MAHARASHTRA<\/em>: A Pune court<\/strong> has acquitted a husband of charges under Sections 498A<\/a>, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code<\/a><\/strong> after finding serious contradictions, material omissions and lack of reliable supporting evidence in the prosecution case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judicial Magistrate First Class Anupam S. Sharma<\/strong> of Court No. 5, Pune, delivered the judgment on July 6, 2026. The criminal case was registered in March 2017 and remained pending for more than nine years before the final acquittal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complainant and the accused were married on August 15, 2007, in Kolkata. They later shifted to Mumbai, where the husband was working. The wife alleged that within a few months of marriage, he started physically and mentally harassing her because her parents had not given a television, refrigerator and sufficient gold ornaments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further alleged that the husband assaulted her during pregnancy, doubted her character<\/strong>, questioned the child\u2019s paternity and pressured her to work and hand over her salary. She also claimed that he demanded money from her parental family and forced her to pay the EMI of a plot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the complaint, she found hidden cameras installed inside the house in January 2017. She alleged that after she removed or covered them, the husband abused and assaulted her on January 15, 2017, called her Bhootni<\/strong> and threatened to kill her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution claimed that the couple\u2019s son intervened during the incident and was also assaulted. It was alleged that a security guard and neighbours later came to their rescue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband denied all allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court noted that the wife was the main prosecution witness and that matrimonial offences generally take place inside the home. The prosecution argued that her sole testimony could be sufficient for conviction because such incidents are usually committed within four walls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court, however, said that even the testimony of a ”victim”<\/em><\/strong> must be examined carefully. It observed that the alleged conduct could be treated as ‘cruelty’ only when it satisfied the legal requirements stated in the explanation to Section 498A IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During her evidence, the wife made several additional allegations. She claimed that the husband had injured her nose, assaulted her while she was pregnant, pressured her to undergo an abortion, tried to strangulate her in 2012\u201313 and immersed their son in cold water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMany of these allegations were not mentioned in her original complaint or earlier police report<\/em><\/strong>. No medical records were produced to support the claims of bleeding injuries, assault during pregnancy, fracture, abortion or strangulation.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The caretaker, who could have supported the allegation regarding the child being immersed in cold water, was also not examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court further observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWife\u2019s oral evidence did not clearly establish that the alleged harassment was committed to force her or her family to meet an unlawful demand for property or money. This is necessary to attract the relevant part of Section 498A.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The evidence of the couple\u2019s son was also examined closely. He stated that his father assaulted his mother, tried to strangulate her, threatened to kill her and later assaulted him when he intervened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, several important facts stated by the son before the court were absent from his earlier police statement. These included the alleged strangulation, his attempt to save his mother, his escape to an upstairs neighbour\u2019s house, the bucket incident and the allegation that his father pulled his ear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court held that these omissions and contradictions made his evidence unreliable<\/strong>. It also found the claim that the eight-year-old child opened the main door doubtful because the latch was allegedly placed above his height.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife\u2019s own testimony did not clearly mention the role allegedly played by her son, the security guard or the upstairs neighbour. The court said these were not minor details because they formed an important part of the alleged incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution also failed to examine the security guard, even though he was presented as an important person who had reached the house and intervened. The wife\u2019s parents were also not examined, despite allegations concerning demands made from her parental family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A neighbour told the court that she saw the husband trying to push the wife from the gallery while holding her neck. However, her version before the court was different from her earlier statement. The magistrate therefore found her evidence unreliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another prosecution witness had not personally seen the incident and could not provide direct support to the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also noted that the photographs placed on record were not legally proved because the photographer was not examined<\/strong>. The photographs were therefore excluded from consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The investigating officer who testified had mainly arrested the accused, recorded statements of certain witnesses and filed the charge sheet. He had not recorded the wife\u2019s complaint or the son\u2019s statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that the investigation did not include a medical examination of the complainant to establish the alleged injuries. No spot panchnama was prepared, and the prosecution also failed to properly produce and prove the printed FIR.