Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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

Latest Legal News