Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre has recently suspended conviction under Section 498A IPC of a man whose appeal was pending for 15 years while observing that prima facie allegations fell short of the requirement of the specific charge of harassment.

The high court was hearing a case wherein the applicant was convicted under Section 498A of IPC in 1993. He had made an application before the high court because he was desirous of contesting the elections of Nerle Gram Panchayat. He made an application for suspension of conviction by pleading that grave and irreparable loss will be caused to him if the sentence is not stayed, as he would lose an opportunity to contest the Gram Panchayat election.

The applicant contested the election of Gram Panchayat Nerle and was declared to be elected and presently, he was holding the post of ‘Member’ of the Gram Panchayat.

The counsel for the applicant informed the court that no objection was raised before the Returning Officer in respect of his conviction and he was permitted to contest the election. Further, it was submitted that he had also won the seat by a democratic process, as the people in the village had chosen him to be their representative.

The court while allowing the application said that prima facie requirements of Section 498A IPC were not fulfilled.

“As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it can be considered at the time, when the appeal is heard, but prima facie, I am of the view that the allegations levelled against the applicant for conviction under Section 498-A falls short of the requirement of specifc charge of harassment, being established through cogent and reliable evidence.”

The bench also noted that if the man would have been acquitted then he could have availed many opportunities in life.

“The fact that the applicant was 20 years old at the time when he accused of the aforesaid charge and though the appeal has been admitted in the year 2008, it has not yet come up for hearing and is pending on the fle of this Court , itself justify that he should move ahead and progress further in the life, if at all an opportunity is available to him, but for his conviction under the impugned judgment, he is causing great hardship. If he would have been acquitted of the charges, he could have availed many opportunities in life, as any other citizen of the country. However, he have been deprived of the same due to pendency of the appeal, ” court observed.

Case Title: Sanjay Jaysing Patil vs State of Maharashtra & Ors