Bombay High Court
Babulal Pokhraj Shah vs Ashok Rupchand Jain And Others on 11 February, 2026
HEMANT
2026:BHC-AS:7670
CHANDERSEN H C SHIV
SHIV
APP306.99.DOC
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.02.13
19:43:42 +0300 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.306 OF 1999
Ashok Roopchand Jain
299/18, Miranda Chawl,
N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 028
....Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Mahim
police station
2. Babulal Pokhraj Shah
3. Sairibai Babulal Shah
Both residing at
Zenda Bazar, Bajar Peth,
Vasai, Dist. Thane .... Respondents
WITH
REVISION APPLICATION NO.174 OF 1999
1. Babulal Pokhraj Shah
Age 51 years
residing at Zenda Bazar,
Bajar Peth,
Vasai, Dist. Thane ... Applicant
Versus
1. Ashok Roopchand Jain
Age 32 years.
2. Smt. Badamiben Rupchand Jain
Age 70, Both residing
at Miranda Chawl,
N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 028
Vasai, Dist. Thane
... Respondents
3. State of Maharashtra
Page 1 of 32
11th February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 :::
H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.499 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Versus
1. Ashok Roopchand Jain
Age 32 years.
2. Smt. Badamiben Rupchand Jain
Age 70, Both residing
at Miranda Chawl,
N. C. Kelkar Road, Dadar,
Mumbai 400 028
Vasai, Dist. Thane ... Respondents
Mr. Siddharth Jagushte with Mr. Krishna Haritwal for the Appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.306 of 1999.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2oth NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:(PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) :-
1. These Appeals and Revision Application have been filed against the same Judgment and Order dated 21/04/1999, in Sessions Case No.123 of 1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. In the said case, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.499 of 1999, (Original Accused Nos.1 and 2 -"A-1 and A-2", for short), were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Finally, A-1 was convicted under Section Page 2 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC 498A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- i/d. to suffer RI for one year.
However, the A-1 was acquitted under Sections 304B, 306 and 34 IPC and the A-2 was acquitted of the entire charge.
Criminal Appeal No.306/1999 is filed by the A-1 impugning his conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC. Criminal Appeal No.499/1999 is filed by the State and Criminal Revision Application No.174/1999 is filed by the original informant questioning the acquittal of both accused for the said offences. The A-2 has expired during pendency of the matters. Hence, the Appeal and the Revision against the acquittal have been abated against the A-2.
2. Heard Mr Jagushte, the learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr Tanveer Khan, the learned APP for the Respondent State. The original informant, who was present during hearing, was effectively represented by the learned APP.
3. The prosecution case was that deceased-Kavita was the daughter of first informant Mr Babulal Shah (PW-1). A-1 was the husband and A-2 was mother-in-law of Kavita. The A-1 and Kavita had got married on 20/05/1990. After the marriage Kavita and both the accused used to reside together at Miranda Chawl, Dadar. On 19/07/1993, at about 9.45 am, Kavita set herself on fire. Immediately, she was taken to the hospital. PW-9 Balasaheb Kedare, then PSI visited the room where Kavita had immolated to herself and recorded the Spot Panchnama (Exh.21). By then Kavita had succumbed to her injuries. Her body was sent for the post mortem examination.
Page 3 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC 4. PW-9 recorded the statement-cum-report (Exh.10) of
PW-1. Therein, PW-1 had narrated that Kavita had got married with A-1 on 20/05/1990. In the marriage, PW-1 had presented gold and silver ornaments to Kavita and A-1. After the marriage, Kavita went to cohabit in the family of the accused. However, A-1 usually did not allow Kavita (PW-1) to attend any functions. Even when she was permitted to go, she was required to return within a fixed time. The accused would threaten Kavita that if she failed to return on time, she would not be allowed to enter the house and would be subjected to mental and physical harassment. A-1 also did not allow Kavita to wear or use her gold ornaments. At the time of the marriage, some gifts were given to Kavita's sister-in-law (Nanand), but the accused felt the gifts inadequate and they used to taunt Kavita on that account.
Whenever Kavita used to visit at PW-1, she used to tell about her ill-treatment to PW-1, his Uncle-Kantilal, wife-Sahiribai and his friends. Therefore, from time to time, PW-1 used to visit at Kavita's house and give an understanding to both accused and settle the matter. However, PW-1 did not file a police complaint in that regard because he had an apprehension that A-1 will beat, abandon Kavita and cause her mental stress. In that regard, Kavita never wrote any letter because A-1 was against her writing letters, making phone calls, or meeting her relatives. As a result, her family did not receive any information about her well-being. Even if by chance a phone call was made at the residence of A-1 by PW-1 or others in his family, the A-1 used to beat Kavita. Therefore, Kavita used to tell PW-1 not to make phone calls to her. After delivery of the first child, Kavita was sent to matrimonial home with clothes, gold and silver ornaments given as gifts. However, A-2 felt those gifts inadequate, therefore, she Page 4 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC had mentally harassed Kavita from time to time. It was alleged that about one year prior to the incident, Kavita had told PW-1 that she was being asked to bring money from him to purchase a tenement. However, when she refused to fulfil the said demand, she was beaten up.
