that marriage is of May, 2004 and deceased died on 17.01.2005.
                                   {9}              CrAppeal-582-2006


Though P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are examined, none of them

specifically stated what was the nature and form of ill treatment.

When there was beating is also not stated. Though witnesses speak

of demand of Rs.50,000/- for plot, none of them have given details as

to where the said plot was to be purchased by accused. In fact, cross-

examination of P.W.1 informant inflicts severe blow to the

prosecution, because he has given vital omissions like accused

beating deceased under influence of liquor. He admitted that he does

not know the exact date when deceased told him about demand of

Rs.50,000/-. Though he claims to have learnt it on phone,

Investigating Officer has not gathered the details of the phone call.

Very father of deceased also seems to have received hearsay

information, that too from P.W.1. He admitted in cross-examination

that his daughter never directly told him about demand or beating.

Evidence of P.W.4 seems to be exaggerated. Consequently, on the

point of cruelty, there is weak evidence.


8.    So far as Section 498-A of IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the

case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 13

SCC 330, has 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
                                   {10}                CrAppeal-582-2006


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.

      Here, there is no evidence meeting the above requirements

and, hence, the allegations being omnibus and general in nature, the

charge under Section 498-A of IPC fails.


9.    As regards the charge under Section 306 of IPC is concerned,

the solitary piece of evidence is a chit, however, it has not been

proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased and, therefore, the

said piece of evidence has no significance. Moreover, there is nothing

to show that the accused abetted, instigated or induced the deceased

to end her life, nor is there any evidence to show that the accused
                                   {11}               CrAppeal-582-2006


created such circumstances due to which the deceased was left with

no alternative but to end her life. In fact, what happened on or before

17.01.2005 has not come on record. What positive part accused

played in the alleged unnatural death of deceased is not

substantiated.


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

of IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, Hon’ble

Apex Court as well as this Court has 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

elaborately dealt and discussed.


.     Even, 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
                                  {12}                CrAppeal-582-2006


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.

.     Hence, even this charge under Section 306 of IPC also fails for

want of essential ingredients.


                          CONCLUSION


11.   In the light of above discussion, there being no convincing,

cogent and reliable evidence in support of the above charges, learned

Trial Court committed no error whatsoever in refusing to accept the

case of prosecution. Hence, appeal fails for want of merits.

Accordingly, the following order is passed :-

                                 ORDER

      I.    Criminal Appeal is dismissed.


      II.   Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent
      respondent No.2, is quantified at Rs.10,000/-, which is to be
      paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
      Aurangabad.


                                  ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                          JUDGE

scm