MILIND BHAGWANRAO GOOSE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 39 
MILIND BHAGWANRAO GOOSE 
A 
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER 
Criminal Appeal No 891 Of 2001 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
B 
(DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
·1-
Ss. 498A, 306 and 109 rlw s. 34 /PC - Dowry harassment 
- Mental torture - Suicide by wife - Husband convicted and c 
sentenced by trial court - Upheld by High Court - On appeal, 
Held: The circumstances enumerated in the deceased's let-
ter to her parents and the evidence of PWs lead to a situation 
where she was virtually left with no option except to take upon 
extreme step of putting an end to her life - Trial court and . D 
' 
High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record 
and arrived at correct conclusion - Hence no interference 
called for. 
The appellant and his parents were charged with of-
E 
fences punishable under Ss.498A, 306 and 109 r/w S.34 
IPC for dowry harassment, causing mental torture to the 
deceased. Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the 
trial court; his parents were acquitted. High Court upheld 
·' 
the same. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The evidence of P.W.6 (neighbour of the de-
ceased), P.W.7 (sister of the deceased) and P.W.8 (father 
of the deceased) clearly lead to the only conclusion that 
this was a case of extreme mental cruelty which was per-
G 
-1 . 
petuated from the point of marriage and lasted till the de-
~ · ceased had committed suicide. There cannot be any Iota 
of doub.t that the extreme mental cruelty and torture com .. 
39 
H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A pelled the deceased to put an end to her life. The appel-
lant was wholly responsible for creating all th'e circum-
t-
stances which led the deceased to take an extreme step 
of putting an.'end t<> her life. [Para 22] [ 46-F, G] 
B 
2. Exh. 46, the letter written by the deceased to her 
parents on 9.10.1989 immediately _before she had com-
mitted suicide, gives graphic description of the number 
of instances of extreme mental torture, day in and day out. 
This letter gives the impression that the appellant was de-
~-
c riving sadistic pleasure in causing extreme mental torture 
to the deceased. He would leave no stone unturned to 
ensure that the maximum mental torture and agony is 
caused to the deceased. There is not the slightest doubt 
that the circumstances which have been enumerated in 
D Exh. 46 and the testimony of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 lead to a 
situation where the deceased virtually was left -with no 
option except to take an extreme step of putting an end 
, 
to her life. IPara 23] [ 46-H; 47-A, B] _ 
3. The Additional Sessions Judge and the learned 
E Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evi-
dence. on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No 
interference is called for. [Para 24] [ 47-E, D] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
1 
No 891 of 2001 
F 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.3.2001 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
~ 
Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1991 
U.U. Lalit, Nitin Sangra and Sidhesh Kotwal (for Gaurav 
G Agrawal), with him for the Appellant. 
-~ 
Sushil Karanjkar and Kailash Pandey1 (for Ravindra 
Keshavrao Adsure), for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
MILIND BHAGWANRAO GOOSE V. 
41 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 
A 
-l 
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High 
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crimi-
nal Appeal No. 187 of 1991 dated 09.03.2001. The appellant 
(original accused no. 1) and his parents (original accused nos. 
8 
2 and 3) were alleged to have committed offences punishable 
under sections 498A, 306 and 109 read with section 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPQ'}. The learned llnd Additional 
Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 
~')-
A98A IPC-to suffer rigorous imprisonment for orie year and to 
pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default whereof to suffer further rig- c 
orous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also con-
victed under section 306 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment 
for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof 
- to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, Original 
accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned 
D 
-t 
llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. 
2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the ap-
. peal are recapitulated as unde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.