The Bombay High Court recently acquitted a man in a 27-year-old case, ruling that taunting a wife over her dark complexion and inability to cook does not amount to "high degree harassment" under Sections 498-A (harassment) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Shriram Modak on July 11, 2025, emphasized that such behavior, while regrettable, falls under "domestic quarrels" and does not meet the legal threshold for criminal liability.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the death of Prema, who ended her life by jumping into a well in January 1998, five years after her marriage to the appellant, Sadashiv Rupnawar. The prosecution alleged that Prema was subjected to relentless taunts by her husband about her dark complexion and threats of a second marriage. Her father-in-law was accused of criticizing her cooking skills. Based on testimonies from Prema's relatives, the Sessions Court in Satara convicted Sadashiv under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, sentencing him to one and five years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The father-in-law was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Read also:- Friendship does not grant sexual rights without consent – Delhi High Court
Justice Modak scrutinized the evidence and concluded that the harassment Prema faced, though distressing, did not meet the legal standard for "high degree harassment" as required under Section 498-A IPC. The court noted:
"The deceased informed her relatives about the harassment by her husband and father-in-law. The reasons were her dark complexion and not preparing food properly. If we consider all these reasons, they can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel Prema to commit suicide."
Read also:- Elderly Father’s Right Upheld: Allahabad HC Slams Sons for Neglect, Orders Full Compensation
The judgment highlighted that the trial court failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and Prema's suicide. While the court acknowledged the suicide, it stressed that the prosecution could not prove the harassment was severe enough to drive Prema to take her own life.
Legal Principles Applied
The High Court referred to Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, which mandates that the harassment must be "wilful and of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide." Justice Modak observed:
"The trial Court was fully aware of the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A, which reads that 'the wilful conduct must be of a high degree.' However, there is no finding that the harassment was of high degree. The findings need to be set aside."
Read also:- J&K High Court Admits Plea Challenging 70% Reservation Under J&K Reservation Act, 2004
The court also dismissed the defense's claim that Prema's death was accidental, noting the absence of any evidence near the well to support this theory.
Case Title: Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1998)
Appearance:
- Advocate Nasreen SK Ayubi represented the appellant.
- Additional Public Prosecutor RS Tendulkar appeared for the State.