High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
917-CriAppeal-724-2003-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD917 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 724 OF 2003Santosh s/o Deoram Borse,Age : 25 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o : Takli-Kd., Tq. : Jamner,District Jalgaon.… Appellant[Orig. Accused No.1]VersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent.....Advocate for Appellant : Mr. U. B. BondarAPP for Respondent-State : Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale….. CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. DATED :19 JUNE 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Conviction recorded by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge,Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003 for offence punishable underSection 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] vide judgment andorder dated 01.10.2003 is taken exception to, by filing instant appeal.FACTS LEADING TO TRIAL ARE AS UNDER2.Deceased Jyoti was married to appellant Santosh on01.05.2002. After marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband atTakli (kd.), Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. After one month, when 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-2- she returned home, she reported her family members that there wasdemand of money by all accused. That, she was beaten and ill-treated. Hearing her such complaint, she was not allowed to go backto cohabit for a period of six months. Only when husband and hissister came to fetch her, and on their assurance to treat her properly,she was allowed to go back. Again message was received fromdaughter Jyoti that she was not provided clothes in spite of herclothes to be torn and therefore, informant mother sent clothes forher daughter with her sisters. Such sisters, during their visit, metdeceased Jyoti, who, while crying, reported that there was demandand ill-treatment. It was decided to bring her back, however,meanwhile message was received that Jyoti fell in the well and died.Therefore, on report of PW1 mother, crime was registered and oninvestigation, accused persons were chargesheeted and tried bylearned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide Sessions Case No. 76of 2003.3.In support of its case, prosecution adduced evidence of in all 7witnesses. Learned trial court appreciated the oral and documentaryevidence and by its judgment and order dated 01.10.2003, convictedappellant Santosh and accused no.3 Kasturabai for commission ofoffence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accused husband was
Legal Reasoning
917-CriAppeal-724-2003-3- sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year, whereas accused no.3was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court. Allaccused stood acquitted from offence under Section 306 of IPC.Conviction of husband under Section 498-A of IPC is now takenexception to by filing instant appeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of the appellant :4.Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is nocogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in support of charge underSection 498-A of IPC. He pointed out that there are general, omnibusand bald allegations of ill-treatment and demand. He pointed out thatnone of the witnesses have clarified, elaborated or specified nature ormode of ill-treatment. That, evidence of prosecution witnesses is alsosilent as to what was the demand and when such demand was raisedand for what purpose. That, there was no convincing evidence.Therefore, according to him, prosecution had miserably failed to bringhome the charge framed under Section 498-A IPC. 5.According to learned counsel, essential ingredients forattracting the charge are missing in the prosecution evidence. Hepointed out that, stay of deceased at her matrimonial home was only 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-4- for one month or so. Remaining period was spent by her at hermother’s house. That, prosecution had failed to establish suicidaldeath and therefore there was acquittal. However, in spite of noevidence in support of charge under Section 498-A IPC, husbandalone has been convicted. According to him, such appreciation on thepart of learned trial court is without any foundation or convincingevidence and so he prays to allow the appeal.On behalf of the State :6.Learned APP supported the conviction by pointing out thatreport was promptly lodged. That, deceased Jyoti used to inform ill-treatment and beating on account of demand. According to learnedAPP, there are several instances on the basis of which ill-treatmentcould be inferred. She pointed out that basic needs of deceased werenot met. She was deprived of good clothing. She was also notprovided sufficient food. Hence, according to learned APP, suchinstances clearly show that there was mental cruelty. That, motherand aunt, who are examined, have deposed to that extent. That,learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence andcommitted no error in returning the guilt for offence under Section498-A IPC. Hence, she prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-5- EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT7.Prosecution has adduced evidence of following witnesses toestablish its case.PW1Nandabai, mother of deceased Jyoti, in her evidence at Exhibit43 deposed that her daughter was married to appellant accusedno.1. She went to reside and cohabit with her husband,parents-in-law and brother-in-law. She came back to the houseafter one month and that time she told that accused nos. 1 and3, i.e. husband and mother-in-law beat her, ill-treated her anddemanded money. She was not sent back to her matrimonialhome for six months. Husband and his sister came to fetch herand only on assurance to treat her well, she was sent withthem. However, they did not treat her properly. Two aunts ofthis witness, namely Sonabai and Kausabai were sent to herdaughter’s house. Her daughter told them too that ill-treatmentwas continued. No proper clothes were given to her. Aunts toldthat there used to be comments for not preparing good food.She then deposed that message was received that Jyoti died.PW2Gopal, Police Patil of village Takli stated that on 28.03.2003,he learnt that Jyoti fell in the well and he passed theinformation to police station i.e. khabar Exhibit 46.PW3Sonabai, aunt of informant Nandabai, deposed that daughter ofNandabai, namely, Jyoti was married to accuse no.1 and shewent to reside with her husband and in-laws. That, one month 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-6- after marriage, Jyoti came and informed that there was ill-treatment to her at matrimonial house and accused no.3commented and accused her for not preparing good food. That,this witness and Kausalyabai visited Jyoti when they had beento village Takli to attend a marriage. That time Jyoti told themthat there was ill-treatment as earlier. Accused no.3 madecomplaint that Jyoti did not cook food properly. On third day,message was received that Jyoti fell in the well and died.PW4Parvatabai, grandmother of deceased, stated that there wassevere ill-treatment by accused persons on account of demandof money. Accused no.1 and his sister came to fetch deceasedwhen she was not sent for six months. However, after 15 days,her grandson Aakash went and he met Jyoti, who told himabout she being subjected to ill-treatment. Her cloths weretorn. Therefore clothes were sent to her by her mother. On thethird day, message about Jyoti falling in well was received.PW5Bhimrao stated that on 28.03.2003, villagers told that Jyoti hadbeen to fetch water and she fell in well. So he jumped andfetched out Jyoti from the bottom.PW6 Police Head Constable Chhagan Pardhi is the PSO who notedthe report and registered crime.PW7API Kendre is he Investigating Officer who deposed about allsteps taken by him during investigation till filing chargesheet. 