Sharif Wahab Khatik vs The State Of Maharashtra

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.02.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2014 convicting appellant for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, instant appeal has been filed.

In brief, case of prosecution in trial court was that, accused-husband of deceased Shahista was addicted to liquor and had bad vices like liquor addiction and gambling. Under influence of liquor, he used to beat her, harass her and demanded money to be brought from her parents. He also wanted male child. On such count, there was harassment. Getting fed up of said maltreatment, deceased hanged herself on 30.09.2014. On receipt of complaint to that extent from mother PW1, police registered crime bearing no. 274 of 2014 for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. After investigation, accused was duly chargesheeted and tried vide above Sessions Case and came to be convicted vide above judgment. Hence, the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is false implication. That, though prosecution adduced evidence of seven witnesses, almost all witnesses are close relatives. There is no independent neighbour or witness. According to him, there is no convincing evidence to hold cruelty and to attract Section 498-A IPC, as according to him, omnibus allegations of harassment are leveled without quoting details of form and nature of harassment. He would submit that, there is no inducement, instigation or abetment at the hands of the appellant so as to attract offence of Section 306 IPC. Thus, for said reasons, he attributes incorrect appreciation at the hands of learned trial court while reaching to the conclusion of guilt and prays to interfere by allowing the appeal.

Learned APP would justify and support the judgment and order of conviction. He would submit that, all prosecution witnesses are consistent on the point of harassment as well as demand, and as such, according to him, no fault can be found whatsoever in the finding of guilt of appellant, and he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

In support of its case, prosecution seems to have examined in all seven witnesses. Their role and status as well as the Sum and substance of the evidence is as under :

PW1 mother, who is examined at Exhibit 34, claims that, after marriage, her daughter went to reside with husband and in-laws. According to her, due to quarrels between mother-in-law and her daughter, accused and her daughter started residing separately in a rented premises. Then she stated that husband, who did agricultural work, consumed liquor and also gambled. Due to lack of money and bad vices, he beat his wife and asked her to bring money from her parents. She deposed that, her daughter delivered three girl children and not male child and therefore there was harassment to her. That, by beating, he used to send her home and therefore, this witness herself made a complaint with Women Grievance Redressal Cell in which compromise was reached. However, harassment did not stop. When her daughter delivered girl child, the baby died as a result of which harassment was aggravated. Three days before the incident, her daughter made phone call from someone’s mobile on the mobile of Meenabai and that time she told that there was harassment to her for not delivering male child. That, she informed that creditors were demanding money from her husband and therefore he used to drink liquor and beat her and keep her without food and she said that she could not bear the torture and also said that she would do something of her life, and saying so, she wept. Then, on the date of incident, she received phone call that her daughter hanged herself, and so she gave complaint Exhibit 35.

While under cross she admitted that, marriage was performed seven years prior to the incident. She admitted that, after getting to know that accused was driver and had his own house, marriage of her daughter was performed. She admitted that mother and brother of her daughter’s husband were earning and also admitted that after one year of marriage they started residing separately. In para 9 she answered that, Meenabai resides adjacent to her house. She is unable to give specific date and time when she learnt from daughter about harassment given by accused. Rest is all denial.

PW2 and PW3 have acted as pancha to seizure of CD Exhibit 39.

PW4 is the brother of deceased and in his evidence at Exhibit 49, he stated that, accused and deceased resided on rental basis and accused did labour work. Accused became addicted to liquor as well as gambling and he spend his earnings on vices and as his earnings were not sufficient for his vices, he used to beat deceased and asked her to bring money from mother. That his sister did not have son so accused harassed her. Accused borrowed loans to meet his vices. He used to drop deceased at Amalner and Chopda. That, to save the reputation of family, they did not lodge complaint. That in the month of January, she was dropped by accused at Amalner and therefore application was made to Women Grievance Redressal Cell and there accused gave assurance that he would not beat his wife and would not insist for male child. During Ramzan fourth daughter was born to his sister and as the baby girl was weak, she was kept in incubator but she died and therefore also there was harassment to his sister. According to him, three days prior to the incident, his sister made phone call on the mobile of Meenabai and told that there is demand of money and beating and she requested to take her back. That, on 30.09.2014, message of suicide by hanging was received.

While under cross, he is unable to give the day on which accused demanded money from sister.

PW5 is the family counselor who deposed that, deceased gave complaint about beating and harassment by accused for giving birth to girl child and accused also threatened to kill. He further deposed that, letter was issued to accused, who came to the office with his relatives and agreed to not to further harass his wife on the point of giving birth to girl child and also agreed to do family planning operation. The undertaking was noted on a letter head which he identified at Exhibit 57.

While under cross he admitted that, at their center there was counseling to both husband as well a wife. He admitted that after giving complaint there was only one meeting and compromise took place in the first meeting itself.

PW6 is the doctor who conducted postmortem and issued cause of death as ‘asphyxia due to hanging’.

PW7 is the Investigating Officer.

Here, there is conviction for both, offence under Section 498-A as well as Section 306 of IPC.

Here, there is evidence of mother PW1 and brother PW4. On going through the mother’s evidence, she seems to have testified that, accused husband used to drink liquor and gamble and due to lack of money for his vices, he beat his wife and asked her to bring money from her parents. Second accusation is that, there was harassment for not delivering male child.

While under cross she has admitted that her financial condition was poor and accused knew about it. She admitted that there used to be quarrel between husband and wife on petty counts and that her daughter did not informed about their worries regarding marriage of their three daughters. She admitted that, she cannot give specific date and time when her daughter told about harassment given by accused.

PW4 Brother also in his above discussed evidence seems to have stated that, husband was addicted to liquor as well as gambling and as his earnings were not sufficient for his vices, he used to beat deceased, i.e. sister of this witness, and was asking her to bring money from her mother. Even according to this witness, as his sister had no son, her husband harassed her.

In catena of judgments, It has been held that, for constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, ‘cruelty’ as indicated in the explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused should be of such nature that it is inflicted with sole intention to cause grave injury or to drive the woman to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself.

Here, it is noticed that, what mother and brother are alleging is that, husband used to harass and beat under influence of liquor, demand money to be brought from mother and also harass her for not bearing male child. Neither of them has stated as to in what form there was harassment, i.e. physical or mental. Both of them have not stated about any instances of above cruelty. Unless specific details/particulars are described or instances of harassment are narrated, such sweeping allegations are not sufficient to attract Section 498-A.

Law to this extent is lucidly and clearly dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent case of Belide Swagatkumar v. State of Telangana 2025 INSC 1471. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 25 has categorically held that the term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. Here, in the light of above discussion, evidence on the point of cruelty to attract Section 498-A is weak in nature. There is almost seven years of cohabitation. No specific form of cruelty or harassment in proximity to suicide has come on record and though both, mother and brother, speak of learning about it from deceased three days prior to the incident, there is no supportive evidence. Both, mother and brother, allege accused picking up bad vices and under influence of liquor beating deceased. But even such instances are not quoted.

PW5 is also examined on the point of cruelty and harassment and he, in his evidence at Exhibit 55, has stated that, there was complaint of harassment for giving birth to only girl child. He does not speak about beating under influence of liquor for demanding money, which mother and brother have deposed about. He deposed that matter was compromised, but in cross, admitted that if matter is compromised, they do not send complaint to be registered under Section 498-A IPC. Said complaint was resolved by the Women Redressal Cell on 17.07.2013. Alleged suicide is of 30.09.2014 i.e. after fourteen months or so. Taking all above discussion into account, there is weak evidence on the point of Section 498-A IPC.

For attracting above charge, it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove that there was inducement, instigation, abetment to commit suicide. A positive role has to be shown to be played by accused in the alleged suicide. There are several judicial pronouncements on the point of what amounts to abetment, instigation or inducement and it has been 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, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Hon’ble Apex Court has reinforced “proximate trigger” doctrine emphasizing that there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment, without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the charge.

Here, both, mother and brother of deceased claim that three days prior to the incident, deceased had made phone call form someone’s mobile on the mobile of Meenabai and she had told that as she could not deliver male child, her husband was harassing her and also as her husband’s creditors were demanding the borrowed money, he used to drink liquor and beat her and kept her starved. Thus, both claim that deceased developed contact on mobile barely three days prior to her suicide. However, to substantiate the same, neither the said neighbour on whose mobile there was conversation, namely, Meenabai, is examined, nor CDR of the call is collected by the Investigation Officer to demonstrate above information being passed so as to hold that there was, in proximity to the suicide, harassment, beating. Unfortunately, investigating machinery does not seem to have gathered any evidence in that direction, i.e. evidence of Meenabai or details of her mobile phone or call records. Hence, such version of mother and brother cannot be directly accepted. Unless what positive role accused played in the suicide by deceased is crystallized, he cannot be held guilty for the charge of abetment of suicide. There is nothing on record to show that on the date of suicide, accused was also in the company of deceased or in the house so as to attribute instigation. No immediate neighbour is also examined on the point of suicide. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, offence of 306 IPC would not be attracted.

To sum up, here, there are vague allegations of harassment and beating without quoting specific instances or form of harassment. For attracting offence of abetment to commit suicide also, there is no evidence to connect the accused.

Perused the impugned judgment. Learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence, in para 25 of the judgment has discussed the offence of cruelty and it is observed that allegations against the accused show that he was giving harassment to the deceased which made her impossible to live life. Such observations are apparently borne out of the evidence. Repeatedly learned trial court has observed that there was harassment, without taking note that witnesses have barely stated that there was harassment but have not stated the form of harassment or whether it was mental or physical. Likewise, there is discussion in para 30 about suicide and it is held that one and half years prior to the incident and again two/three months before the incident, issue was taken to the counsellor, but there was no improvement and harassment continued till death of deceased. This observation is also, again, borne out of the evidence, as, on careful analysis of the evidence, there was nothing attributable in proximity to the suicide, i.e. either beating or even harassment. For above reasons, interference is called for. Hence, following order :