Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Murlidhar Pardhi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro P.S.O. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3650 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Murlidhar Pardhi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro P.S.O. ... on 10 April, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:5764



                                                    1                        CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2024


                Ravindra @ Ravi S/o. Murlidhar
                Pardhi, (Presently in Jail)
                Aged 42 years, Occ. Labour,
                R/o. Maldongari, Tah. Bramhapuri,
                District: Chandrapur                                         ... Appellant
                         .. Versus ..

                State of Maharashtra through
                PSO Bramphapuri, Tah. Bramhapuri,
                District Chandrapur.                                        ...Respondent

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Shri M.L.Vairagade, Advocate for appellant.
                Shri B.M.Lonare, APP for respondent/State.
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CORAM :                 NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

                DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16/02/2026
                DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 10/04/2026


                JUDGMENT

This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the

judgment and order dated 20/09/2023 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 57

of 2022, convicting and sentencing the Appellant as follows:-

2 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

"1. Accused Ravindra @ Ravi Murlidhar Pardhi is found guilty. He is convicted of the offences of Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 306 of the IPC vide Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Accused Ravindra @ Ravi Murlidhar Pardhi is hereby sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer S.I. for 6 (six) months.

3. Accused Ravindra @ Ravi Murlidhar Pardhi is also hereby sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 (Ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer further S.I. for 6 (Six) months.

4. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Accused be given set off of his pre-conviction detention period from 10.01.2022 to 20.09.2023 under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

6. ....

7. ...

8. ..."

2. The prosecution's case as revealed from the police

report is as under:-

2.1 The Appellant was married to Dipa Ravindra Pardhi

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased wife'). Out of wedlock,

the deceased wife gave birth to two (2) children (hereinafter 3 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

referred to as 'the deceased children'). For a period of one year,

the deceased wife was treated properly. The Appellant got

addicted to alcohol. The Appellant used to beat the deceased

wife and demand money. Once, due to beating by the Appellant,

the deceased wife was brought to her parental house. The

deceased wife stayed at her parental house for a period of two (2)

to three (3) months. The Appellant along with others went and

brought the deceased wife to her matrimonial house. There was

no improvement in the behaviour of the Appellant. On

08/01/2022, the parents of deceased wife came to know that, she

was missing. The deceased wife and deceased children were

found dead in the Well. The father of the deceased wife lodged

the report with the Bramhapuri Police Station against the

Appellant and Crime bearing No. 0017/2022 came to be

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and

306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.'). The

Inquest and Post-Mortem of the deceased wife and deceased

children were done. The spot panchanama was drawn. The

Appellant came to be arrested. The statements of the witnesses

were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the Appellant

came to be charge-sheeted.

4 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

2.2 The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against

the Appellant vide Exh. 8 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. The Appellant pleaded

not-guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the charge, the

prosecution examined in all seven (7) witnesses. Mr. Gajanan Y.

Kagane, Panch for the Inquest and Spot panchanama, is

examined as P.W.-1. Sakhubai S. Bulle, mother of deceased, is

examined as P.W.-2. Nanda D. Matere, sister of deceased, is

examined as P.W.-3. Damodhar A. Pardhi, the relative of the

Appellant is examined as P.W.-4. Dumaji N. Gutke, Police

official who took the report from the father of deceased wife, is

examined as P.W.-5. Dr. Subhash B. Ingle, Medical Officer, who

conducted the Autopsy, is examined as P.W.-6 and Milind D.

Shinde, Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.-7. The relevant

documents such as Inquest, Panchanamas, Post-Mortem (PM)

Report etc. are brought on record in the evidence of the

witnesses.

2.3 After the prosecution filed the evidence closure

pursis, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the

Appellant under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Appellant 5 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

denied the evidence and case of the prosecution. On appreciating

the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court passed

the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the

Appellant as above.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the

learned APP for the State. Scrutinized the evidence available on

record.

(a) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

Appellant that, the evidence on record does not prove the charge.

The PM Report shows that, the bodies were well nourished and

therefore, the prosecution's case of harassment is unbelievable.

As the Appellant is behind the bars for a period of four (4) years,

he be acquitted. In support of his submissions, he relied on the

decisions in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P.

