Recently, the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC, holding that ordinary matrimonial quarrels cannot be construed as abetment of suicide unless the harassment is of such a grave degree that it leaves no option for the woman but to end her life. The case arose out of allegations of cruelty and abetment to suicide following the death of the appellant’s wife. The Court observed that "criminal law is not attracted by every quarrel within a marriage, the conduct must be of such intensity as to compel the woman to commit suicide."
The case concerned the appellant, the husband of the deceased, who was accused along with his father of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and thereby abetting her suicide. The deceased was married to the appellant and used to stay with him at the matrimonial home. The appellant would often be away grazing goats, and during this time, the deceased would visit her parental home and express grievances about her treatment at her in-laws' house.
She was reportedly taunted about her dark complexion and accused of not preparing food properly. Eventually, she went missing and was later found dead in a well. A panchnama was drawn up, and the FIR was registered based on a complaint made by the deceased’s mother. The chargesheet was filed under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The trial court convicted the husband but acquitted the father-in-law.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the suicide. It was contended that the instances cited by the witnesses were mere domestic quarrels, and not of the magnitude required to invoke Sections 498-A or 306 of the IPC. It was also submitted that there was no evidence suggesting any demand for dowry, and the allegations were based merely on the deceased's complexion and cooking abilities, which could not be construed as grave cruelty under law.
The Court, after reviewing the testimonies of material witnesses, including the deceased’s mother and relatives, found that although certain allegations of ill-treatment were made, such as taunts regarding the deceased’s complexion and cooking, they did not meet the threshold of cruelty as explained under Section 498-A IPC. It held, “So what the legislature contemplates is that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment.”
The Court further remarked that, “Even if the reasons for harassment are accepted, the harassment is not of such a high degree that the provisions of Section 498-A IPC are attracted. The evidence on record falls short of establishing the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC.”
Additionally, the Court noted that although the trial judge rightly rejected the defence that the death was accidental, the prosecution failed to prove the link between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn against the appellant.
Setting aside the conviction, the High Court held that the findings of the trial court were unsustainable in law. The Court observed that the basic principles and ingredients of Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC were overlooked by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court also directed that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
Case Title: Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1998
Coram: Justice S. M. Modak
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nasreen S. K. Ayubi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. R. S. Tendulkar
Picture Source :
