CASE TITLE
Mariano Anto Bruno and Another VS Inspector of Police
DATE OF ORDER
12th October 2022
BENCH
Hon'ble Justice Mr. Krishna Murari
PARTIES
APPELLANT- Mariano Anto Bruno and Another
RESPONDENT- Inspector of Police
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The present Appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by High Court at Madras on 31.01.2022 in a criminal appeal filed by the appellant.
- The appellant was seeking to set aside the conviction order by Session Court under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
- Appellant No.1 was married to the deceased on 08.09.2005. Both were doctors and had a son out of the wedlock.
- On 05.11.2014, the appellant no.1 was informed that the deceased had collapsed and was non-responsive. He was immediately rushed to the hospital where he was found dead. The post mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to external pressure on the neck.
- After three weeks of the death deceased, mother of the deceased lodged an FIR against appellant no.1, appellant no.1's father and mother under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
- Trial court, after analyzing the statements of the witnesses and evidence, through an order dated 26.03.21 convicted the deceased husband and mother-in-law under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
- The appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court against the conviction order but was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, appellant has appealed before the apex court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly weighed all the factors and the gravity of the offence while passing the conviction order.
- The counsel submitted that the accused demanded for dowry even after the marriage and was subjected to continuous cruelty by the appellant-accused.
- It was pointed by the counsel that the deceased was subjected to mental torture and threatened to participate in ‘pooja’ in the first 1.5 years of marriage when the couple had no baby. After their son was born, accused compelled and harassed the deceased to have another baby despite of her miscarriage.
- It was submitted that the mental torture and harassment instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
- The learned counsel submitted that the allegations of cruelty were first raised by the mother of the deceased in the complaint lodged before that there was nothing noticeable as such over the years of marriage.
- It was vehemently submitted that the deceased was a patient of bipolar disorder and this important fact was not disclosed to the appellant at the time of marriage.
- The counsel rejected that the deceased had committed suicide due to abetment by the appellants.
- The counsel submitted that the relations between the Appellant and his family, and the deceased and her family was extremely cordial. There was no sign of animosity.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court set aside the impugned order and judgement of the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant-accused from the charges leveled against them.
- The court held that the Trial court wrongly convicted the appellants and High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
- The court held that there is not a shred of evidence with respect to offence under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
- Court held that in order to convict under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea and an active or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide. In the present case, prosecution failed to establish both the elements for conviction. It was observed that the direct action in close proximity to the time of suicide is absent in the present case.
- Court held that as far the offence punishable under 498A is concerned, there is no evidence to prove the allegation other that the statements of PW-1 to PW-3 which was recorded after the incident.
- Court held that the facts and circumstances of the cases must be scrupulously examined in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment left the victim with no other alternative other than to end her life.
- Court referred to the case of Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chattisgarh, wherein the apex court set aside the conviction the conviction of the accused under section 306 as because the ingredients to constitute offence under section 306 of IPC was unsatisfactory proven.
CONCLUSION
The apex court reiterated that the courts have to be very cautious and careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidences produced in order to find whether cruelty meted to the victim had in fact induced her to put an end to her life by committing suicide.
