MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Inconsistencies in Dying Declarations and Lack of Evidence in Abetment to Suicide Lead to Acquittal – Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court acquitted all appellants in a case of abetment to suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Justice Abhay S. Waghmare observed inconsistencies in the dying declarations and insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges.

Amrut s/o Pundalik Marathe and others appealed against their conviction for abetting the suicide of Shobhabai and inflicting cruelty. The trial court's decision, based on dying declarations and testimonies of family members, was overturned due to inconsistencies and lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the suicide.

Facts and Issues: The appellants were charged with persistently and continuously ill-treating Shobhabai, leading to her suicide. The evidence included two dying declarations and testimonies of family members and neighbors. The primary issue was whether these evidences sufficed to establish abetment to suicide and cruelty under the relevant IPC sections.

Inconsistencies in Dying Declarations: The court noted discrepancies between the two dying declarations of Shobhabai, affecting their credibility.

Testimonies of Family Members: The testimonies of Shobhabai's sons and husband were scrutinized, revealing discrepancies and a lack of clear linkage to any abetment.

Legal Position on Abetment and Cruelty: The court reiterated the legal requirements for charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. It was found that the evidence did not meet the necessary standards for abetment or cruelty.

Decision: The Bombay High Court acquitted all appellants, canceling their bail bonds and ordering a refund of any fine deposited. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of incitement, instigation, or aiding in the act of suicide for charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

Date of Decision: 12.03.2024

Amrut and Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra

Similar News