The State Of Maharashtra vs Balaji Mane & Ors.

State hereby takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in sessions Case No. 33 of 2014 acquitting present respondents from charge under Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

In brief, case of prosecution in trial court was that, deceased Jyoti was married to respondent accused Balaji on 28.05.2010. She was treated well for two months by her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, there was cruelty and harassment inflicted to her by taunting that they were not properly felicitated in the marriage and they also put up demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for starting business of printing press. On such count there was cruelty, which Jyoti used to inform on phone and understanding was given to accused and they were persuaded to treat her well, however ill-treatment continued. Ultimately on 20.11.2011 Jyoti hanged herself. Report to above extent was lodged by brother PW1 on the basis of which crime was registered, investigated and after chargesheeting accused, they were tried by above Court vide Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014 which culminated into acquittal. Hence, instant appeal by the State.

Learned APP would submit that, barely after two months of marriage, husband and in-laws started harassing deceased by taunting her for not making proper felicitation in the marriage. They also demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for business of printing press. That, deceased promptly reported it to her family members. Learned APP pointed out that, witnesses are consistent on above aspect. That, false defence of alibi and ailment of deceased was put forth but there is no supportive evidence in that regard. She further submits that, as suicide is in the house of accused, Section 106 of Evidence Act required accused to offer explanation for the unnatural death, but they failed to offer any explanation. She would submit that, Section 113 of the Evidence Act also ought to have been invoked by learned trial court to draw presumption, but as learned trial court failed, she prays to re-appreciate the evidence and allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused would support the judgment and order of acquittal by pointing out that, prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, none of the witnesses have given instances or mode of harassment. That, they have made sweeping and general allegations. That, they are not specifying roles of the accused and therefore learned trial court committed no error whatsoever in refusing to accept the case of prosecution. Hence, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indrajit Sureshprasad Bind and others v. State of Gujarat [(2013) 14 SCC 678], he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

Re-appreciated the evidence on record. In trial court, case of prosecution is based on the evidence of six witnesses, i.e. PW1 brother (Exhibit 54), PW2 sister (Exhibit 70), PW3 paternal cousin (Exhibit 76), PW4 is the police official who conducted inquest panchanama and sent the dead body for postmortem (Exhibit 86), PW5 autopsy doctor (Exhibit 96) and PW6 Investigating Officer (Exhibit 98).

According to Learned APP, star witnesses are brother, sister and paternal cousin. Resultantly, evidence of the same is appreciated.

PW1 brother at Exhibit 54 gave date of marriage of his sister with accused Balaji and then stated that, his sister was treated properly for two months but thereafter, her parents-in-law, husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law started harassing by saying that, at the time of marriage they were not properly felicitated. They were also harassing for demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for business of press. According to him, they assaulted her and put her on starvation. He also stated that, four months after marriage, all accused persons attempted to set his sister on fire, but she managed to escape.

While under cross, he admitted that prior to fixing marriage, due inquiry about background of accused was made. He admitted that, he did not mention in the complaint that accused or his relatives demanded dowry. He is unable to state the date when harassment for demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made and when his sister was kept starved. He is also unable to state the date when his sister was attempted to be set ablaze. He also admitted that no report was lodged. He admitted that, as there was miscarriage, his sister was unhappy. Omission is brought as regards to attempt to set his sister on fire. Rest is denial.

PW2 sister also has deposed on similar lines about proper treatment for two months and thereafter there was taunting for not being properly felicitated and marriage to be not performed according to their status and there was demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even according to her, due to ill-treatment, her sister committed suicide.

While under cross, she is unable to give full names of the accused. She also is unable to give date on which incident of pouring kerosene and trying to set her sister on fire occurred. Rest is all denial.

PW3 paternal cousin, in his evidence at Exhibit 76 stated that, after two months of marriage, in-laws used to say that they were not properly felicitated and marriage was not performed according to their status and they demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for starting business. According to him, eight days after the incident of attempt to set deceased on fire, he himself, Limbraj (PW1) and Bapu, Gajanan, Hanmant and Jyoti had been to give understanding to the accused.

Even this witness, while under cross, is unable to state when he and others went to persuade accused. Rest is all denial.

Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of above evidence, it is apparent that there are general, omnibus allegations against all accused persons. While under cross, none of the witnesses are in a position to state as to when there was harassment and by which of the accused. When there are as many as six accused, they are expected to define role of each accused but none of them have done so. Allegations are vague that there was taunting for not honouring in marriage and that marriage was not performed as per their status. Such accusations do not stand when brother PW1 and sister PW2 categorically admit that due inquiry was made prior to fixing marriage.

Here there is charge for 498-A. There are series of judgments wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has 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. Such observations are reflected in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others [Appeal (crl.) 688-90 of 1993 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 26.04.2000]; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582; Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184; Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741; Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Monica and Ors AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1310; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana ; (2018) 14 SCC 452 wherein, as to what constitutes offence under Section 498-A and when it can be said to be made out has been dealt and discussed.

Even the Hon'ble Apex Court, in 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 :

Here, as stated above, prosecution evidence is falling short of specific instances as well as form of harassment or ill-treatment. Omnibus allegations are apparently raised against all. Hence said charge cannot be said to be proved.

So far as offence of Section 306 IPC is concerned, suicide is apparently of 20.11.2011. There is no material to show that on that day or in proximity to it, there was ill-treatment or cruelty in the backdrop of above demand. Therefore, when there is nothing to show that there was inducement, abetment or instigation by any of the accused, learned trial court committed no error in acquitting the accused. Hence, the following order :

The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.