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-7- 8.Here, initially charge was framed for offence under Sections498-A and 306 of IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, onappreciating the evidence, held that guilt for offence under Section498-A IPC is proved only against appellant husband and mother-in-law. However, learned trial court sentenced appellant husband aloneto suffer imprisonment for one year and mother-in-law was made tosuffer sentence till raising of the court. LEGAL POSITION9. Law is fairly settled that, for attracting the charge under section498A of IPC, prosecution is duty bound to prove following essentialingredients :- “(1)A woman was married; (2)She was subjected to cruelty; (3)Such cruelty consisted in - (i)any lawful conduct as was likely to drive suchwoman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to her life, limb or health whether mental orphysical; (ii)harm to such woman with a view to coercing herto meet unlawful demand for property or valuablesecurity or on account of failure of such woman or any ofher relations to meet the lawful demand ; (iii)the woman was subjected to such cruelty by herhusband or any relation of her husband.” 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-8- JUDICIAL PRECEDENT :10.As to what actually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly andsuccinctly dealt in the landmark case of Giridhar Shankar Tawade v.State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, where the Court dwellingupon the scope and purport of Section 498-A IPC has held as under: “The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid‘cruelty’ which stands defined by attributing a specificstatutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of inorder to ascribe a meaning to the word ‘cruelty’ as isexpressed by the legislatures : Whereas explanation (a)involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive thewoman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or(iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental andphysical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity,in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury butthe legislature thought it fit to include only coerciveharassment which obviously as the legislative intentexpressed in equally heinous to match the physical injury :whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equallyserious in terms of the provisions of the statute since thesame would also embrance the attributes of ‘cruelty’ interms of Section 498-A.” [emphasis added]Similar views are echoed in Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab(2013) 7 SCC 108, wherein it is held as under: 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-9- “Clause (a) of the Explanation to the aforesaid provisiondefines “cruelty” to mean “any willful conduct which is ofsuch a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commitsuicide”. Clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawfuldemand. Clause (a) can take in its ambit mental cruelty.”In State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15SCC 582, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, “Harassmentsimplicitor is not cruelty. Only when such harassment is committedfor the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person to meet anunlawful demand or property etc. alone would amount to crueltypunishable under Section 498-A IPC”. In Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604, theHon’ble Apex court reiterated the essential ingredients for the saidoffence and pleadings which are necessary in that regard. Very recently in the case of K. Subba Rao v. The State ofTelangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, following observations are made:“6.The Courts should be careful in proceeding againstthe distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonialdisputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husbandshould not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegationsunless specific instances of their involvement in the crimeare made out.” 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-10- 11.Keeping above legal position in mind, evidence of prosecutionis to be scrutinized.ANALYSIS12.On complete re-appreciation and critical analysis of theevidence, here, evidence of PW1 informant mother, PW3 aunt ofinformant and PW4 grandmother of deceased is only of relevance. Onre-analyzing their evidence, it is seen that after one month ofmarriage, Jyoti came and she allegedly reported that there was ill-treatment to her coupled with demand. But neither informantNandabai nor other relatives are categorical about nature and modeof ill-treatment or when such instances took place. They are found tobe only deposing that there was demand. However, how much wasthe amount demanded and for what purpose, is not finding place inthe testimony of any of the witnesses. 13.Learned APP, who supported the judgment, would strenuouslysubmit that from the evidence of mother and other witnesses, it isevident that deceased was not provided good food. That, she was notallowed to go back and made to stay at maternal house for six monthsand only on assurance by accused husband, she was sent back. Againaccused no.3 did not share food or gave sufficient food and even she
Decision
917-CriAppeal-724-2003-11- was made to wear torn clothes. Therefore, according to learned APP,such material indicates that there was ill-treatment. There is no force in such submission. In spite of motherdispatching clothes, still PW3 aunt speaks about ill-treatment beingcontinued to deceased. However, even at that point of time, what wasthe ill-treatment is not made clear. Evidence about cruelty is patentlymissing here.14.Therefore, on taking overall view and on re-appreciation, therewas no convincing evidence about ill-treatment or demand. There aregeneral, omnibus and bald allegations about demand and ill-treatment without elaborating its mode and nature. With such weakand fragile evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, trialcourt ought not to have recorded guilt of husband for offence underSection 498-A IPC. Essential ingredients for attracting Section 498-AIPC as contemplated in law, are not available in the evidence andtherefore, interference in such judgment is called for. Hence, Iproceed to pass the following order :ORDER I.The appeal is allowed. 917-CriAppeal-724-2003-12- II.The conviction awarded to the appellant Santosh s/o DeoramBorse, by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon inSessions Case No. 76 of 2003 under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPCon 01.10.2003 stands quashed and set aside.III.The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable underSection 498-A r/w 34 of IPC.IV.The bail bond of the appellant stands cancelled.V.Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant afterthe statutory period. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre