SURYABHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2001 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.666/1998, thereby acquitting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is of two kinds as defined under Explanations (a) and (b) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the charge in the instant case was framed under Explanation (a), which related to giving of illtreatement of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself or danger to life, limb or health of herself. He submits that other cruelty falling in second part of definition, that is, under Explanation (b) relates to harassment given with a view to compel the woman to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and in the instant case, neither the charge for cruelty falling under Explanation (b) was framed nor the evidence of prosecution witnesses disclosed commission of such harassment by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case the Additional Sessions Judge has found that the offence of abetment of suicide has not been proved and once the abetment of suicide has not been proved, the charge of cruelty of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide would also have held as not proved. He also submits that reliance placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a letter allegedly written by the deceased on 30th June, 1990 (Exh.36) in order to record a finding of cruelty is misplaced as seizure of this letter has not been proved satisfactorily and it appears that this letter has been planted later on in order to boost the prosecution case against the appellant. He also submits that in any case, the contents of the letter are not admissible in evidence because their handwriting has not been proved and also because of the fact that the contents do not disclose any such cause of death as can be said to have an intimate and proximate relation with the death of Vijaya. In support, he has placed his reliance upon the cases of Inderpal vs. State of M. P., 2001 10 SCC 736 and Bhairon Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 3 Crimes(SC) 199 .