On 19/07/1993, at about 9.45 am, A-1 phoned to PW-1 and told him that Kavita was missing. After 5 to 10 minutes, again A-1 called PW-1 and told that Kavita had sustained burns. PW-1 and his family members went to K.E.M. hospital but by then Kavita had expired. It was alleged that both the accused subjected Kavita to mental and physical cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide.
4.1 The police registered the Report (Exh.10) at FIR bearing C.R. No.510/1993. PW-10 Dattatray Dal, then Police Inspector conducted the investigation during which he recorded the statement of the witnesses from time to time. He had searched in the room where Kavita and the accused used to reside. One letter (Exh.16) and diary (Exh.16-A) containing certain matter in the hand writing of Kavita were found in that room. PW-10 seized the same and recorded the Panchnama (Exh.33), accordinlgy. He then sent the seized articles to the FSL for the purpose of chemical analysis (C.A.) and collected the post-mortem report etc. Investigation transpired that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected Kavita to cruelty to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand of dowry and also harassed her. Thus, they abetted her to commit suicide. Therefore, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 34 IPC.
Page 5 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC
5. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses which included Uncle of Kavita, her friends, neighbour, spot pancha, medical officers and investigating officers.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Therein, they had denied the incriminating circumstances. The A-1 examined himself on oath (Exh.51). Defence of the accused was of denial and false implication.
6. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in the light of rival arguments, the learned Judge of trial Court held the A-1 guilty of subjecting Kavita to cruelty as described in Explanation (a) of Section 498A. Accordingly, the Judge convicted and sentenced the A-1 as stated in paragraph 1 above and acquitted the accused of the other charges. Hence, these Appeals and the Revision.
7. Mr. Jagushte, the learned counsel for the Appellant challenged the conviction on two counts. Firstly, he submitted that there are material omissions, contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the relatives and the friends of Kavita. Therefore, their testimonies are not consistent, cogent and reliable to prove the charge of the offence of cruelty under Sections 498A and 34 IPC. His second submission is that whatever evidence was produced by the prosecution, the same is not sufficient to prove the charge. That apart, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, A-1 coupled with Kavita's letters (Exhs. 14, 15 & 16) collectively indicates that Kavita had no experience of doing household work. She, therefore, found it difficult to do the said work up to the satisfaction of A-2. This led to trivial domestic disputes Page 6 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC between Kavita and A-2. Kavita was of emotional and sensitive nature. She, therefore, could not manage with that situation. As a result, Kavita committed suicide. In her last suicide letter (Exh.16), Kavita had specifically stated that both the accused were not responsible for her suicide. Unless, the offence of cruelty is proved, the offence of Sections 306 and 304B IPC cannot be held against the accused. He has submitted that since the evidence as to the cruelty is lacking, the accused cannot be convicted only with the aid of presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act. However, the trial Court convicted the A-1 for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in law and there is no scope to entertain the Appeal and the Revision challenging the acquittal for the rest offences. To buttress these submissions, Mr Jagushte has cited following reported decisions. I have carefully gone through the same.
(i) Charan Singh @ Chanranjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2024) 13 SCC 649;
(ii) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Madan Gopal , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 191;
(iii) Purushottam Sitaram Bakal and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8225; and
(iv) Namdeo s/o Laxman Bansode Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Cri. Revision Application No. 344 of 2004.
8. In reply, Mr Khan, the learned A.P.P. emphatically submitted there is consistent evidence by PW-1 to PW-4 that immediately after the marriage, Kavita was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by both the accused and she was compelled to do the Page 7 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC entire domestic work. This evidence is supported with the letters written by Kavita and the medical papers which has proved that Kavita had sustained a head injury by the A-1. Therefore, the trial Court held the A-1 guilty of the said offence of Section 498-A. He submitted that said witnesses have also deposed that Kavita was treated with cruelty by both the accused to coerce her to fulfil their unlawful demand of dowry. Said cruelty was started immediately after the marriage and continued till her death. Kavita could not tolerate the physical and mental cruelty and therefore she committed suicide within seven years of the marriage. In this background, it was legitimate to draw the presumptions provided in the Evidence Act. The Appellant has failed to rebut said presumptions. Thus, the prosecution has proved that both the accused were also guilty of the offence of Sections 306, 304B and 34 IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted them of the said charge and the A-2 of the offence of Section 498A. This infirmity is on account of the failure of the trial Court to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order to the extent of said acquittal is unlawful, and setting aside the same, the A-1 may be convicted under Sections 306, 304B and 34 IPC.
9. To appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act would be required. The same are extracted herein below:-
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Page 8 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
-- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
"304B. Dowry death.-- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Page 9 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC
113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.-- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death-- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
10. The defence has not disputed that at the time of the incident Kavita and both the accused used to reside jointly at the Miranda Chawl and that, on 19/07/1993, at about 8.45 AM, Kavita had committed suicide by setting herself on fire in the said room. Even otherwise this fact has been well established on the strength of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However, considering the facts and circumstances, reference to the relevant evidence is needed.
Page 10 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC
11. PW-5 Bhushan Limaye was a Chartered Accountant who had his office on rent in the Miranda Chawl. The family of the accused used to reside in the room adjacent to his office. At the time of the incident, PW-7 Bhola Shukla was present at his work place, (moulding shop), situated opposite to Miranda Chawl. Cumulatively, the testimonies of PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 indicate that immediately after Kavita set herself on fire, PW-7 went to the said room hearing her screaming and broke open the door of that room.
PW-9 then visited at the spot and recorded the Spot Panchnama (Exh.21) in the presence of panch PW-5 Bhushan Limaye and the co- panch. The kerosene can (Art-X), match box (Art-X1) and wooden plank (Art-X2) were found in the said room which PW-9 had seized during the course of the Spot Panchnama. This evidence is not put to sufficient challenge in the cross-examination and therefore cannot be brushed aside.
12. PW-6 Dr. Deepak Scindia, the then Registrar at KEM Hospital, deposed that on 19/07/1993, at about 10.42 AM, when Kavita was brought to the KEM hospital. Dr. Mahendra Kulkarni examined her and noted that she had 98 to 99% superficial to deep burns. There was wound over the left eyebrow, measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. She was conscious but unable to give statement. He deposed that if somebody assaulted with blunt weapon, the aforesaid wound over the eyebrow was possible. In this regard, PW-6 has referred the medical case papers (Exh.23 colly.).
13. PW-8 Dr. Ramesh Rane has testified that he and Dr. Vinod Gupta were working in the same department at K.E.M. Hospital. Therefore, he was acquainted with the handwriting of Page 11 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC Dr.Gupta. The post-mortem examination on dead body of Kavita was conducted by Dr. Vinod Gupta. The post-mortem report (Exh.26) is in the handwriting of Dr. Vinod Gupta and it bears his signature. He deposed that Kavita was admitted in the hospital on 19/07/1993, at about 10.42 AM, with the history of sustaining suicidal burn as she herself had poured Kerosene on her person and set to self on fire. There were following external injuries on her body :-
1) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. horizontally placed 1.5 cm. above medical and of left eye. In his opinion, the age of the lacerated wound may be within two days. This injury was possible due to assault by means of an iron bar.
2) 90-95% superficial to deep burns covering entire body except both sclerae and a small portion over back of abdomen.
13.1 On internal examination there were following injuries :-
1) Ecchymosis of scalp under the lacerated wound (Ecchymosis means bleed spots surrounding the wound.
2) Skull : was intact.
3) Brain congested and edematous. There was intracerebral haemorrhege of left frontal lobe.
4) Lungs edema-tous at base. Pericardium & its cavity.
Heart was filled with dark clotted-blood.
PW-8 deposed that the final cause of the death was complications due to 90-95% thermal burn injuries, which were sufficient to cause death Page 12 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC in ordinary course of nature. He deposed that intra cerebral hemorrhage of left frontal lobe is possible due to assault with substance or fall on the hard surface. The brain congestion may be due to the burns and or lacerated wounds. Intra cerebral hemorrhage is not possible due to burns. Death can be caused due to cerebral hemorrhage of left frontal lobe and brain congestion also. But according to him it would take time for the patient's death. Lastly, he had referred to the medical papers of Kavita (Exh.23 colly). This evidence of PW-8 is corroborated with the post-mortem report. Therefore, cannot be disbelieved. Thus, it has been proved that Kavita had died due to the burns.
14. Now turning to the case in hand. Mainly, on the strength of the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 and the letters (Exhs.14 & 15) written by Kavita to PW-3, the prosecution has claimed that, immediately after the marriage till her death, Kavita was subjected to mental and physical cruelty to coerce her to do the domestic work and to fulfil the unlawful demands of dowry allegedly made by A-1 and A-2, said cruelty was caused soon before her death, and ultimately, it led to her unnatural death by suicide.
