Mr. Yuvraj Kakade h/f N v. GawareAPP for
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:671 -1- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2005 1.Navnath s/o Raosaheb Saudagar,Age : 23 years, Occu : Mechanic,2.Raosaheb Madhav Saudagar,Age : 55 years, Occu : Agriculturist, 3.Chandrabhaga Raosaheb Saudagar,Age : 50 years, Occu : Household, All R/o. Village Guha Shivar,Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar …. Appellants VersusThe State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent…..Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Yuvraj Kakade h/f N. V. GawareAPP for Respondent-State : Ms. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 27 NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 JANUARY 2025JUDGMENT : 1.Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated28.10.2005, passed by learned Ist Ad-hoc Additional District andSessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2005, holdingappellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth “IPC” for short).
Facts
-2- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005CASE OF PROSECUTION2.In short, the prosecution case in trial Court is that, aftertwo months of marriage, deceased Surekha was subjected to physicaland mental cruelty. They had put up demand of Rs.50,000/- forsetting up garage. On failure to meet the demand, she was harassed.Consequently, she hanged herself. Hence the report resulting intocrime and trial, which ended up in conviction.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellants :-3.Pleading innocence and alleging false implication,learned counsel for appellants would submit that prosecution failed toestablish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, accusations areout of annoyance. That, witnesses who are close relatives are levellingvague, omnibus and sweeping allegations without specifying nature ofharassment, without quoting instances of harassment and withoutspecifying the role of accused persons. He pointed out that, witnessesare improvising the story than that was reported to police. That,there are material omissions rendering their testimonies unworthy ofcredence. That, there is no evidence to show that there was consistentdemand as alleged. That, false and afterthought story has beenreported. Learned counsel pointed out that in fact deceased herselfwas not interested in cohabiting and she regularly left the -3- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005matrimonial house and was required to be fetched back. Appellantswere financially well off, of which there is clear admission, and assuch there is no question of putting any monitory demand. Evidenceon the point of section 498-A is apparently weak.4.As regards to the offence under Section 306 of IPC isconcerned, it is submitted that last visit of prosecution witnesses tothe deceased Surekha was on 24.11.2004. She apparently committedsuicide for the best reasons known to her on 12.12.2004. Thus, therebeing huge gap and there is no iota of evidence suggestingharassment, inducement, abetment on any count, the accusations ofprosecution and findings of learned trial court, are against theevidence as well as law. He pointed out that, no circumstances arecoming on record suggesting involvement of any of the appellant inthe alleged suicide of Surekha. For all above reasons, she questionsthe findings and conclusion reached at by learned trial court andseeks indulgence of this appellate court.On behalf of respondent-State :-5.In answer to above, learned APP would submit thatbarely after two months of marriage, there was ill-treatment i.e. bothphysical as well as mental. Appellant No.1-husband put up the -4- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005demand of Rs.50,000/- for setting up a garage. For all above reasons,deceased was subjected to cruelty. Whenever deceased Surekha came,she reported above conduct of accused towards her. That, finallygetting fed up of the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of accused,deceased was forced to end up her life. She committed suicide in thehouse of accused. According to learned APP, there is no plausibleexplanation from appellants’ side about such unnatural death met bySurekha while she cohabited. Therefore, learned APP supported theappreciation of evidence, findings recorded and conclusion drawn bylearned Trial Court.EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT6.In support of its case, prosecution has examined in all 6witnesses. Crucial evidence is of deceased Surekha’s uncle PW2Annasaheb, one acquaintance PW3 Jagannath, father PW4 Sahebraoand brother PW5 Babasaheb. The role and status and the sum andsubstance of the evidence of witnesses examined can be summarizedas under :PW1Sarjerao Gorakshanath Ghadge acted as pancha to inquestpanchanama vide panchanama Exhibit 18. He has admitted hissignature and its contents of inquest panchanama. PW2Annasaheb Ganpat Shinde is the uncle of deceased Surekha.Relevant portion of his evidence at Exhibit 22 is as under : -5- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005“1.We are two brothers. Name of the elder brother is SahebraoShinde. Sahebrao has two sons and two daughters. DeceasedSurekha is elder daughter of Sahebrao. The marriage of Surekha wassolemnised along with accused Navnath at village Chinchmire.Accused No. Raosaheb and No. 3 Chandrabhaga are the parents ofNavnath. In the said marriage, gold ornaments of two Tolas weregiven to Surekha whereas clothes Basta worth rupees threethousands was gifted. We have performed said marriage by givingutensils and other household articles. 2. After marriage, Surekha went to the house of in-law at villageGuha. Surekha has passed eight standard, however failed in 9thstandard. The accused persons have treated Surekha properly fortwo months. Thereafter, her in-laws and husband have started hergiving physical and mental torture on the ground that she cannotcook properly and not in a position to do agricultural work properly.The accused No. 1 Navnath is the motor cycle mechanic. He wasasking Sunita to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her paternalhome in order to start the garage. We did not pay the amount.However, assured to pay the same. The accused persons were askingSurekha not to live there and were insisting to leave the house. 