In all fairness, the Bombay High Court while treading the right path in the right direction at the right time in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1998 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AS:30887 that was pronounced as recently as on July 11, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has acquitted a husband while tilting the scale of justice in his favour mandating most explicitly that taunting his wife for her dark complexion does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

To put it differently, we thus see that the Bombay High Court deemed it fit to set aside the conviction of a husband who had been found guilty by a lower court of abetting his wife’s suicide and subjecting her to cruelty. It must be laid bare that this leading case stemmed initially from a conviction in 1995 in which the Trial Court had sentenced the husband to five years in prison under Sections 498A ( cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC.

At the very outset, this pragmatic, persuasive, progressive, peculiar and pertinent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SM Modak sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth succinctly in para 1 that, “Heard learned appointed Advocate Ms. Ayubi for the Appellant and learned APP Ms. Tendulkar for the Respondent-State.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case laying bare that, “The present Appellant and father-in-law of the deceased were prosecuted for harassing Prema, and they have abetted her suicide. Prema is the wife of Accused no. 1 and the daughter-in-law of Accused No. 2. The charges were under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 was acquitted, whereas Accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence is:

1. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. For the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence is rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 3 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment, postulating precisely that:

“In all, prosecution examined five witnesses. There are certain admitted documents. They are evidence and documents. With their assistance, I find that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. On record, though Prema was being taunted on account of her complexion, I do not think that it will fall within the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Even conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, because the prosecution could not prove the suicide being the outcome of the harassment. I will give reasons for my decision.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 revealing that:

“Prema was married to accused no. 1 in the year 1993, whereas the incident took place in the month of January 1998. The expenses of the marriage were borne by both the sides. Prema and Accused No. 1 were illiterate. Accused No. 1 used to graze the she goats. She used to stay along with Accused No. 1 at the matrimonial house. He used to be away for a long time. Prema used to come to her mother’s house and she used to disclose about harassment. Finally, she put an end to her life by jumping into a well. She went missing from the home. Her dead body was found in a well at village Degaon, Satara. The panchnama was prepared on 24.01.1995.”

Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 5 that:

“The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of PW No. 2. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Both the accused have denied the commission of the offence. According to them, it was accidental death.”

As we see, the Bench mentions in para 6 that:

“PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the material witnesses. The deceased had met them and shared her matrimonial experiences. It is an admitted fact that the reason for the harassment is not a demand for dowry. As per the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, if there is a demand for dowry and consequent harassment, it falls under Explanation (b). This is not applicable. There can be harassment for other reasons. It is covered under Explanation (b). It contemplates such harassment must be of such a degree so as to compel the woman to put an end to her life.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7:

“So what the legislature contemplates is that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from the matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take the 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 reasons for the harassment are revealed from the evidence of PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They are as follows:

1. Accused no. 1 was taunting her by saying she is of dark complexion and that he does not like her. He was telling her that he would perform a second marriage.
2. Accused no. 2 was complaining about Prema's capacity to prepare food. She was not preparing food properly. This was told to her mother, Parubai, when Prema had gone to her house.
3. Chaturabai, the mother-in-law of the sister of the deceased Prema, met her at the village of Chinchner. At that time, Prema expressed her feelings by weeping and said the accused were ill-treating and beating her.
4. PW No. 4, Bhimrao, is the brother of PW No. 1, Parubai. He had met Prema at her matrimonial house. Even during the festivals of Diwali and Panchami, both of them had met. The deceased informed him about the harassment by her husband and father-in-law. The reasons were her dark complexion and not preparing food properly.

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 8 holding that:

“If we consider all these reasons, they can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel Prema to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.”

Notably, the Bench points out in para 9 observing rightly that:

“I have read the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court is fully aware about the Explanation-(a) to Section 498-A: the willful conduct must be of a high degree. However, when the evidence of the three witnesses is considered by the trial Court, there is no finding that the harassment is of a high degree. There cannot be such a finding simply for the reason that even if the reasons for harassment are admitted, no case will fall under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The findings need to be set aside.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench then specifies in para 10 holding that:

“The trial Court has discussed the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Suicide itself is not an offence. If someone abets it, then only it becomes a punishable offence. So, abetment and suicide both need to be proved. In this case, though the accused took a defence about an accident by falling into the well, the learned Judge rightly observed that it cannot be accepted because no articles were found in or around the well. There is other reason to believe that it was suicide, but the prosecution could not prove the connection between the harassment and the act of suicide. There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion. The judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The learned Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections.”

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then directs and holds in para 11 that:

“In no case can the judgment be sustained. It needs to be interfered with. The appeal needs to be allowed. Hence, the order:

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara dated 31.07.1998 in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1995 is set aside.
3. The Appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Fine, if any, be returned to the Appellant.

Further, the Bench then holds in para 12 stating that, “The Appeal is disposed of.”

Finally, the Bench then directs and holds in para 13 that, “The learned appointed Advocate be paid fees as per the Rules.”

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh