(Bombay HC Acquits Husband): Courts cannot jail husbands under 498A or abetment to suicide just because a marriage was “unhappy”. Cruelty must be real, proven, and serious; not imagined, emotional, or based on tears.
Bombay High Court Acquits Husband: This is not just another judgment, this is a slap on the face of the narrative that every tearful wife is automatically a victim, and every husband is automatically an abuser. The Bombay High Court has made it clear that marriage is not a crime, and a man cannot be dragged into jail just because the wife was emotionally unhappy or the marriage did not look like a Bollywood fairytale.
In a ruling that reinforces the fundamental principles of fair trial and evidentiary standards, the Court has set aside the conviction of a husband who was earlier sentenced under Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 306 (abetment to suicide), IPC.
The Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot arise merely because a spouse is unhappy, disappointed, or distressed in marriage. For cruelty to attract Section 498A, the conduct must be specific, deliberate, and of such severity that it is likely to drive the spouse to suicide and such cruelty must be convincingly proven through evidence, not inferred from grief or assumptions.
Facts of the Case
Marriage & Background:
Ramprakash @ Popat married Rekha on 25 May 1997. The couple lived in a small 8×10 rental room in a working-class chawl near the river in Bopodi, Pune, an area where many families share public toilets or go to the riverbank for daily needs.
Rekha was described as educated (9th pass), well-groomed, and aspirational, and her parents admitted she expected a better-looking husband and a more comfortable lifestyle.
Alleged “Cruelty” & Demands: Rekha’s parents later claimed that:
- The husband and his mother asked her to bring money for household expenses.
- They also claimed the husband wanted a sewing machine.
- And at one point, ₹1,000 was given during a relative’s wedding.
However, during cross-examination:
- No dates, no incidents, no conversations, and no witnesses were provided.
- The sewing machine recovery could not be proved because the panch witness turned hostile.
- Even the parents admitted they told the police nothing about harassment when they first reported Rekha missing.
In other words, the earliest version had no allegation of cruelty at all. The harassment story appeared only after the suicide, not before.
Rekha Leaves Home & Goes Missing:
On 13 November 1997, Rekha left the house. The husband himself went to the police and filed a missing complaint the same day, providing:
- Her clothing description
- Last seen details
- And importantly stating that she left behind all her jewelry at home.
Discovery of the Body:
On 17 November 1997, Rekha’s body was found in the river. Her father was informed. Only after the death did the family allege harassment. Before that no accusations were ever made. No Evidence of Instigation or Abetment
During the trial:
- No diary was procured
- No suicide note was found
- No neighbor testimony
- No medical record of abuse
- No threats given to her
- No messages indicating that the husband was at guilt
- No eyewitnesses assuring the harassment
Nothing showed that the husband: Encouraged, Pressured, Threatened Or forced her to kill herself. The Court noted that Rekha may have been emotionally unhappy, but emotional unhappiness is not a criminal offence.
Parents’ Own Testimony Helped the Husband as Under cross-examination:
- They admitted Rekha wanted a better lifestyle than what the marriage provided.
- They admitted she was often upset for personal reasons, not because of any abuse.
- They admitted no complaints were ever made while she was alive.
Court’s Findings
After examining the evidence, Justice M. M. Sathaye made it clear that the prosecution failed to establish cruelty or abetment as required by law. The Court emphasized that the case was built on emotional assumptions, not legal proof.
No Specific Acts of Cruelty Were Proven: The Judge observed that, apart from the wife appearing emotionally upset, there was no specific incident of cruelty:
“Apart from the case of deceased-Rekha being unhappy and weeping during interactions, there is no other specific incidence of physical or mental cruelty stated by any of the witnesses.”
He concluded that:
“Mere statements that the deceased daughter used to be unhappy and used to weep is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there was harassment or conduct of such nature and degree that it will drive a woman to commit suicide.”
The Alleged Dowry Demand Was Unreliable and Unproven: Regarding the ₹1,000 and sewing machine allegations, the Court held:
“The evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.”
