Bombay High Court Frames Additional Charge Under Section 306 IPC Against Accused Husband in a Murder Case

In a significant development, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, framed an additional charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3554 of 2018. The case pertains to the death of the victim, Ashwini Pandhare, and the accused, Shalan Nagnath Pandhare, Akash Nagnath Pandhare, and Vikas Nagnath Pandhare, all residents of Adobawasti, Tannu, Tal. Indapur, District Pune.

The State of Maharashtra is the respondent in the case, and the judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Justice Prakash D. Naik on 28th July, 2023.

The accused were initially charged with offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 498-A (cruelty to wife), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. However, after examining the evidence and taking into account the defense's claims that the victim committed suicide, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction and framed an additional charge under Section 306 IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide.

The prosecution's case is that the victim was ill-treated by the accused, who are her mother-in-law, husband (Akash Nagnath Pandhare), and brother-in-law. The first informant, the victim's maternal uncle, stated that he received a call from the victim's husband expressing his desire for a divorce on 2nd May, 2011. The next day, they received news of the victim's death, and upon visiting her matrimonial home, they found her lifeless body with injuries around her neck.

The medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that the victim's death was due to strangulation. Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed under Sections 302, 498-A, 120-B, read with Section 34 of IPC.

The defense argued against the framing of the additional charge under Section 306 IPC, contending that the accused were already charged with serious offenses, and the addition of a new charge would prejudice their defense. However, the Court observed that the evidence on record supported the charge under Section 306, and the accused were aware of the allegations related to abetment of suicide as the trial had already commenced for offenses under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.

The Court's decision to frame the additional charge under Section 306 IPC is in line with established legal principles, as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) empowers the Court to alter or add charges before pronouncing judgment. The Court also emphasized that such alteration of charges does not automatically invalidate the conviction, unless it results in a failure of justice.

This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases where the evidence suggests the possibility of abetment of suicide, even if the accused were not explicitly charged under Section 306 IPC. It underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and considering all relevant evidence before arriving at a just verdict.

Hon'ble Justice Prakash D. Naik stated, "The Court has to ensure that the alteration or addition of charge has not caused prejudice to the accused and though the power is wide and extensive, it must be exercised judiciously."

Date of Decision: 28th July, 2023

Shalan Nagnath Pandhare  vs The State Of Maharashtra