Anil Jadhav & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 11.06.2019 convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 498- A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [IPC], instant appeal has been preferred.

Before trial Court, case of prosecution was that appellant No.1 Anil was married to Ujwala, daughter of informant, on 07.03.2015. Fifteen days after the marriage, demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was put up for construction of house. In that backdrop, there was taunting and ill treatment to deceased by accused persons. They did not treat her for her ailment. On 01.08.2015, understanding was given to accused, but again accused put up demand of money. On 09.08.2015, deceased telephoned informant to come to fetch her and he told deceased that he would come on the next day. Thereafter, at 2.00 p.m. that day, her phone was found to be switched off. Around 6.00 p.m. accused told that she is unwell and so when they went to the hospital at Soygaon, they came across her dead body. Informant father alleged that due to ill treatment at the hands of accused, his daughter consumed poison and died. On report to the above extent, crime was registered and investigated and accused were charge-sheeted and finally, tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who, by judgment and order dated 11.06.2019 accepted the case of prosecution and convicted them for offence under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, instant appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants would take this Court through the length and breadth of prosecution witnesses and would submit that testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not convincing, reliable or trustworthy, as the same are full of material omissions and contradictions. He pointed out that, witnesses are also not consistent. According to him, there are vague, omnibus and general allegations against all accused without specifying their role or giving instances of ill treatment.

He would further submit that though there are allegations of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house, none of the witnesses have stated, where the house was to be constructed. He pointed out that, prosecution witnesses are admitting that financial condition of accused is better than that of complainant's side. No independent witness is examined and only interested witnesses are examined.

He further pointed out that deceased was allegedly admitted in the hospital on account of snake bite and even Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination to that extent. Thus, according to him, there was no consumption of poison, as alleged by prosecution. Moreover, according to him, there is no evidence about any active role played by any of the accused in abetting the suicide and as such, when essentials for attracting the charge under Section 306 of IPC were patently missing, he criticizes the judgment and order under challenge on the ground that it was product of incorrect appreciation of facts as well as law and he consequently prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

Per contra, learned APP would support the judgment of conviction by stating that prosecution witnesses are consistent on the point of demand and ill treatment. That, only because of the same, deceased committed suicide. He would submit that information of snake bite is at the instance of husband, which is apparently false. Accused being responsible are rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.

Here, there is conviction for offence under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Precise accusation of prosecution is that accused ill treated deceased Ujwala on the backdrop of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. There was abuse and beating, as a result of which, she committed suicide by consumption of pesticide. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of as many as five witnesses, but crucial evidence is only of PW1 father, PW2 brother and PW3 uncle of deceased at Exhibits 42, 48 and 50 respectively.

PW1, father of deceased, who set law into motion, in his evidence, has given date of marriage of his daughter as 07.03.2015. According to him, fifteen days after the marriage, his daughter had come to their house to appear for exams and at that time, she disclosed that accused ill treated her by abusing and assaulting her. Here, it is to be noted that there are three accused i.e. husband and in-laws. Who amongst them abused and in what form and who beat her, where and when, has not been stated by him. He claims that, accused did not come to fetch his daughter and, therefore, his son went to drop her. After eight days, he claims that, again he received phone call from his daughter and she informed that she was not keeping well. He reproduced the number and stated that she told him that though she was suffering from Typhoid, accused did not take her to the hospital. Thus, here, there are no allegations of any demand of money, but complaint is of not providing treatment. He claims to have visited her place and taken her to the hospital. Thereafter, on 28.06.2015, accused No.1/husband came to their house and he was questioned for beating and abusing and was given understanding. Thereafter, his daughter was sent with accused No.1 to her matrimonial house. However, again, there was said to be ill treatment, but here again, he does not speak what was the form of ill treatment and on what count. He claims that, accordingly, he went to their place and questioned them for ill treating his daughter, but they assured him to treat her well and when he wanted to take his daughter back, accused convinced him and made him stay in their house itself for two days. Even thus he does not speak of any demand of Rs.2,00,000/- having been again made by accused, either to him or his daughter. He merely claims that ill treatment continued. That, on 07.08.2015 his son PW2 along with his friend Sagar went to fetch his daughter, but accused did not sent and rather assaulted his daughter in son's presence. That, on 09.08.2015, he had telephonic conversation with his daughter, but there is apparently no CDR to this extent. He claims that, in the same evening, accused No.1 informed that his daughter was suffering from cluster beans and she was taken to hospital at Jalgaon and he also asked to bring money to Jalgaon, but for what purpose money asked to be brought has not been clarified by this witness. He claims that, again, phone call was received from accused informing that, on the way to hospital at Pahur-Paladi, daughter expired. He saw his daughter. Froth was oozing from her mouth and, therefore, he lodged complaint. According to him, during complaint, when all facts were not narrated, he gave supplementaryb statement regarding paying Rs.1,50,000/- and other ornaments at the time of marriage.

While under cross-examination, he admitted that after marriage, when she came for examination, she stayed for 20 days. He also admitted that on the very next day of marriage, his daughter came to his house and she stayed for four days. His such answer shows that, his version in examination-in-chief, that fifteen days after marriage his daughter had come to the house, itself rendered false and doubtful. In paragraph No.5 of his cross-examination, omission is brought that on 08.08.2015, his son had been to matrimonial house of his daughter, halted there and that informant had talks with his daughter on morning of 09.08.2015. He admitted not informing police regarding giving Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and gold ornaments.