3. Surekha used to disclose all these things to us whenever sheused to come to paternal home. Janannath Maruti Musmade andNamdeo Sobyabapu Narwade are the brother-in-law (Sadu) andfather-in-law of my brother respectively. Thereafter I myself andcousin brother Balasaheb Genu Shinde pacified the in-laws ofSurekha by visiting Guha. Prior to death Surekha lastly came to uson Diwali.4. Incident is dated 12th December 2004. That day I was at -6- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005Rahuri. The son of my maternal uncle namely Sudhakar AnandaNarwade has informed me about the incident. He told me thatSurekha died because of hanging. Thereafter I myself and Narwadeimmediately went to Guha at the house of Surekha. The dead bodyof Surekha was lying in the house and that time there were-ligaturemarks on her neck. That time the police have prepared thepanchnama of the dead body and sent it for post mortem. Afterpostmortem, the funeral ceremony of Surekha was performed atnative of the accused i.e. village Guha, in between 11 to 12midnight. After funeral other relatives went to their houses and Icame to Rahuir to lodge the complaints.” PW3Jagnnath Maruti Musmode is the grand-father of deceasedSurekha, is examined at Exhibit 24. His evidence is as under :“1. Accused persons are know to me. Surekha was daughter ofmy son-in-law (Mewani). I am residing at village Guha nearS.T.stand. The marriage of Surekha along with accused No. 1Navnath was solemnised in the month of May 2004. After marriageSurekha went to the house of her in-laws for cohabitation. For onemonth after the marriage, she was treated properly. Thereafter herin-laws and husband have started her ill-treatment. The accusedpersons were ill-treating. The accused persons were ill-treating heron the ground that she does not know household work, and shecannot cook properly. Similarly, they were ill-treating her onaccount of amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of opening ofgarage. The said fact was disclosed by Surekha to us whenever sheused to came at my home while going to paternal home. 2. Thereafter, I myself, my father-in-law Jagannath25 MarutiMusmade, and maternal uncle of Surekha namely Jalinder -7- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005Musmande went to the house of accused persons and tried to pacifythem not to ill-treat Surekha.” PW4Sahebrao Ganpat Shinde, father of deceased Surekha, atExhibit 25, deposed as under :“1. Surekha was my daughter. She married with accused No.1Navnath on 9-5-2004. The said marriage was performed by giftingtwo Tolas gold and cloth Basta. After marriage Surekha went to thehouse of her in laws so that village Guha. Approximately for twomonths, she was treated Properly. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started her ill-treatment. They were beating her on the groundthat she does not know cooking, and the agricultural work.Similarly, the accused persons were insisting her to bring an amountof Rs. 50,000/-firom her paternal home to start the garage. The saidfact was disclosed by Surekha to us when she came to the paternalhome on two occasions.2. Thereafter I myself, Jagannath Musmade, Namdeo Musmadeand brother Annasaheb went to the house of accused and pacifiedthat we are not in a position to pay the amount, and hence wouldpay later on.3. Lastly Surekha wame to us on Diwali festival. She was takenby her husband Navhath, at our home. On the next day, father-in-law of Surekha came to us to take her back. However, I did not sendSurekha along with him. That time, when we enquired about herornaments with Surekha, she told ms that her husband and in-lawshave taken away ornaments from her on the ground that she shouldbring rupees fifty thousand. Thereafter on third day, my sonBabasaheb reached her to her in-laws house. That time, accused -8- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005persons asked my son to bring Rs.50,000/- otherwise by giving anamount of rupees one lakh they would give divorce to Surekha. Myson Babasaheb has disclosed me said fact.4. Incident of Surekha has taken place after 15 days of theDiwali festival whereas it has taken place after seven months of themarriage. On the day of incident when we were present at home, wereceived the telephone message. Thereafter I myself, my wife, son,brother Annasaheb cousin brother and others went to Surekha'shouse at Guha. We reached there at 4 p.m. When we went toSurekha's house, the dead body of Surekha was lying there, andthere were ligature marks on her neck. Thereafter on completion offormalities, funeral was completed at about 12 mid-night.”PW5Babasaheb Sahebrao Shinde, brother of deceased Surekha, atExhibit 26, deposed as under :“1.Surekha is my sister. After marriage, sister Surekha went tothe house of her in-laws for cohabitation. Initially for 1 to 1.5months, she was treated properly. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws have started her ill-treatment. They have started her ill-treatment on the grounds that her parents have given her less dowryand not giving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to open the garage. Aftertwo months of the marriage, when I went to meet Surekha she hasnarrated me the said incident. 2.Lastly before incident Surekha came to us on Bhaubeejfestival. That time her husband Navnath has taken her to us. Thattime, the members of the family of in-laws of Surekha have takenaway ornaments on her person, and asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/-from her paternal home. Surekha has narrated the said incident to -9- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005us. Thereafter on third day I went to the house of in-laws of Surekhato reach her. That time, the in-laws of Surekha asked her why shedid not bring Rs. 50,000/- from her paternal home, and in case shedid not bring the same, then she should go to her paternal home,and in case she did not bring the same, then she should go to herpaternal home. That time, the members of in-laws house of Surekhahave abused her in my presence. That time, the in-laws of Surekhatold her than, in case she does not bring Rs. 50,000/- from herpaternal home, thereby giving rupees one lakh to her divorce her.That time, by assuring the members of in-laws house of Surekha,that we would pay you Rs. 50,000/- to open garage by doing sometransaction and that time I came back to home. Thereafter, Inarrated the said incident to my family members.3.The incident has taken place after fifteen days of the Diwalifestival.”PW6Prosecution has examined PW6 Vijendra Shankarlal Jaiswalwho was the Investigating Officer of the present crime and whohas filed charge-sheet against the accused. ANALYSISCharge under Section 498-A IPC :7.On trial, charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC areheld to be proved by prosecution. As regards charge under Section498-A is concerned, as to what actually constitutes cruelty has beenlucidly and succinctly dealt in the landmark cases of State of West -10- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], Giridhar Shankar Tawadev. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177; State of Andhra Pradeshv. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582/[2008] 14 S.C. R. 1170;Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604 G. V. Siddarameshv. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152 and Gurnaib Singh v. State ofPunjab (2013) 7 SCC 108; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana(2018) 14 SCC 452.8.The testimonies of PW2 Annasaheb (informant / uncle ofdeceased), PW3 Jagannath (acquaintance with deceased), PW4Sahebrao (father of deceased) and PW5 Babasaheb (brother ofdeceased) which are relevant, are already reproduced in aforesaidparas. 9.In the present case, FIR was lodged at the instance ofPW2 Annasaheb, who is uncle of deceased. On careful re-appreciation, it emerges that, according to him, his niece Surekha wasproperly treated for two months. Further according to him, thereafterthere was taunting for not cooking food properly and not doingagricultural work. However, he has not named, who amongst threeaccused taunted to the above extent. He attributes demand ofRs.50,000/- for garage to husband. He apparently names merelyhusband and not other in-laws. -11- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005He was extensively cross-examined by the accusedinitially about the relatives; their details; and distance of their stayamongst each other. In para 6 of his evidence, he admitted thatmarriage was completely peaceful and happy and at that time, it wasperformed immediately after 10-15 days after settlement. He alsoanswered that accused No. 1 – husband, since prior to marriage, wasserving in Kamal Auto Centre at Rahuri. He also admitted that parentsof accused are having irrigated land and their financial condition isgood. He further admitted that accused-husband used to leave for hiswork at 8 a.m. and return back at 8 p.m. whereas parents-in-law leftfor agricultural work in the morning and returned by evening anddeceased Surekha used to stay alone at home. He admitted that therewas no complaint anywhere regarding alleged ill-treatment to anyone. He attributes demand of Rs.50,000/-, but in November 2004.Rest of the suggestions were denied by this witness. 10.On visiting evidence of PW4 Sahebrao father, even hisversion is that after two months of marriage, her husband and in-lawsill-treated Surekha. He claims that as Surekha did not know cookingand agricultural work, there was beating to her. It is pertinent to notethat as regards to beating is concerned, his own brother PW2Annasaheb is silent. PW5 Babasaheb is naming all accused persons -12- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005for insisting to bring Rs.50,000/- from parents to set up a garage,however, his brother i.e. informant PW2 Annasaheb had attributeddemand of Rs.50,000/- only to husband. According to father,daughter disclosed about when she came on two occasions. He tooadmits about visit of deceased during Diwali. According to him, hemade inquiries about ornaments on the person of his daughter andshe told that accused persons had taken it away in the backdrop ofdemand of Rs.50,000/-. He claims that his son PW5 Babasaheb hadbeen to the house of accused to drop Surekha. At that time, accusedhad asked Rs.50,000/- to him. Accused persons had asked his son tobring Rs.50,000/- or to give Rs.1,00,000/- and give divorce. To theabove extent, testimony of informant PW-2 Annasaheb is absolutelysilent. Thus, both real brothers are not consistent and are at varianceon material count.In para 9 of the cross-examination of PW4 father,omissions are brought on record about informing accused that he wasnot in a position to pay the demand. In para 5 of the cross-examination, he admitted that he is unable to state that whenSurekha told him about ill-treatment and demand of Rs.50,000/- havebeen made. 11.Brother of deceased i.e. PW5 Babasaheb is also examined -13- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005at Exh. 26. In his above reproduced testimony, he has stated that after1 to 11/2 months, there was ill-treatment on the ground that parentshad given less dowry and not given amount of Rs.50,000/- to set up agarage. He claims that he learned about it when he went to meetSurekha after two months. Thus, this witness gives a very distinct version than hisown father and uncle PW2 Annasaheb. He deposed on the count ofless dowry has neither his father nor his uncle whisper about anydowry. He also does not depose about taunting for not preparing foodproperly or not doing agricultural work. Another feature whichemerges is that PW2 Annasaheb and PW4 Sahebrao both speak aboutlearning from Surekha when she came to there place. However, thiswitness brother speaks of learning from her only when he went tomeet her at her marital house. Para 6 of his cross shows that there isomission about asking her to bring Rs.50,000/- and on failure to meetdemand to take Rs.1,00,000/- and give divorce. Thus, his version ismaterially different then his own father and uncle. Consequently, informant, father and brother are notlending support to each other in consistent manner on the point ofdemand and cruelty. None of them have assigned distinct role to any -14- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005of the accused and have also not quoted the instances, except statingthat there was mental and physical cruelty. Law requires specificmaterial and not vague and sweeping allegations. To attract section498-A there has to be continuous and incessant harassment. Materialto this extent is missing in the evidence of prosecution.Charge under Section 306 of IPC :-12.Another charge is under Section 306 of IPC. Beforeadverting to appreciate the available evidence on this count, it wouldbe apt to first deal with settled legal position and legal requirementsfor attracting said charge. In umpteen judgments, the Hon’ble ApexCourt has dealt and discussed as to how and when said charge can besaid to be brought home. The following are the few report knowncases on above charge : In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (supra), theHon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should beextremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of eachcase and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of