15. In this regard, PW-1 has deposed that the accused had demanded 70 Tolas of gold and he had given 35 Tolas of gold ornaments including surplus. Hence, both the accused used to harass Kavita on account of giving lesser amount of the gold. PW-3 has deposed that she had got married in the year 1991 and was residing at Agashi Chawl Peth, at Vasai, Taluka Virar. She deposed that Kavita had visited her place at Vasai. At that time, Kavita had told her that the A-2 used to harass her saying that, she was given 70 Tolas of gold Page 13 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC in her marriage. PW-3 has deposed that the A-2 used to taunt Kavita that her parents gave her 70 Tolas of gold and she had also given sufficient amount of gold to her daughters and that, Kavita was the only daughter of her parents but she brought less amount of gold.
However in his Report (Exh.10), PW-1 has not stated that the accused had demanded 70 Tolas of gold and he had given 35 Tolas of gold ornaments including surplus, hence, both the accused used to harass Kavita on account of giving lesser amount of the gold; and that, he had told Kavita to bear with the accused and he would provide the ornaments and amount as would be possible for him. These omissions have been proved by PW-9 who had recorded the Report. Admittedly, the marriage of was solemnized in 1990. Kavita died in 1993. However, it was not the case of PW-1 that in the year 1991, both the accused had demanded the 7o Tolas of gold. According to PW-1 both the accused used to harass Kavita on account of giving lesser amount of the gold. But, PW-3 deposed that Kavita had complained that the A-2 used to harass her saying that, she was given 70 Tolas of gold in her marriage. Moreover, said harassment was not explained by PW-1 and PW-3. The PW-4 has not deposed that Kavita was harassed on account of not fulfilling the demand of 70 Tolas of gold. PW-2 was the real brother of PW-1. Yet, PW-2 has not deposed about the demand of 70 Tolas of the gold. On the contrary, according to PW-2, they had given the 35 Tolas of gold, some silver ornaments and cash as per their custom. Meaning, said valuables and the cash were not demanded by the accused nor it was the case of the prosecution.
15.1 In addition, PW-1 deposed that Kavita had told him that the accused (A-1) was demanding Rs.8,00,000/- as A-1 wanted to Page 14 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC purchase a tenement. But he had refused to give the said amount, therefore, Kavita was assaulted by both the accused. However, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is not mentioned in the Report and its an omission. Secondly, PW-1 has not deposed as to exactly when said amount was demanded by the A-1 and when A-1 had assaulted Kavita on account of not fulfilling the said demand of Rs.8,00,000/-.
The testimony of PW-1 as to the said demand was supported by PW-2. In this regard PW-2 deposed that on 18/07/1993, at about 12 noon, Kavita had visited at their place accompanied with her servant. However, A-1 had instructed her to return by 5.00 PM. He deposed that, on that occasion, first Kavita had gone to the hospital as her father was admitted there and thereafter she had come to his place. At that time, Kavita had told them that the A-1 wanted to purchase a flat worth Rs.8,00,000/- and the accused were demanding money and they told her to bring that money from them. He deposed that they had told Kavita that the atmosphere in house was disturbed due to the surgery of her father, however, they would consider the demand and pay the money. He deposed that Kavita had informed them that she was assaulted by A-1 and was forced to demand money from them. However, this entire narration is missing in the Report (Exh.10) filed by PW-1. Considering PW-1 and PW-2 were real brothers, it was expected that after the death of Kavita PW-2 would disclose the aforesaid to PW-1 and accordingly, PW-1 would state in the Report (Exh.10). That apart, in his previous statement before the police PW-2 had not stated that Kavita had told them that the A-1 wanted to purchase a flat worth Rs.8,00,000/-; that, the accused were demanding the money and they had assured Kavita that they would Page 15 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC pay the money subsequently. PW-2 has also not deposed as to when and how Kavita was assaulted for not fulfilling that demand.
PW-3 has deposed that Kavita had visited her in May 1993. At that time Kavita had told her that A-1 was demanding her to bring money from her parents to purchase a tenement. Kavita had expressed her objection for the said demand on the premise that enough had already been given at the time of marriage. However, in the cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted that she had not stated in her statement before the police that Kavita had visited her in May 1993; that, at that time, Kavita had told her that A-1 was demanding her to bring money from her parents to purchase a tenement; that, Kavita had expressed her objection for the said demand on the premise that already enough was given at the time of marriage; and that, Kavita had told her that she had no desire to live. PW-3 has admitted that after she gave her statement to the police, she had realised that she did not state several facts before the police regarding the harassment of Kavita by her husband and the mother-in-law, which was told to her by Kavita from time to time. PW-3 admitted that though she felt that she should inform about said omission to the police, she could not visit the police station on account of her child being small.
15.2 PW-3 has deposed that both the Accused used to harass her as they were not given the washing machine. In support of this assertion, PW-4 has testified that Kavita had told her that a quarrel had occurred between her husband and mother-in-law and her as her husband had demanded a washing machine which PW-1 had promised Page 16 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC to provide them but he failed to do so on time. Afterwards, said demand was fulfilled.
However the said evidence as to demand of the washing machine is not reliable. Because, neither the Report (Exh.10) mentions about the said demand nor PW-1 and PW-2 have so deposed. Secondly, the list of the marriage articles (Exh.12) shows that various articles including a washing machine were given as gift to Kavita in her marriage. There is no evidence that the washing machine was given as dowry pursuant to the demand made by the accused.
15.3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has rightly held there was no evidence to prove that since her marriage and soon before her unnatural/suicidal death, Kavita was subjected to cruelty by A-1 and A-2 to coerce her to fulfil their unlawful demand of dowry. As such, no case falling under Explanation ( b) of Section 498A was made out. No doubt, Kavita died within 7 years of the marriage. However, in the absence of the evidence to establish the cruelty stated in said Explanation (b), there is no scope to draw the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act. As a result, the charge of the offence of Section 304B of IPC also cannot be held against the accused.
16. Now let us see whether the prosecution has established that the cruelty caused to Kavita was of the nature as described in Explanation (a) of Section 498A, or not. In order to prove this form of the cruelty, PW-1 has testified that the accused used to pick up quarrels on flimsy grounds, taunt and harass Kavita. This was disclosed to them by Kavita whenever she had visited them and sometimes on phone. However, Kavita would not make such Page 17 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC complaints on telephone and she had told them not to make phone call quite often as it was not liked by both accused. Kavita used to inform (about said cruelty) to her mother and Uncle - Kantilal Shah. PW-1 deposed that he had not seen that Kavita had worn the ornaments given by him even when she had attended the marriage of his son. At the time of his son's marriage, Kavita was not allowed to come at his place. She had directly come to the place of marriage and was taken to the matrimonial house from there itself. At that time Kavita was weeping.
But, in the Report (Exh.10) PW-1 has not stated that, the accused used to harass Kavita by picking up quarrels on flimsy grounds; that, Kavita was not sent to his house at the time of the marriage of Vijay and she was directly taken to her matrimonial home; that, Kavita had not worn any ornaments at the time of the marriage of his son Vijay; and that, Kavita used to complain on phone about her harassment by the accused. Moreover, the said evidence of PW-1 on the point of the cruelty is vague and is of no avail to the prosecution because it is not explaining the nature of the bashment that Kavita had disclosed to him.
16.1 PW-2 deposed that whenever Kavita used to visit at their place, she used to tell them that both the accused used to harass her by picking up quarrels on trivial instances. The A-1 used to assault her.
17. One more important witness PW-3 has deposed that Kavita was residing near her mother's house. PW-3 has deposed that after the marriage, Kavita had come to Vasai at her mother's place. At that time, she had met with Kavita at her mother's place. During that Page 18 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC meeting, Kavita had told her that some months after the marriage, she alongwith A-1, his family members, her parents and family members had gone to their family deity, where some quarrel had taken place between both families and since then A-1 was harassing her. However, this evidence of PW-3 is not sufficient to understand the reason and nature of the quarrel as well as the nature of the harassment meeted to Kavita on account of said quarrel. Moreover, PW-1 and PW-2, both the close family members have not deposed about any such quarrel when the families had vistied the deity nor about the harassment related to that quarrel. That apart, according to PW-4, said quarel was on account of not providing the washing machine but said item was already supplied as the marriage gift.
17.1 PW-3 deposed after that meeting she had received a letter from Kavita, therein Kavita had mentioned that A-1 used to abuse and harass her physically and mentally. The testimony of PW-3 indicates that, she had got married in the year 1991 and was residing at Agashi Chawl Peth, at Vasai, Taluka Virar. She deposed that Kavita had visited her place at Vasai. At that time, Kavita had told her that A-1 was not allowing her to go anywhere and even to her mother's place and she was required to do whatever he told her. The A-1 used to come home drunk and assault her. PW-3 deposed that Kavita used to tell her about the mental and physical harassment caused to her by A-1. Kavita told her that she was so much harassed by A-1 and A-2 that she had no desire to live. In this regard, PW-3 has referred the letters written by Kavita, one dated 23/03/1991 and another undated (Exhs.14 & 15).
In support of this testimony, PW-4 has deposed that she was working at Lower Parel, therefore, she used to visit Kavita at Page 19 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC Matunga. She also used to talk with Kavita on phone. Kavita used to tell her that she was being harassed and ill-treated by A-1 and A-2. PW-4 deposed that in January 1993, when she was in office, Kavita had phoned her. At that time, Kavita was bitterly crying and asked her to come at her place. PW-4 deposed that she told Kavita that it was not possible to leave the office. However, she visited Kavita on the same evening. At that time, Kavita was crying and she told that A-1 had consumed liquor and assaulted her. PW-4 deposed that she told Kavita that she would inform her parents about said harassment. Thereupon, Kavita told her not inform about said harassment to her parents, otherwise, she would not tell anything to her. PW-4 deposed that in the month of May (1993) when Kavita had come to Vasai, she had visited Kavita at her house. At that time, Kavita had told her that she was being harassed by A-1 and A-2 and she was not happy.
17.2 The aforesaid evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is very consistent on the point of mental and physical cruelty caused to Kavita by the A-1. Both these witnesses were very close friends of Kavita. Therefore, the three were in contact of each-other. As such, it was highly probable that Kavita would share her plight with them and get her ease. Their closeness is easily discernible from the letters (Exhs.14 and 15), addressed to PW-3. As such, said testimony of PW-3 and PW- 4 is very natural and cannot be disbelieved.
17.3 In the letter dated 23/03/1991 Kavita has specifically mentioned that, occasionally, the A-1 used to get angry on her and also abuse her. In the another letter (Exh.15) Kavita has indicated that she was not good in domestic work and therefore she was worried as to how she would manage after the marriage. However, daily, in the Page 20 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC morning, A-2 used to tell her to do the household work properly. A-2 also used to frequently quarrel with her. However, she was not complaining about it to the A-1 because he used to blame her only and would find mistake with her. The A-1 also used to say her that she was married to him against his wish, shout at her and also beat her. However, she was tolerating him. The letter contents a statement that, "she had to act as per the wishes of A-1's otherwise, he ....". This incomplete statement coupled with the said evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 make it safe to presume that, if Kavita had not acted as the A-1 wanted, he was subjecting her to some sort of cruelty. The letter also indicates that the A-1 used to get upset if there were phone calls from the parents of Kavita. PW-1 has also deposed that Kavita had told them not to make phone call quite often as it was not liked by both accused. This assertion is supported with the Report.
17.4 On the strength of the testimony of PW-5, PW-9 and PW- 10, it has been proved that, during the course of the investigation, PW- 9 had seized the wooden plank from the spot. PW-10 had seized the clothes of the A-1. Later on, PW-10 had sent the said articles to the FSL for the purpose of chemical analysis. The report (Exh.36) of the chemical analysis states that human blood was found on the said wooden plank and not on the pant of the A-1. Testimonies of PW-6 and PW-8 together with the medical papers and the post-mortem report establish that Kavita had an injury over the head. The A-1 has not explained the said injury nor the presence of human blood on the wooden plank vide Report of the C.A. at Exh.36 (colly.). In the wake of above, and having regard to said evidence of PW-3 and PW4, it is safe to presume that, the A-1 had assaulted Kavita with that wooden plank and therefore she had sustained the injury to her head.
Page 21 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC 17.5 In view of the above discussion, I hold that the
prosecution has proved that the A-1 had subjected Kavita to mental and physical cruelty as described in Explanation ( a) of Section 498A IPC. However, there is no evidence that the A-1 had intentionally instigated Kavita to commit suicide. Similarly, there is no evidence to hold that the said cruelty was of such a nature that it had left no option for Kavita except to commit suicide. As such it cannot be accepted that there was nexus in-between the cruelty and the suicide of Kavita. In this context it is also important to note that just two days before Kavita had gone to her parents' place and met with all the members in the family. However, at that time she did not complain to anyone that the A-1 used to daily assault her. No doubt, in the letter (Exh.15), Kavita has mentioned that daily, the A-1 used to beat her. But said letter is of 3 June, 1993 (as per the date and postal stamp). There is no evidence that since then, the A-1 had continuously treated Kavita to cruelty. The letters (Exhs.14 and 15) indicate that Kavita was of very sensitive and emotional nature. PW-1 and PW-3 have also admitted that Kavita was emotional and sensitive. The testimonies of the witnesses and that of the A-1 established that although PW-1 was hospitalised for surgery, the A-1 did not accompany Kavita to see him. Therefore, it appears that Kavita was disappointed with the A-1 and also angry. This led to a dispute in-between them and during that dispute, the A-1 assaulted Kavita and caused the injury on the head. Therefore, and considering the evidence as a whole, it appears that, due to that incident, Kavita became oversensitive and emotionally charged, therefore, committed suicide.
