Gopinath Kachru Magare vs Satish Govind Bhole And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1532 Bom

Bombay High Court

Gopinath Kachru Magare vs Satish Govind Bhole And Others on 11 February, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:6007


                                                                  CriAppeal-775-2025
                                                -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2025

                Shri. Gopinath Kachru Magare,
                Age : 59 years, Occ : Labour,
                R/o: At Post Devgaon, Taluka Badnapur,
                District : Chh. Sambhajinagar.
                At Present Lane No.5, Prakash Nagar,
                Chh. Sambhajinagar.                       ... Applicant/Informant.

                     Versus

                1.   Shri. Satish Govind Bhole,
                     Age : 25 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                     R/o: Mahalpimpri,
                     Taluka and District Sambhajinagar.

                2.   Shri. Santosh Govind Bhole,
                     Age : 28 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                     R/o : Mahalpimpri,
                     Taluka and District Sambhajinagar.

                3.   Smt. Sulochana @ Sulabai Govind Bhole,
                     Age : 65 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                     R/o : Mahalpimpri,
                     Taluka and District Sambhajinagar.

                4.   Smt. Amrapali Santosh Bhole,
                     Age : 25 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                     R/o : Mahalpimpri,
                     Taluka and District Sambhajinagar.

                5.   The State of Maharashtra
                     Through Police Station Officer,
                     Chikalthana Police Station,
                     Sambhajinagar.                       ... Accused/Respondents

                                                  .....
                Mr. S. P. Ingle h/f Mr. Rahul M. Jade, Advocate for the Appellant.
                Mr. Imran Khan Guffar Khan Durrani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
                1 to 4.
                Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent No.5-State.
                                                  .....
                                                       CriAppeal-775-2025
                                   -2-


                         CORAM :         ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                         Reserved on         : 09.02.2026
                         Pronounced on       : 11.02.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. By invoking Section 372 of Cr.P.C., original complainant, on

whose report crime was registered for commission of offence under

Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B r/w 34 of IPC, is hereby assailing the

judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Sessions Case No. 91

of 2017.

2. In short, prosecution story in trial court is that, informant's

daughter, namely Neeta, was married to present respondent no.1 on

21.02.2011. There was proper treatment to Neeta for initial period of

one year, however, after delivery of girl child she was subjected to ill-

treatment. After birth of second girl child, ill-treatment was

aggravated. That, there was demand of Rs.50,000/- for construction

of house. Getting fed up of said ill-treatment, on 01.10.2016 Neeta

consumed poison and succumbed, followed by lodgment of complaint

by PW1 father resulting into registration of above crime for above

offence, and after chargesheet and trying accused, learned Additional CriAppeal-775-2025

Sessions Judge, by its judgment dated 30.08.2025, recorded a finding

that prosecution failed to bring home the charges and acquitted the

accused.

Original informant is the appellant herein, who questions the

legality and sustainability of the above judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that, there

was mental and physical cruelty on two counts, i.e. firstly, for

delivering girl children on both occasions. That, accused desired male

child. Secondly, after one year, there was demand of Rs.50,000/- for

construction of house. That, on both above counts, all accused

persons who are husband and in-laws, ill-treated deceased Neeta.

That, her suicide being within seven years of marriage, there were

charges of 304-B of IPC. That, prosecution had rested its case on the

evidence of four witnesses. However, said evidence has not been

correctly appreciated by the trial court even when the essential

ingredients for attracting the charges were available. Consequently,

he prays to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for original accused-respondent

herein would support the judgment of acquittal on the ground that, CriAppeal-775-2025

allegations being vague, omnibus and general in nature and there

being no independent corroboration to the version of informant and

further, as none of the ingredients for attracting Section 498-A were

available, learned trial court held the said charge to be not proved. He

further pointed out that, only allegation was of demand of

Rs.50,000/- for house, however informant himself has admitted in his

cross that accused had both, agricultural land as well as a house, and

therefore finding above allegations baseless and there being nothing

on record to show that there was abetment, according to him, learned

trial court further committed no error in acquitting the accused.

Resultantly, for want of merits, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. Re-analyzed and re-appreciated the evidence. As pointed out,

case of prosecution is rested on the testimonies of four witnesses i.e.

PW1 informant-father, PW2 informant's wife, PW3 pancha who has

not supported prosecution and PW4 Investigating Officer. The crucial

evidence is of PW1 and PW2. The sum and substance of their

evidence is as under :

PW1 deposed about marriage of his daughter with accused no.1 on 21.02.2011. According to him, for a period of one year, there was good treatment to his daughter. Further according to him, CriAppeal-775-2025

after delivery of girl child, accused persons gave ill-treatment to his daughter. After delivery of second girl child, on same reason there was torture. Then he stated that there was demand by accused to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for construction of house. Whenever his daughter visited, she reported above conduct. On 01.10.2016, news of admission of his daughter and her two daughters was received and doctor had declared all three dead.

He stated that, there were burn injuries to his daughter as well as on the person of her two daughters and therefore he lodged complaint.

While under cross, as pointed out, he has admitted that, accused persons were having their own agricultural land as well as house. He admitted that he did not file complaint anywhere earlier. He admitted that, his daughter never called on mobile phone. Rest is all denial.

