Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband

"The trial Court has held that [the] husband of deceased devilishly think of starting separate clothes business and for that purpose he 'might have' insisted Sangita to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and finally, learned trial Court has held that prosecution has proved offence... Apparently, above inference is on assumption and presumption and cannot be allowed to be sustained." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated 6 October 2026, set aside the conviction of a husband under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC, emphasizing that criminal convictions cannot be founded upon conjectures.

A bench presided over by Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed that the trial court erroneously shifted from evidence-based adjudication to speculative reasoning, noting that "conviction of appellant husband for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC on assumptions drawn by trial Court cannot be allowed to be sustained."

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, in 2018 for subjecting his wife, Sangita, to cruelty and abetting her suicide via the consumption of rat poison. While the trial court acquitted the in-laws (accused Nos. 2 to 5) of all charges due to a lack of evidence, it singled out the husband for conviction. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the evidence against the entire family was identical and that his conviction was based on mere suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC against the husband. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial court acted in violation of the principle of parity by convicting the husband while acquitting co-accused on the same set of evidence.

Inconsistency in Prosecution Witnesses

The court meticulously analyzed the testimony of the deceased’s parents, PW3 and PW4, noting that their accounts were fundamentally inconsistent. While the father claimed the matrimonial life was cordial for two years, the mother insisted it was only for one year. Furthermore, allegations regarding starvation and the nature of physical abuse varied significantly between the witnesses. The court observed that the witnesses were not lending support to each other, rendering the prosecution’s version shaky and unreliable.

Evidence of 'Cruelty' and 'Abetment'

The court highlighted that for a charge under Section 498-A to succeed, the prosecution must demonstrate specific acts of physical or mental cruelty linked to the demand for money. The court found the allegations to be vague and omnibus. Regarding the injury marks on the deceased, the court noted that the medical evidence failed to link these injuries to any act of beating by the husband. The Autopsy Surgeon’s failure to identify the wounds as definitive beating marks further weakened the prosecution's theory of persistent cruelty.

No Absolute Right To Convict On Speculation

The trial court’s reasoning, which suggested that the husband "might have" demanded money to start a new business, was sternly rebuked by the High Court. The bench held that such inferences are purely based on assumptions and presumptions, which have no place in criminal jurisprudence. The court emphasized that the burden lies strictly on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a threshold that remained unmet in this instance.

Principle of Parity in Criminal Trials

The court reaffirmed the principle of parity, noting that the trial court acquitted other family members on the same set of evidence that it used to convict the husband. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, the court reiterated that criminal courts must decide like cases alike. By applying the same evidentiary standards to the appellant as were applied to his acquitted co-accused, the court found the conviction untenable.

Final Order and Acquittal

The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational elements of abetment, noting there was no evidence that the husband actively incited the deceased to consume poison. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were quashed and set aside. The appellant was ordered to be acquitted, and his bail bonds were cancelled.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026