17.6 As provided in Section 113A of the Evidence Act, if a woman commits suicide within 7 years of marriage and it is shown Page 22 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, considering all the circumstances of the case, the Court may presume that the suicide was abetted by them. However, without sufficient evidence as to the abatement of the suicide, it is difficult to hold the charge of the offence of Section 306 IPC against the A-1. In other words, mere presumption is not sufficient to convict the A-1 under Section 306.
18. To fortify this conclusion, a useful reference can be made to the decision in Gurjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1 therein, the appellant-husband of the deceased, alongwith the father (A-1), mother (A-2) and sister-in-law (A-4), was tried under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The trial Court convicted the A-1 to A-3 under Section 498A IPC but acquitted them of Section 304B IPC, while A-4 was acquitted of all charges. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of A-1 to A-3 under Section 498A IPC and the acquittal of A-4, but held the appellant liable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, five months further imprisonment. After considering various decisions in the field and the evidence of record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held that the prosecution is successful in proving the case under Section 498A of the IPC. However, the Apex Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the cruelty was of such a nature which left no choice to the deceased that to commit suicide. The prosecution was not in a position to place on record any evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any act or omission of the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There was no material on record to show that immediately prior to the deceased 1 (2020) 14 SCC 264 Page 23 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC committing suicide there was a cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused due to which the deceased had no other option than to commit the suicide. There was no material placed on record to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising presumption. The time gap between the last visit of the deceaesd to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of commission of suicide was about two months. As such, there was nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant. In the backdrop, the Apex Court observed and held that merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and the death has occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Unless the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by the accused has driven the deceased to commit the suicide, the conviction under Section 306 would not be tenable. Therefore, acquitted the Appellant of the offence of Section 306.
In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the case does not fall under clauses secondly and thirdly of Section 107 IPC, the case is to be decided with reference to the first clause of Section 107, i.e., whether the appellant-accused abetted the suicide by instigating her to do so. To clarify this more a reference was made to the following observations in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618:
Page 24 of 3211th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
"21. In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned 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 whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
"22. Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Page 25 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned....."
In so far as the presumption in Section 113A of the Evidence Act is concerned in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, (supra), the Hon'ble Supre Court observed that:
"12. This provision was introduced by Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26.12.1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four-corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to any-one outside the occupants of the house. However still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicabilty of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the Page 26 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression - 'the other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may presume' used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says-'whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it."
19. Now turning to the defence evidence. AW-1 has deposed that the proposal for his marriage with Kavita was brought by Pravin Parmar, and after making necessary enquiries, PW-1 had fixed Kavita's marriage with him. He deposed that A-2 used to treat Kavita like her own daughter. He deposed that his shop used to remain closed on Mondays. Every Monday, he used to attend bank work, do marketing and return home at about 3.00 p.m. After taking some rest, he and Kavita used to go out between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., either to visit relatives or temple. He deposed that he had telephone at his residence. Kavita used to make telephone calls to her relatives and her relatives also used to call her occasionally. Kavita used to visit her maternal Page 27 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC home on her own. However, since the distance between her maternal home and Vasai stand was about 20 to 25 minutes by rickshaw, and the route was passing through a dense forest, he used to send someone to accompany her for safety.
AW-1 deposed that Kavita was not good in household work like A-2. Kavita used to commit mistakes while doing such work. Therefore, A-2 would explain them to Kavita and if the mistakes were repeated, A-2 would sometimes scold her. He deposed that Kavita being emotional and sensitive by nature, would become nervous and feel insulted if she was scolded over household matters. As a result, she would remain upset and not talk with anyone for two to three days. AW-1 deposed that he used to face difficulty as he was emotionally close to both, his mother and Kavita. He deposed that, except this, there were no other issues in their matrimonial life. He used to ask Kavita to improve in household work and not to become upset over trivial matters. Despite such deliberation, Kavita would repeatedly remain upset and would often mutter that her parents had married her hastily, that she had discontinued her education midway, that she had not been trained in household work, and that she was fed up with life.
A-1 deposed that, on 17/07/1993, after he had returned home at about 8.30 - 8.45 PM, Kavita had informed him about the telephonic message received from Vasai about the operation of her father on the next day; that she suggested him that both of them would visit Vasai to see her father, but he told her that it being Sunday there would be rush in the shop, hence, it was not possible for him to accompany her; that he told her to go alongwith son Jayesh and the Page 28 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC servant of the shop and told her to stay there if necessary and he would join her on Monday and that both of them would return together. But Kavita got upset and told him that she would go alone. That on 18/07/1993, in the morning, Kavita left for Vasai alongwith Jayesh and the servant, and while going, she told him that it was not certain as to whether she would stay at parents house or she would come back and he told her to return back before evening otherwise to stay there. He deposed that when he returned home at about 8.30 - 9.00 PM, he found that Kavita had not returned. Kavita then returned home at about 9.35 PM to 9.40 PM. But, she was looking upset. So, he enquired with her about her father's health, but she did not reply him. Therefore, he told her to eat, but she said that she had no appetite. He then asked her as 'did she eat at Vasai'. She replied in the negative and said that he should not bother about her; she would eat, if felt hungry.