PW2, brother of deceased, who is examined at Exhibit-48, deposed that after marriage, his sister was treated well for fifteen days, but when she was brought for examination, at that time, she told that her in-laws used to abuse and assault her on frivolous count. Thus, his narration is different than his own father about beating on frivolous count. Again, which amongst the three accused beat her has not been specified. He claims that, his sister told that accused persons demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house, but in that backdrop, he does not allege any maltreatment to his sister. Rather, he deposed that his sister informed that accused used to say that she is unable to prepare food, wash clothes or do household work and they taunted her and she also told that accused persons and sister-in-law as well as brother-in-law also ill treated her. Such is not the version of his own father/informant. Therefore, witnesses are not consistent. On the contrary, he speaks that, after examination, she told his father about ill treatment in the backdrop of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. Again, as contrary to PW1, he deposed that his father informed accused that now exams are over and to come to fetch her, but they refused and so he was required to reach her at matrimonial house in the month of April, 2015. He deposed about his father receiving phone call from his sister complaining of Typhoid and not being taken for treatment and so his father going and fetching her and bringing her for treatment. That, on 07.08.2015, his father got phone from his sister and so he went to Soygaon to meet her, but that time, she was in the field and was working and in the evening she told him that accused were ill treating her and abusing her on frivolous count. This is also not stated by informant father. He further deposed that he received a phone call from accused No.1 informing him that Ujwala had been bitten by a snake and had been taken to the Rural Hospital, Soygaon. Yet again informant-father does not depose to this extent.

While under cross-examination, he admitted that their financial condition was not sound. Rest is all denial.

PW3, uncle of deceased at Exhibit-50, deposed that after marriage his niece went for cohabitation with accused No.1 and she came to appear for exams after one month. Thus, father and brother both speaks of deceased coming after fifteen days of marriage, however, this witness, who is real brother of informant, claims that she came after one month. He merely stated that his niece disclosed that accused persons subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and they also complained that she was unable to work properly. According to him, his niece stayed for one month for examination and thereafter, accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. Even he stated that on 09.08.2015 phone call was received about Ujwala being bitten by snake.

During cross-examination, he admitted that he resided separately from PW1 and had never disclosed to anyone what Ujwala told to him. In cross-examination, omission is brought that at the time of marriage, his brother Gajanan had paid Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry.

Therefore, on complete evaluation, here, there are allegations of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. But, in consequence to said demand, none of the witnesses speak about any ill treatment. Rather, the reason for ill treatment as is narrated by PW2 son is not narrated by informant i.e. about abuse and assault on frivolous count, about inability to prepare food, wash clothes or do household work. Even otherwise, general and omnibus allegations are raised against all three accused without quoting the specific instances or form of abuse.

Law is fairly settled that for attracting offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, there has to be continuous demand and this requirement is loudly and clearly stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. There are series of judgments wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly observed and held that in case of general, vague and omnibus allegations without specifying role or giving specific instances of cruelty, charge of Section 498-A would not automatically get attracted.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573 observed that, to constitute offence of cruelty, there has to be incessant or continuous form of cruelty.

In the case of Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra (2024) SCC Online SC 2989, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, by way of evidence, specific acts and role of accused has to be demonstrated for attracting Section 498-A IPC.

Very recently in Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094] the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para 14 as under :

Resultantly, here, witnesses are not consistent on the first count about the form and reason of ill treatment. Mere allegations are of abuse. Assault is attributed, but there are omnibus allegations without specifying which of the accused hit when and where. Consequently, evidence on the point of Section 498-A of IPC being weak does not get attracted.

Other charge for which there is conviction is Section 306 of IPC. On minute scrutiny of evidence of PW1 father and PW2 brother, it is noticed that deceased was dropped back by PW2 after one month of her stay for exams i.e. in April, 2015. Informant claims that on 07.08.2015, when his son and his friend Sagar went to fetch his daughter, that time she was not sent and rather, accused persons assaulted his sister in the presence of his son, but this fact is not stated by PW2, who had been to fetch her and who had taken his friend Sagar. This friend Sagar is not examined. Moreover, PW2 in his evidence, speaks that on 07.08.2015 when he went to fetch his sister, she complained of being abused on frivolous count.

Thereafter, it is the case of prosecution that on 09.08.2015, telephone call was received from about snake bite to deceased and on the way to the hospital, she succumbed. However, what exactly happened after brother met and left till 09.08.2015 has not come on record. Rather, Investigating Officer, while under cross-examination, in paragraph No.2, has admitted that he has recorded statements of Eknath, Chairperson of Dispute Resolution Committee of the village and also admitted that statements of neighbours revealed that deceased was not ill treated by accused. He also admitted that he had recorded statements of women, who were working with the deceased in the field on that day. Thus, there is no testimony of immediate neighbour or ladies working with the deceased in the field so as to accept the version of father and brother on the point of ill treatment. Consequently, there being no live link on the point of any positive role played by husband in abetting the suicide and apparently, there being no demand at that time, accused persons cannot be said to have abetted or instigated the suicide. Bearing in mind the settled law and quality of evidence as required for gravitating the offence under Section 306 of IPC, in the opinion of this Court, even charge under Section 306 of IPC fails. Hence, the following order is passed :-