Allowed

Prashant Uttam Khare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jul 2010APPA/652/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the High Court held that material on record was insufficient to infer that the applicant abetted the deceased's suicide. Relying on Gangula Mohan Reddy, the court found lack of positive instigation and granted bail to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on execution of Personal Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.

Prashant Uttam Khare Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 652 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2010

¶3

Prashant Uttam Khare...Applicant
Vs.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶5

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for Applicant
Mrs. P.P. Bhosale -APP for State

¶6

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1.Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and

¶9

the Learned APP for the State.

¶10

2.The Applicant has been convicted for the offence

¶11

punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal

¶12

Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and

¶13

to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to suffer

¶14

R.I. for one month. He has also been convicted for

¶15

the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian

¶16

Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six years

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

run concurrently.

¶20

3.The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted

¶21

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

¶22

asked her not to examine the male patients. Both the

¶23

Applicant and the deceased were doctors. It is also
submitted that there is no material on record to

¶24

¶25

indicate that the Applicant had demanded dowry as
alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that the

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

that immediately within six months after the marriage,

¶30

the Applicant and other family members of the
Applicant had driven her out of the house and she had

¶31

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.

¶32

5.In the present case the appeal is admitted. The

¶33

appeal is not likely to come up for hearing

¶34

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

¶35

deceased in the canteen of the hospital where they
were working and, thereafter, her dead body was found

¶36

floating in the river after four days. It is quite

¶37

well settled position in law that the burden is on

¶38

the prosecution to prove that the husband and the
family members had acted in such a manner that the

¶39

deceased had no option but to commit suicide. It is

¶40

also held that the Court should be extremely careful

¶41

in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose

¶42

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:

¶43

�20. Abetment involves a mental process of

¶44

instigating a person or intentionally aiding

¶45

a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,

¶46

conviction cannot be sustained.

¶47

¶48

21.The intention of the Legislature and the

¶49

ratio of the cases decided by this Court is

¶50

clear that in order to convict a person

¶51

under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear

¶52

mens rea to commit the offence. It also

¶53

requires an active act or direct act which

¶54

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.�

¶55

6.In my view, taking into consideration the facts

¶56

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.

¶57

7.The Applicant shall be released on bail on

¶58

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.

¶59

8. Application is disposed of.

Prashant Uttam Khare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Uttam Khare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Aziz Merchant @ Nadeem Chikna and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Gulam Hussein Mohd. Meghu Shaikh @ Nana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun @ Navajali Murasali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Anchor Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Gautam Enterprises and Ors.

Shridhr Laxman Chennuri Vs the Union of India and Anr.