1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 652 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2010 Prashant Uttam Khare ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for Applicant Mrs. P.P. Bhosale -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six years 2 and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for three months. The Trial Court has directed that both the substantial sentences should run concurrently. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that within six months of the marriage between the Applicant and deceased Shaila, she committed suicide by jumping in the river and her dead body was found after 4 to 5 days. An FIR was registered in August, 2006 and the Trial Court had convicted the Applicant. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that the Applicant was responsible for the instigation and abetment of suicide. He submitted that the only material on record regarding harassment by the Applicant was that he had suspected her character and asked her not to examine the male patients. Both the Applicant and the deceased were doctors. It is also submitted that there is no material on record to 3 indicate that the Applicant had demanded dowry as alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that the police had also seized the diary of the deceased and chit which was written by her. It was urged that the Sessions Court did not accept the note and diary written by the deceased. It was further urged that the prosecution had not examined some important witnesses and, therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the Sessions Court. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (2)Bom. C.R. (Cri)85 in support of the said submission. 4. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, relied on the judgment and order of the Trial Court. She submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show that the Applicant was responsible for instigating the deceased in committing suicide and 4 that immediately within six months after the marriage, the Applicant and other family members of the Applicant had driven her out of the house and she had no option but to commit suicide. She has also pointed out the note which was written prior to the death of the deceased and also the noting on the chit which indicates that the Applicant and his family members were harassing the deceased. 5. In the present case the appeal is admitted. The appeal is not likely to come up for hearing immediately in near future. The witnesses which have been examined by the prosecution have stated that there was a quarrel between the Applicant and the deceased in the canteen of the hospital where they were working and, thereafter, her dead body was found floating in the river after four days. It is quite well settled position in law that the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the husband and the family members had acted in such a manner that the 5 deceased had no option but to commit suicide. It is also held that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding out whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. The Court also has to find out whether the victim while committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic violence. This Court in the case of Gangula M. Reddy (supra) has taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 and 21: 20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 6 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 6. In my view, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is difficult to say that there was sufficient material on record for the purpose of drawing an inference that the Applicant abetted the commission of suicide by Shaila. The Applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. 7. The Applicant shall be released on bail on 7 execution of P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in two months. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)