In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) acquitted Namdeo Laxman Bansode of charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that not every instance of harassment or cruelty constitutes an offense under Section 498A. The Court, led by Justice S. G. Mehare, set aside the convictions imposed by the lower courts, highlighting the need for concrete evidence of harassment directly linked to unlawful demands or actions leading to suicide.
Background of the Case:
Namdeo Laxman Bansode, a 24-year-old labourer from Aurangabad, was initially convicted by the 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2004. This conviction was upheld by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2004. Bansode was accused of harassing his wife, who subsequently consumed poison, leading to her death. The prosecution alleged that Bansode harassed his wife for golden ornaments, leading her to take the extreme step.
Following his conviction, Bansode filed a criminal revision application (Criminal Revision Application No. 344 of 2004), challenging the verdicts of both the trial and appellate courts, asserting that the evidence presented was insufficient and inconsistent.
Legal Issues Involved:
The case raised key questions concerning the interpretation and application of Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code:
1. Applicability of Section 498A: The Court had to determine whether the alleged harassment amounted to cruelty under Section 498A. To constitute cruelty, the law requires proof that harassment was directly linked to coercion for unlawful demands or was of such nature that it was likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave harm to her physical or mental health.
2. Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 IPC: The legal question revolved around whether Bansode’s actions met the criteria for abetment, which requires proof of intentional instigation or aiding the victim in committing suicide.
3. Contradictory Medical Evidence: Another issue in the case was the contradictory opinions between the medical officer, who performed the postmortem and identified poisoning as the cause of death, and the chemical analysis, which did not detect any poison in the deceased’s body.
Court’s Observations and Findings:
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the medical contradictions and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the death. In his defence, Bansode argued that his wife was depressed due to her inability to conceive, and there was no direct proof of ongoing harassment during the period leading up to her death. Bansode had admitted his wife to the hospital after she consumed poison, which the Court noted as an important factor.
In its judgment, the Court stressed the following points:
– Harassment and Cruelty under Section 498A: The Court observed that while there were allegations of harassment for golden ornaments, there was no evidence of continuous or grave cruelty that could be directly linked to driving the deceased to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that Section 498A does not apply to every instance of domestic discord or ordinary quarrels unless it meets the threshold of cruelty as defined in the law.
“Section 498A of the IPC does not attract every harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to establish that the harassment or cruelty was with a view to force the woman to commit suicide or fulfill an unlawful demand.”
– No Evidence of Mens Rea for Abetment of Suicide: For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution needed to prove that the accused intentionally provoked or incited the deceased to commit suicide. The Court found no evidence of such intent on the part of Bansode. It further observed that the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically raise a presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
“There was nothing to show that the applicant instigated the deceased with the intention of forcing her to commit suicide.”
– Contradictions in Medical Evidence: The Court weighed the contradictory reports by the medical officer and chemical analyst regarding the cause of death. It sided with the medical officer’s postmortem report, which suggested poisoning, but held that this contradiction alone could not prove the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bombay High Court allowed Namdeo Bansode’s criminal revision application, setting aside his conviction. The Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Bansode had subjected his wife to cruelty or abetted her suicide. The judgment emphasized that every instance of harassment or domestic disagreement does not fall under the purview of Section 498A unless the prosecution can prove willful conduct with the intent to cause grave harm or meet unlawful demands.
The order included the following:
– Acquittal of Namdeo Bansode from all charges.
– Quashing of the lower courts’ judgments in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2004.
– Return of the fine amount deposited by the accused.
– Cancellation of Bansode’s bail bonds and discharge of his surety.