It further noted that:
“The case of sewing machine being supplied by PW-1 as a result of harassment is full of doubt and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be brought in the ambit of Section 498A.”
The panch witness for the sewing machine turned hostile, destroying the prosecution’s theory.
No Evidence of Instigation or Abetment to Suicide: On the charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC, the Court was unambiguous:
“No instance of instigation is attributable to the Appellant.”
“There is no proximate link between the event of suicide and the alleged demand of money and sewing machine.”
Husband’s Conduct Showed Concern, Not Guilt: When the wife went missing, the husband voluntarily went to police:
“The Appellant had lodged missing report on the same day where he had clearly indicated that Rekha had left behind her ornaments at home.” This is not what someone guilty or abusive does.
The Trial Court’s Conviction Was Based on Assumptions, Not Law
The High Court explicitly held:
“The Trial Court committed error in holding that there was persistent demand. There is nothing to sufficiently prove persistent demands.”
And therefore: “The Appellant deserves the benefit of doubt; the impugned judgment and order require interference.”
Final Court Order:
- Conviction Set Aside
- Husband Fully Acquitted
- Case Closed
Explanatory table of sections/case laws cited in the judgement
| Law / Principle | What the Law Requires | Prosecution’s Claim | Court’s Findings | Result |
| Section 498A IPC (Cruelty) | Cruelty must be specific, continuous, and of such severity that it is likely to drive the woman to suicide. | “She was unhappy and cried. Husband asked for money and a sewing machine.” | No specific incident of cruelty proved. Parents’ statements were general and vague. No witness, no dates, no corroboration. | Cruelty Not Proven |
| Section 306 IPC (Abetment to Suicide) | Requires instigation, intentional aid, or active encouragement to suicide. There must be a direct causal link. | Husband’s alleged behaviour “caused her to take her life.” | No instigation, no threats, no pressure, no suicide note. No evidence of any triggering act. | Abetment Not Proven |
| Evidence Standard (Criminal Trial) | Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Emotional distress was treated as proof. | Court said: Tears ≠ Evidence, Unhappiness ≠ Cruelty. Assumptions cannot replace proof. | Benefit of Doubt to Accused |
| Alleged Dowry Demand (Sewing Machine / ₹1,000) | Must prove pressure, coercion, and link to harassment. | Father said sewing machine and ₹1,000 were demanded. | Panch witness turned hostile, no proof machine was demanded due to harassment. Court found account full of doubt. | Dowry Demand Not Established |
| Conduct of Husband | Conduct should reflect guilt or concealment. | Prosecution tried to imply guilt. | Husband filed missing report himself, even noted she left jewellery home behaviour of concern, not guilt. | Supports Innocence |
| Trial Court’s Error | Must convict only on evidence, not emotional inferences. | Trial Court assumed she died due to mental harassment. | High Court: Conviction based on assumption is illegal. | Conviction Set Aside |
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
| Case Title | Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar v. State of Maharashtra |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 1998 |
| Source of Prosecution | Khadki Police Station, Pune |
| Trial Court | Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (Sessions Case No. 67 of 1998) |
| Date of Impugned (Trial Court) Conviction | 17 November 1998 |
| High Court Judgment Reserved | 12 September 2025 |
| High Court Judgment Pronounced | 4 November 2025 |
| Presiding Judge (High Court) | Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sathaye |
| Sections Involved | Section 498A (Cruelty), Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide), IPC |
| Accused / Appellant | Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar (Age ~24 at time of marriage) |
| Co-Accused | Mother of Appellant (Acquitted earlier at trial) |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra |
| Allegations | Harassment for money and sewing machine allegedly caused wife to commit suicide |
| Key Evidence Issues | No specific incidents of cruelty, no corroboration, hostile panch witness, missing report filed by husband |
| High Court Outcome | Conviction Set Aside — Husband Acquitted of All Charges |
| Reasoning | No proof of cruelty or instigation; emotional unhappiness ≠ criminal cruelty; prosecution relied on assumptions, not evidence |
| Post-Judgment Direction | Appellant to execute P.R. Bond of ₹15,000 under Section 481 BNSS (formerly 437A CrPC) |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.