PW2 Wife of PW1, also in her evidence at Exhibit 50 deposed that good treatment was meted out for only two to three months of marriage. According to her, after birth of second girl child ill- treatment commenced i.e. by raising demand of Rs.50,000/- for house and that her daughter, whenever came to the house for festivals, reported above the ill-treatment, and she finally deposed about getting the news on 01.10.2016 regarding hospitalization of her daughter and grand-daughters and they succumbing to the same.

While under cross, even this witness like her husband has admitted that accused had their own agricultural land and their CriAppeal-775-2025

own house and that their economical condition was sound. Rest is all denial

6. Before proceeding to analyze the above evidence, it would be

fruitful to refer to the settled legal position as regards to Section 498-

A of IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Manju Ram Kalita v.

State of Assam, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330, has clarified as to

what is meant by "cruelty" which is contemplated under Section 498-

A of IPC. It is held that, cruelty must be assessed contextually which is

distinct from its usage in other statutes. The germane of the

accusation which is expected to be established is that, the woman was

subjected to cruelty "continuously" or "persistently" or at least in close

proximity to the time of lodging complaint. There has to be willful

conduct to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury to her life, limb or health (mental and physical). It has to be

demonstrated that there was harassment with the view to coercing

her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand and harassment

was on account of failure to meet the same. The above propositions

are also echoed and reiterated in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

reported in 2025 INSC 1051.

CriAppeal-775-2025

7. Here, from above substantive evidence of informant and his

wife, it is emerging that allegations of ill-treatment are attributed to

all four accused without specifying their roles or the form of ill-

treatment and what happened when. They have merely stated that,

after delivery of girl child accused gave ill-treatment. But what was

the form of ill-treatment and by which of the accused, is apparently

not stated by them. As regards to allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/-

for construction of house, while under cross, they both have admitted

that accused to be already having agricultural land as well as their

own house. Therefore, as regards to cruelty is concerned, above is the

only evidence which is apparently vague and general.

8. So far as charge under Section 306 is concerned, for attracting

the same, it was incumbent upon prosecution to show that accused

abetted or induced the commission of suicide. Law to that extent is

repeatedly reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous cases,

and the few cases which can be named are Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as well as M. Mohan v. The

State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

MANU/SC/0161/2011, wherein standard of "instigation" is

elaborately dealt and discussed.

CriAppeal-775-2025

Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Hon'ble Apex

Court has reinforced "proximate trigger" doctrine emphasizing that

there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the

conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment,

without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the

charge.

In the case in hand, marriage is shown to be of February 2011.

Suicide is shown to be committed in October 2016 i.e. after five years

of marriage. However, though unnatural death is within seven years

of marriage, there is no evidence to show that accused persons

abetted the said suicide. There is nothing in this direction.

9. As regards to offence of Section 304-B IPC is concerned, law is

fairly settled that, it is duty of prosecution to substantiate that soon

before the death, there was harassment or ill-treatment with regard to

dowry demand.

In Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, while considering case under

Section 304-B, cruelty has to be proved during close proximity of time CriAppeal-775-2025

of death and it should be continuous and such continuous

harassment, physical or mental, by accused, should make life of

deceased miserable, which may force her to commit suicide.

In State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal , (2013) 15 SCC 269, the

Hon'ble Apex court has observed that the period which can come

within the term "soon before" cannot be put within the four corners of

time-frame. It is left to the court for its determination depending upon

the facts and circumstances of each case. On facts, though in the past

there was cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand,

yet there was no evidence on record to come to a definite conclusion

that soon before her death the cruelty and harassment which the

deceased suffered was for or in connection with any demand of

dowry, in such situation the presumption under Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act also cannot be drawn.

Likewise, in Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana , (2014) 9 SCC

645, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, as per definition of

"dowry death" in S. 304-B IPC and wording in presumptive S.113-B,

Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both

the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been "soon

before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in CriAppeal-775-2025

connection with the demand of dowry". The Hon'ble Apex Court

further observed that the proximity test has to be applied keeping in

view the facts and circumstances of each case and the facts must show

existence of a proximate live link between effect of cruelty based on

dowry demand and death of the victim.

Similarly, in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there must be live link and

proximity between cruelty emanating from dowry demand and death

of woman. The words "soon before her death" indicate that there

must be a live link between the cruelty emanating from a dowry

demand and the death of a young married woman, as is sought to be

indicated by the words "soon before her death", to bring Section 304-

B into operation; the live link will obviously be broken if the said

cruelty does not persist in proximity to the untimely and abnormal

death. It cannot be confined in terms of time. The demand for dowry

should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the

continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide

under Section 306 IPC.

10. The germane of above provision is that soon before death, i.e.

in close proximity, deceased must have been shown to be subjected to CriAppeal-775-2025

cruelty in the backdrop of dowry demand and consequently, death

must have been unnatural one. In the present case, evidence to that

extent is also missing and therefore, both offences of Sections 306

and 304-B of IPC fail.

11. Perused the impugned judgment. There is no corroboration to

the testimony of informant. No independent witness has been

examined except informant and his wife. Their evidence is also full of

general and vague allegations on the point of ill-treatment and

demand. Consequently, there is no fault on the part of the trial court

in acquitting the accused. No case being made out on merits,

following order is passed :

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre