Master of Science

Penal Code, 1860 : Ss.498A, 306 and 109 r/w s.34 IPC – Dowry harassment – Mental torture – Suicide by wife – Husband convicted and sentenced by trial court – Upheld by High Court – On appeal, Held: The circumstances enumerated in the deceased’s letter to her parents and the evidence of PWs lead to a situation where she was virtually left with no option except to take upon extreme step of putting an end to her life – Trial court and High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion – Hence no interference called for. The appellant and his parents were charged with offences punishable under Ss.498A, 306 and 109 r/w S.34 IPC for dowry harassment, causing mental torture to the deceased. Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court; his parents were acquitted. High Court upheld the same. Hence the appeal. -Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence of P.W.6 (neighbour of the deceased), P.W.7 (sister of the deceased) and P.W.8 (father of the deceased) clearly lead to the only conclusion that this was a case of extreme mental cruelty which was perpetuated from the point of marriage and lasted till the deceased had committed suicide. There cannot be any iota of doubt that the extreme mental cruelty and torture compelled the deceased to put an end to her life. The appellant was wholly responsible for creating all the circumstances which led the deceased to take an extreme step of putting an end to her life. [Para 22] [ 46-F, G] 2. Exh. 46, the letter written by the deceased to her parents on 9.10.1989 immediately before she had committed suicide, gives graphic description of the number of instances of extreme mental torture, day in and day out. This letter gives the impression that the appellant was deriving sadistic pleasure in causing extreme mental torture to the deceased. He would leave no stone unturned to ensure that the maximum mental torture and agony is caused to the deceased. There is not the slightest doubt that the circumstances which have been enumerated in Exh. 46 and the testimony of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 lead to a situation where the deceased virtually was left with no option except to take an extreme step of putting an end to her life. [Para 23] [ 46-H; 47-A, B] 3. The Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. [Para 24] [ 47-E, D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No 891 of 2001 From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1991 U.U. Lalit, Nitin Sangra and Sidhesh Kotwal (for Gaurav Agrawal), with him for the Appellant. Sushil Karanjkar and Kailash Pandey (for Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure), for the Respondent. =abatement of suicide – extreme mental torture 1. putting restrictions on her salary2insulting before the guests for small things3.constantly proclaiming that he is going to give divorce 4. intentionally by twisting the leg of the son, broken the leg of kid 6. proclaiming that others are waiting for him 7. providing no room for love and affection even for single movementh. 46, the letter written by the deceased to her parents on 9.10.1989 immediately before she had committed suicide, gives graphic description of the number of instances of extreme mental torture, day in and day out. This letter gives the impression that the appellant was deriving sadistic pleasure in causing extreme mental torture to the deceased. He would leave no stone unturned to ensure that the maximum mental torture and agony is caused to the deceased. We do not find the slightest doubt that the circumstances which have been enumerated in Exh. 46 and the testimony of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 lead to a situation where the deceased virtually was left with no option except to take an extreme step of putting an end to her life.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 891 OF 2001 Milind Bhagwanrao Godse .. Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal … Continue reading →