The Gujarat High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of subjecting his wife to cruelty and abetting her suicide, ruling that ordinary domestic quarrels over a husband’s late working hours and a solitary incident of slapping do not constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A or “abetment” under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Gita Gopi allowed the criminal appeal, emphasizing that without a positive act intended to push the deceased into committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli, was married to the deceased, Premila, for approximately one year before her death on May 11, 1996. The deceased was found dead by hanging from a tree in the appellant’s field. Following a police investigation, the appellant was charged with subjecting his wife to mental and physical cruelty and driving her to suicide.
On May 20, 2003, the District Judge, Valsad, convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 for the offence under Section 498A IPC, and seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 306 IPC. The appellant subsequently challenged this conviction before the Gujarat High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval Vyas, representing the appellant, argued that the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence in accordance with established principles of criminal jurisprudence. He contended that the allegations of harassment were general in nature and primarily revolved around trivial domestic quarrels. The defense highlighted that the appellant, who worked at GIDC, also played the ‘banjo’ at musical parties during the night to earn extra income. His late-night returns displeased his wife, leading to arguments. The counsel submitted that such marital friction does not fall within the definition of “cruelty” under Section 498A, nor was there any mens rea (criminal intent) or proximate cause to establish “instigation” under Section 306 IPC. He further noted that the case involved no demands for dowry.
On behalf of the State, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ms. Jyoti Bhatt supported the trial court’s conviction. She argued that the appellant’s conduct was suspicious, pointing out that while searching for his missing wife, he visited a neighbor rather than his in-laws. She also highlighted that the appellant had told the deceased’s brother to take back the kanyadaan articles. The APP relied on the testimony of the deceased’s mother, who claimed to have seen the accused beat her daughter.
Court’s Analysis
The Court first examined the medical evidence provided by the Medical Officer, Dr. Arvindbhai Muljibhai Gori, who concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. The autopsy revealed that the deceased’s hyoid bone was intact. Referencing forensic medical literature, the Court noted that homicidal hanging is extremely rare and usually involves the fracture of the larynx or hyoid bone, thereby ruling out the parents’ suspicion that the deceased was murdered.
In evaluating the testimonies of the deceased’s parents, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan, which states that while the evidence of close relatives (interested witnesses) is admissible, it requires scrutiny with “utmost care and caution” to ensure it is trustworthy and free from embellishments.
The Court observed that the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish continuous, unbearable harassment. The core of the marital dispute was the wife’s dissatisfaction with her husband returning late at night after playing the banjo. Addressing a specific allegation where the appellant allegedly slapped the deceased for staying overnight at her parental home without his permission, the Court held:
“One incident of husband slapping the wife on the ground of staying overnight at parental home without informing him would not be counted as cruelty.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, the Court reiterated that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not altered by the introduction of Section 498A IPC or the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Furthermore, citing Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana, the Court noted that the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically give rise to the presumption of abetment; the nature of the cruelty must be such that it is likely to drive the woman to suicide.
Relying on M. Mohan V. State regarding Section 306 IPC, the Court quoted:
“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”
Concluding its analysis on the facts, the Court firmly observed:
“The proximate cause to suicide was not proved. And persistent, unbearable continuous beatings, would require cogent evidence to be considered as proved, for the same to be believed as cruelty that drove the daughter to commit suicide by hanging herself to death finding no other alternative.”
Decision
The High Court held that the witnesses failed to prove the case of cruelty and abetment of suicide, rendering the trial court’s conclusion erroneous. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the May 20, 2003 judgment of the District Judge, Valsad, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
- Case Title: Dilipbhai Manglabhai Varli vs State of Gujarat
- Case Number: R/Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2003
