Bombay High Court
Shrikant Sabaji Sawant vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:41789
8 REVN 502-24.doc
Ashish
Digitally signed
ASHISH
SAHEBRAO
MHASKE
by ASHISH
SAHEBRAO
MHASKE
Date:
2025.10.01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
14:43:47 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 502 OF 2024
Shrikant Sabaji Sawant & Ors ... Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Prasad Panchal a/w Ms. Neha Rane, Mr. gaurav
Ombale, for the applicants.
Mrs. Rajashree Newton, APP for respondent - State.
Mr. Inamdar, PSI, Kala Chowki Police Station.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 1, 2025
P.C.:
1. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the
order dated 29 June 2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, by which the discharge application below Exhibit 9
in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2018 came to be rejected. The case
concerns offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the First Information
Report was lodged at Kalachowki Police Station by Smt. Munmayi
Palkar, the sister of the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased
was subjected to harassment by the present applicants.
3. According to the complainant, the deceased was residing in
the matrimonial house with the applicants. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2
were habitual drinkers and unemployed. They often quarreled
8 REVN 502-24.doc
amongst themselves in the house. Applicant No. 3 allegedly used
to say that the deceased Madhuri was of unsound mind and should
be abandoned.
4. It is further alleged that Applicant No. 1 used to beat the
deceased after consuming liquor and drove her out of the house.
Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 did not provide her food and also refused
to eat the food cooked by her. At the time of marriage, Applicant
No. 1 and his mother-in-law, Applicant No. 3, had demanded
golden bangles from the family of the deceased. However, due to
financial inability, the demand could not be met. On that count,
the deceased was allegedly subjected to cruelty, which led to the
registration of the FIR.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicants, referring to the
material placed on record, submitted that even if the entire
prosecution case is taken at its face value, the essential ingredients
of Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are not
satisfied. It was contended that the material does not indicate any
instigation or such a situation created by the applicants which left
no option for the deceased but to commit suicide. The marriage
had taken place in 2006, while the suicide occurred in 2015.
Statements of the sister and neighbours lack specific details
regarding the time, date, or manner of alleged mental or physical
cruelty.
6. As regards the offence under Section 306, it is submitted that
there is no proximate event on record linking the applicants to the
act of suicide. On the contrary, the evidence of neighbours
8 REVN 502-24.doc
indicates that the deceased was under treatment for mental illness.
On this ground, it was argued that the applicants are entitled to
discharge. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618.
7. Per contra, learned APP opposed the revision and submitted
that the material collected during investigation is sufficient to raise
a prima facie case against the applicants. It was urged that the
consistent allegations of harassment disclosed in the statements of
the sister of the deceased and the neighbours fulfill the ingredients
of the offences alleged. On that basis, it was submitted that the
application deserves rejection.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of both sides. I have also perused the charge-sheet material
and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
9. The core allegation is that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty by the applicants and that such cruelty abetted her to
commit suicide. In law, for an offence under Section 306, it must
be shown that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide
as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. There must
be material showing instigation or intentional aid which compelled
the deceased to take the extreme step. Mere allegations of
harassment, without a live and proximate link to the suicide, are
not sufficient.
10. In the present case, the marriage was performed in the year
2006, while the unfortunate incident of suicide occurred in 2015.
8 REVN 502-24.doc
There is a long gap of almost nine years between the two events.
The FIR and statements of the witnesses do not bring on record
any proximate incident or continuous course of conduct
immediately preceding the suicide which could be said to have
driven the deceased to end her life.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants rightly relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra), where
the Court held that "instigation" involves an active role in
provoking, inciting, or encouraging the doing of an act. The Court
further clarified that a word uttered in a fit of anger or general
harassment, without any intention to push the deceased into such
a position that she sees suicide as the only option, cannot amount
to abetment. Mere utterances or harassment, unconnected with the
act of suicide, cannot constitute instigation or abetment. The
requirement is a live link and a proximate cause. Applying the said
principle to the present case, the material on record does not
establish the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
12. The statements of the sister and neighbours are vague. They
do not provide dates, months, or years of alleged acts of
harassment. They also do not describe any incident of such
intensity as would leave the deceased with no alternative but to
commit suicide. On the contrary, material has come on record that
the deceased was under treatment for mental illness. This aspect
cannot be ignored while examining the nexus between alleged
harassment and the act of suicide.
8 REVN 502-24.doc
13. For the offence under Section 498-A also, the requirement is
cruelty as defined in Explanation (a) and (b) to that section. The
allegations made are general in nature and do not describe willful
conduct of such gravity as would amount to cruelty within the
meaning of law. Demands of golden bangles at the time of
marriage, even if accepted at face value, cannot sustain a charge of
cruelty after nine years of marriage when there is no continuity of
demand or evidence of harassment linked to it.
14. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the material on
record falls short of making out offences under Sections 306 or
498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly
appreciated the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged
offences. The material as it stands, even if accepted in its entirety,
does not disclose commission of the offences under Sections 498-A
and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The continuation of the trial
against the applicants would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
16. Hence, the revision application deserves to be allowed.
17. The impugned order dated 29 June 2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge below Exhibit 9 in Sessions Case
No. 76 of 2018 is set aside. The applicants are discharged from the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