{AIR 2002 SC 1998} and Prakash and ors. V/s. State of

Maharashtra and anr. {2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835}.

(b) It is submitted by the learned APP for the State that,

the Appellant assured to improve every time, however, there was

no improvement. The relatives of the deceased mediated. Due to

harassment by the Appellant, an extreme step was taken by the 6 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

deceased wife and the deceased children. No case is made out to

interfere in the impugned judgment and order.

4. The charge and conviction are for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. In Sanju alias

Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the charge was for the offence

punishable under Sections 306 of IPC. The learned Trial Court

and the High Court therein held that, the suicide was the direct

result of the quarrel between the deceased and the Appellant

therein and the Appellant therein told the deceased 'to go and

die'. It was observed that, accepting the prosecution case, the

said words 'to go and die' itself does not constitute the ingredient

of 'instigation'. The observations in Ramesh Kumar V/s. State of

Chhattisgarh {(2001) 9 SCC 618} are reproduced in para 12 of

the said judgment. The said para states that, "A word uttered in a

fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to

actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to

the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to

ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite

common to the society to which the victim belonged and such

petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a 7 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit

suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for

basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence

of suicide should be found guilty."

5. In Prakash (supra), following are the observations

in para 18 and 28:-

"18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat {2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679}, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:

"18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea-the intention to abet the act-is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/ her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide."

8 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

"28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryanas {(2024) 3 SCC 573} observed as follows:-

"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560], after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC observed as under: (SCC para 45)

"45. ...... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

6. To constitute the offence punishable under Section

498(A) of the IPC, the cruelty should be of such a nature which

would drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman and

harassment should be with a view to coercing her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand. The provisions of

Section 107 of IPC provides as to what constitute an abetment.

As is clear from the above referred judgments, the mens rea is

necessary to establish abetment.

9 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

7. The crime was registered on the report lodged by the

father of the deceased wife. The evidence of P.W.2, mother of

deceased wife shows that, the informant died in July, 2022 due to

Cancer. According to P.W. 2, mother and P.W.-3, sister of

deceased wife, the Appellant used to beat the deceased after

consuming liquor. The Appellant used to suspect the character of

the deceased wife. Their evidence shows that, two (2) to three

(3) years after the marriage, the deceased wife was brought home

by her father due to beating by the Appellant. The deceased wife

stayed with her parents house for two (2) to three (3) months.

The Appellant came with four (4) to five (5) persons and took the

deceased wife with him to the matrimonial house. According to

P.W. 2, mother of deceased, the Appellant also used to beat the

deceased children. The cross-examination of these two (2)

witnesses show material omissions. The omissions in the

evidence of P.W. 2, mother of deceased wife are proved through

P.W.-7, Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 4 who was

the relative of the Appellant and resident of the same village

where the deceased was residing at her matrimonial house after

the marriage shows that, the deceased wife used to take stress of

petty things and used to go her maternal home and the deceased 10 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

wife committed suicide in the fit of anger. The P.M. Reports of

the deceased wife and deceased children at Exh. 35, 36 and 37

show that, their bodies were well nourished and there were no

surface injuries.

8. The above discussed evidence on record falls short

of establishing the essential ingredients for the offences under

which the Appellant is convicted. The act of the Appellant going

and bringing the deceased wife to his home does indicate that, he

wanted to be with her. In the absence of injuries on the dead

bodies, and well nourished bodies, the evidence of beating is

required to be seen with doubt. The act of suicide, as is clear

from the above discussed evidence of P.W. 4, was the result of

anger. There is absolutely no evidence as to what happened

immediately before the suicide. Taking the prosecution evidence

as it is, the essential ingredients for the offences punishable under

Sections 498 and 306 of IPC are not made out. As the

prosecution's evidence falls short of establishing the charge, the

conviction and sentence is liable to be interfered with. Hence, the

following order:-

ORDER I) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

11 CRI.APEAL 222-2024-J.odt

II) The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur against the Appellant in

Sessions Case No. 57 of 2022, by the impugned judgment and

order dated 20/09/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.

III) The Appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable

under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

IV) The Appellant is behind the bars. He be set at liberty, if not

required in any other offence.

V) The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant, be refunded

to him.

VI) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Trial

Court.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]

B.T.K

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/04/2026 20:04:13