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment said that the wife\u2019s allegations were general and vague because she did not provide clear dates, times, specific acts or the parts of the body on which she was allegedly assaulted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court acknowledged that ordinary witnesses cannot be expected to remember every date and time with exact precision. It observed that common persons do not possess the photographic memory of Sherlock<\/strong>. However, the contradictions in this case were found to be material because they affected the basic story of the alleged incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court concluded that the wife, the son and the neighbour had made substantial improvements over their earlier versions. Their statements were inconsistent and did not inspire sufficient confidence for a criminal conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The magistrate observed that even conduct considered unfair or objectionable cannot automatically be treated as criminal cruelty unless it falls within the legal definition. The court stated that the conduct attributed to the accused might be objectionable, but it could not be legally labelled as ‘cruel’<\/em><\/strong> on the evidence produced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prolonged case also showed the personal cost of an unsupported criminal prosecution. The husband remained an accused for more than nine years before the evidence was finally found insufficient. Criminal law requires proof, not merely repetition of serious allegations, because the trial itself can impose years of social, professional and emotional burden upon an accused person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court ultimately acquitted the husband of all offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n His earlier bail bond and surety bond were directed to continue for six months under Section 437A CrPC. The court also directed that the complainant be informed about the acquittal and her right to file an appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF ALL LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW AND SECTION<\/strong><\/td> WHAT THE PROVISION MEANS<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT APPLIED IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Punishes a husband or his relative for subjecting a married woman to legally defined cruelty. Cruelty includes grave wilful conduct endangering her mental or physical health, or harassment connected with an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.<\/td> The prosecution alleged physical and mental cruelty, demands for money and salary, and harassment during the marriage. The court found that the evidence did not reliably prove the statutory ingredients of cruelty or harassment linked to an unlawful demand. The accused was acquitted.<\/td><\/tr> Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to another person. The prosecution must prove that hurt was intentionally or knowingly caused.<\/td> The wife alleged several assaults. However, the court noted the absence of medical records, material contradictions, improved statements and lack of reliable independent support. The charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.<\/td><\/tr> Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Punishes intentional insult made with the intention or knowledge that it is likely to provoke a person into breaking public peace or committing another offence.<\/td> The prosecution alleged that the accused abused and insulted the complainant. The court observed that the witnesses did not clearly specify the abusive words necessary to establish the alleged offence. The accused was acquitted.<\/td><\/tr> Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Provides punishment for criminal intimidation, including threatening a person with injury to their body, reputation or property with the required intention to cause alarm.<\/td> It was alleged that the accused threatened to kill the complainant. The court found the prosecution version unreliable due to contradictions, omissions and insufficient corroboration. The charge was not proved.<\/td><\/tr> Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Allows a police officer investigating a case to orally examine persons who appear to know the facts of the case and record their statements. These statements are primarily used to test witnesses during trial.<\/td> The investigating officer recorded statements of various witnesses. The court compared the witnesses\u2019 trial testimony with their earlier police statements and found important omissions and contradictions.<\/td><\/tr> Section 313(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Requires the court to personally question the accused about incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. It gives the accused an opportunity to explain those circumstances.<\/td> During his Section 313 examination, the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. His defence remained one of total denial.<\/td><\/tr> Section 248(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> In a warrant case instituted on a police report, the magistrate must record an order of acquittal when the accused is found not guilty.<\/td> After holding that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, the magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) CrPC.<\/td><\/tr> Section 437A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Requires an accused, even after acquittal, to execute a bond to appear before the appellate court if an appeal is filed against the acquittal. The bond generally remains in force for six months.<\/td> The court directed that the accused\u2019s existing bail bond and surety bond continue for six months from the date of judgment.<\/td><\/tr> Section 365, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Requires a Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate to forward a copy of its finding and sentence to the District Magistrate in specified circumstances.<\/td> The court directed that a copy of the findings be forwarded so that the complainant could be informed about the acquittal and her right to appeal. The direction was also linked to the precedent cited in the judgment.<\/td><\/tr> Section 248, read with Section 437A CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Together, these provisions govern the formal acquittal and the accused\u2019s obligation to remain available if the acquittal is challenged before a higher court.<\/td> The accused was acquitted but remained bound by the continued bail and surety bonds for the prescribed six-month period.<\/td><\/tr> Section 498A Explanation, IPC<\/strong><\/td> The explanation defines the two legally recognised forms of cruelty: grave wilful conduct and harassment intended to compel an unlawful property-related demand.<\/td> The court emphasised that objectionable or unfair matrimonial conduct cannot automatically become criminal cruelty unless it falls within this statutory definition.<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2019 \u2014 Ranjana Suryawanshi v. Jaiprakash Gupta and Others<\/em><\/strong><\/td> The judgment referred to this precedent while directing that the complainant be informed of the acquittal and her right to challenge it.<\/td> The District Magistrate was asked to communicate the result to the complainant and return an acknowledgement to the trial court.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n