The A-1 deposed that, on 19/07/1993, he got up at 6.00 AM and went to Gymnasium and returned back at 8.30 AM. At that time, Kavita was sleeping. He, therefore, awake her. But Kavita said him that she was not well and she had no proper sleep. However, after waking up she directly went to bath room and stayed there for long time. By then their son Jayesh had also woke up and he was crying. His mother was doing Pooja. He therefore called Kavita and said her give something to eat to Jayesh. But Kavita replied that he should tell it to A-2. Therefore, he had told Kavita that A-2 was was doing Pooja. Then Kavita came out of the bath room and he went in the bath room for bathing. Thereafter, when he came out of the bath room, he saw that, Jayesh was drinking bottle milk and Kavita was not in the home. There was a common toilet, therefore, he thought that Kavita might have gone to toilet. He therefore went there. But she was not found Page 29 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC there. He then went to Girija Chavans's house but Kavita was also not there. Till then A-2 was busy in Pooja. A-1 deposed that he then went to the neighbours namely Laxmi Dongre, Nilesh Patole and Jugraj Jain but kavita was also not found there. He therefore thought that kavita might have gone to the nearby STD Booth to phone at her parents' house to enquire about her father's health. But when he went to the STD booth, he did not find her there. He, therefore, felt it to give a phone call to her father and to enquire about his health. Accordingly, he called and made enquiries about her father's health. A-1 deposed that the lady who had received the phone call thought that Kavita was also with him and hence she requested him to give the phone to Kavita, but he told him that Kavita had not come with him and he does not know where she had gone. Therefore, said lady had suggested him to tell Kavita to make a phone call at Vasai after she returned home. A-1 deposed that he then returned to his Chawl. At that time, Pramod Guruji met him in the stair case and informed him that Kavita had sustained burn injuries in one Ashok Ghone's room. Hence he rushed there. However, the door of the said room was broke open, the room was full of smoke, and windows were open. Kavita was lying there with burn injuries. He further deposed that Prakash Vaidya, Manoj Kurup, Jugraj Jain were at the spot of incident. He asked Kavita as to how the incident had occurred and why she took such extreme step. Kavita expressed sorry and requested him to take care of Jayesh. He then requested the neighbours to call an ambulance. Thereafter, he went to the STD booth and informed about the incident to Kavita's parents and that he was removing her to KEM Hospital and they should immediately come there.
Page 30 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC 19.1 However, the aforesaid evidence of A-1 is not sufficient to
hold that his version was the only probable version. The evidence of prosecution witnesses indicates that the prosecution case in not reliable. Because, considering the evidence of A-1 whatever upset mood or disappointment Kavita had expressed, at least, it was not sufficient to commit suicide. Secondly, looking at the said behaviour of Kavita, she was not expected to suddenly disappear from her room and go to the room of the incident to commit suicide, particularly being a mother of an infant. Thirdly, A-1 had telephone facility. Therefore, he had no reason to go to the STD booth to search for Kavita because according to A-1, the situation was not so grave or of higher magnitude so that it would lead Kavita to take the extreme step although he was nice to her. As such, the defence of A-1 is subtlety unreliable. No doubt, in the suicide note (Exh.16), Kavita has expressed sorry for she committed suicide and that, no one should be blamed for her suicide. However, this fact is of not avail to the A-1, because, Kavita knew that if the accused were booked in the crime related to the cruelty, there will be no one to take care of her child. Therefore, she did not write any incriminating substance against any of the accused.
20. The conspectus of the above discussion is that, impugned Judgment and Order recorded by the trial Court is based on appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and therefore it is not suffering from infirmities. Looking at the evidence on record, the quantum of the sentence handed over to the A-1 is proper. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order does not require any interference by this Court and hence, it is upheld.
Page 31 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 ::: H C SHIV APP306.99.DOC 20.1 As a result, Criminal Appeal No.306 of 1999, Criminal
Revision Application No.174 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.499 of 1999 are liable to be dismissed and dismissed, accordingly.
20.2 Appellant Ashok Roopchand Jain is on bail. His bail bonds stand surrendered. The Appellant shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the aforesaid sentence.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
21. After the pronouncement of the Judgment, Mr. Jagushte, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks four weeks time to surrender before the trial Court. In view of said request made by Mr. Jagushte, the Appellant shall surrender before the trial Court on or before 12/03/2026.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) Page 32 of 32 11th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:21:46 :::