findingwhether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her toend her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that avictim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, -15- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society,to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord anddifference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstancedindividual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of theCourt should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accusedcharged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilt. 13.In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC618, it is observed that, “Instigation is to goad, urge forward,provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirementof instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must beused to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarilyand specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonablecertainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.14.In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector ofPolice, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredientsof Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under :-“7.The essential ingredients of the offence underSection 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intentionof the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased tocommit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting -16- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,constitute the abetment of suicide. There should beevidence capable of suggesting that the accused intendedby such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commitsuicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted underSection 306 IPC.”15.In Ude Sing & others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to convict anaccused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit aparticular crime must be visible with regard to determining theculpability. It was observed as under :-“ 16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must bea proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to thecommission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that thequestion of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context ofan offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,involving multifaceted and complex attributes of humanbehavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusationfor abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking forcogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement tothe commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mereallegation of harassment of the deceased by another personwould not suffice unless there be such action on the part ofthe accused which compels the person to commit suicide;
Legal Reasoning
-17- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005and such an offending action ought to be proximate to thetime of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in thecommission of suicide by another or not, could only begathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abettedcommission of suicide by another; the consideration wouldbe if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the actof suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in thedecisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urgeforward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If thepersons who committed suicide had been hypersensitiveand the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarilyexpected to induce a similarly circumstanced person tocommit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accusedguilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if theaccused by his acts and by his continuous course of conductcreates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving noother option except to commit suicide, the case may fallwithin the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accusedplays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim tocommit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetmentof suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of theaccused in such cases would be examined with reference tothe actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts anddeeds are only of such nature where the accused intendednothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, aparticular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of -18- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating orannoying the deceased by words or deeds until thedeceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may bethat of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter ofdelicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is requiredto be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all thesurrounding factors having bearing on the actions andpsyche of the accused and the deceased.”16.In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC200, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that whenever a personinstigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, thedoing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing thatthing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must bevisible, to determine the culpability. 17.In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another(2021) 19 SCC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered theprovision of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetmentunder Section 107 IPC and observed as under :“14.Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide acriminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.. . . -19- Cri Appeal No. 766.200515.The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone todo something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State ofChhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word‘instigate’ as under :-“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,incite or encourage to do ‘an act’.”16.The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussedrepeatedly by this Court. In the case or S.S. Cheena v.Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190, it wasobserved as under : -“25. Abetment involves a mental process ofinstigating a person or intentionally aiding a personin doing of a thing. Without a positive act on thepart of the accused to instigate or aid in committingsuicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Theintention of the legislature and the ratio of thecases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that inorder to convict a person under Section 306 IPCthere has to be a clear mens rea to commit theoffence. It also requires an active act or direct actwhich led the deceased to commit suicide seeing nooption and that act must have been intended topush the deceased into such a position that hecommitted suicide.”18.In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector ofPolice, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section -20- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005306 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “44. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of allegedabetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirectacts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely onthe allegation of harassment without their being any positiveaction proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of theaccused which led or compelled the person to commitsuicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is notsustainable.”19.In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCCOnLine SC 575, it is observed that to bring the case within thepurview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be anevidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aidon the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the chargeunder Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regardto the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid todrive a person to commit suicide.20.In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana2024 DGLS (SC) 224/(2024) 3 SCC 573 it is observed that, had therebeen any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account ofwhich the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to herlife, it could have been said that the accused intended the -21- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends aconsequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the givenseries of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. Themost serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels ofpunishment, is achieved when both these components are actuallypresent in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).”21.In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. Stateof Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by theHon’ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations aremade : “39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (2011) 3SCC 626 , this Court observed that abetment would involvea mental process of instigating a person or intentionallyaiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive acton the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committingsuicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating theintention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio ofthe cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that inorder to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there hasto be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would alsorequire an active act or direct act which led the deceased tocommit suicide seeing no other option and that this act ofthe accused must have been intended to push the deceasedinto such a position that he committed suicide.” -22- Cri Appeal No. 766.200522.Apparently, marriage is of the year May 2004. InformantPW2 Annasaheb, father PW4 Sahebrao and brother PW5 Babasahebspeak about last visit of deceased Surekha to their house in Diwali,which falls in November. Admittedly, episode of hanging is of12.12.2004 i.e. almost after a month or so after Diwali. Witnessesadmit to that extent. In order to attract section 306, it is incumbentupon prosecution to demonstrate and substantiate that in proximityto 12.12.2004, there was cruelty or harassment in the backdrop ofdemand and it was of such nature and extent that deceased was leftwith no other alternative, but to end up her life. It is expected ofprosecution to show that accused persons created such circumstancesand had made her life so miserable due to which she took the extremesteps of hanging herself. In short, it is expected of prosecution tobring material suggesting abetment, inducement with sole intentionto see that deceased commit suicide. Such legal requirements are timeand again reflected in above reproduced rulings. Keeping such legalrequirements in mind, available evidence is analyzed. 23.None of the witnesses attribute any sort of cruelty andharassment in proximity to 12.12.2004. There is nothing to showthat on the day of alleged hanging husband and in-laws were in thecompany of deceased. No witness has been examined to demonstrate -23- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005the same. Inquest pancha has admitted that there are houses aroundthe spot, but none is examined. As stated above, deceased does notseem to be in contact with witnesses after her visit to the house inDiwali. Therefore unless there is material indicating any sort ofmaltreatment in proximity to suicide, it is unsafe to attributeabetment or inducement. Witnesses admit that deceased husband wasalready serving. There are no details as to where he intended to setup garage. There is no investigation on these lines. PW2 informanthimself admitted in cross about accused demanding Rs.50,000/- inthe month of November, but he does not speak of any specific crueltythat too by specific accused. General allegations seem to be levelled.Such evidence, in the considered opinion of this court, is not sufficientto attribute abetment. For all above reasons, even charge of 306 of IPC is fails.Hence, the following order is passed:ORDERI.Criminal Appeal is allowed.II.The conviction awarded by the Ist Adhoc Additional SessionsJudge, Ahmednagar to the appellants Navnath RaosahebSaudagar, Raosaheb Madhav Saudagar and ChandrabhagaRaosaheb Saudagar, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2005 foroffences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC,stands quashed and set aside. -24- Cri Appeal No. 766.2005III.The appellants stands acquitted from the charge levelledagainst them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-Aand 306 of IPC.IV.The bail-bonds of the appellants stands cancelled. V.The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellants after the statutory period.VI.It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order inrespect of disposal of muddemal. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]Okj