The Gujarat High Court examined an appeal challenging a conviction under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from an incident where a wife died by suicide within a year of marriage and her husband was earlier convicted by a Sessions Court of cruelty and abetment to suicide. The appeal was brought by the husband, Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli, against a 2003 judgment that had sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years for abetment of suicide and one year for cruelty. The prosecution had alleged that the deceased wife was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, including being slapped, which drove her to take her life. The High Court, presided over by Justice Gita Gopi, allowed the appeal after a detailed examination of the evidence, holding that a “one incident” of slapping his wife on the ground that she stayed overnight at her parental home without informing him did not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, and that the prosecution failed to prove the proximate cause of suicide or continuous cruelty necessary for abetment under Section 306 IPC. The court noted that persistent, unbearable, and continuous beatings would require cogent evidence to be established as cruelty that drove the wife to commit suicide, and found such evidence lacking in the present case. The High Court observed that the witnesses failed to prove either the case of cruelty or abetment for the commission of suicide, rendering the trial court’s conclusion erroneous and unsustainable.
In the proceedings before the High Court, the appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dhaval Vyas, along with advocates Yukta Pandey and D.A. Sankhesara, argued that the allegations made against the appellant were general in nature and did not establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. They submitted that disputes between the couple primarily arose because the husband used to go out at night to play the banjo for additional income, a matter that the wife disliked, and that such quarrels could not be equated with abetment of suicide. The counsel further contended that there was no evidence of dowry demand, instigation, or any proximate act connecting the appellant’s conduct to his wife’s suicide. In opposition, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Jyoti Bhatt, submitted that the deceased had been subjected to harassment and physical assault, relying on the testimony of her parents to argue that the appellant’s conduct had driven her to commit suicide. She urged that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction ought to be upheld.
Upon examining the evidence and submissions, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish continuous cruelty or any direct instigation that could be linked to the wife’s suicide. The court observed that the primary dispute between the couple was over the appellant’s habit of returning late at night after playing the banjo at marriage ceremonies for extra income, and that even the father of the deceased had admitted that the marital relationship was otherwise cordial and that there was no complaint of dowry demand. The High Court pointed out that no prior complaint of cruelty had been lodged with the authorities, no medical records of alleged beatings were produced, and there was no independent evidence to corroborate the allegations of harassment. The court noted that the evidence consistently showed quarrels occurring after the husband returned home late at night following his banjo performances, and that these quarrels were specifically stated to have taken place because the wife did not like his late returns.
Referring to established principles of law on abetment of suicide, the High Court reiterated that conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of clear mens rea and a direct or proximate act of instigation, and cannot be based merely on ordinary marital discord. The bench emphasized that mere quarrels or isolated incidents, such as a single slap, did not amount to cruelty capable of driving a person to suicide without more substantial evidence. The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case lacked independent corroborative evidence to show that the appellant’s conduct was so persistent and unbearable that it left the deceased with no alternative but to take her own life. In the absence of such evidence, the court concluded that the trial court’s judgment was unsustainable.
The High Court’s analysis highlighted that no prior complaints or medical documentation supported the allegation of repeated beatings or systematic harassment, and that the alleged incident of slapping was isolated and insufficient to constitute cruelty under the statutory provisions. The court noted that settled law on abetment to suicide requires a clear nexus between the act of the accused and the death by suicide, which was not demonstrated in the present case. Having regard to the totality of the evidence and the legal standards applicable to offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The bench’s decision underscored the necessity of cogent and corroborative evidence to establish continuous cruelty and direct instigation for convictions in cases alleging cruelty and abetment to suicide.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.