Summary
The appellant mother-in-law, acquitted with the other accused of the offences under Sections 304-B and 302/34 IPC, was convicted under Section 498-A IPC on the evidence of the deceased's mother and brother, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction: the complaint and the father's evidence disclosed no demand for dowry, the mother's and brother's evidence did not inspire confidence, and the neighbour examined in defence had been wrongly brushed aside.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence imposed could be sustained on the evidence on record.
Provisions considered
- Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court set out the ingredients of the section and its Explanation: cruelty by the husband or his relative includes wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and harassment to coerce an unlawful demand for property. A demand for dowry in any form by the husband or a relative attracts the section, but, following Manju Ram Kalita, cruelty must be shown to have been inflicted continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity to the complaint; petty quarrels are not cruelty. Measured against this, the evidence did not establish any dowry demand or cruelty by the appellant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The acquittal of the appellant and her co-accused for the offences under Section 304-B and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not appealed and has attained finality; the only question is whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC can stand. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of that section. A demand for dowry in any form, whether by the husband or by his relative, attracts the section, as does harassment to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand; but the woman must have been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity to the lodging of the complaint, and petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty. (¶ 8)
- The complaint lodged by the father the day after the death stated only that the mother-in-law used to comment sarcastically about dowry; it did not allege any demand for dowry, and the father's deposition likewise disclosed no demand or cruelty that could have driven the deceased to suicide. (¶ 9)
- The mother's evidence, on which the conviction rested, admitted that the daughter made no complaint during her visits, that the married life was happy, that there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage and that the alleged demands were disclosed for the first time in her examination-in-chief; the brother's evidence was to the same effect. Such evidence would not lead a person of common prudence to conclude that the deceased was driven to suicide by dowry harassment or a demand by the appellant. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The trial court and the High Court erred in brushing aside the evidence of the neighbour (DW-1), who was neither a relative nor of the appellant's community and who deposed that no dowry demand was ever made, on the premise that she could not know what happened within the four walls of the house; in such matters word of a daughter-in-law being harassed for dowry spreads quickly, and no such fact was shown. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 10.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2003 set aside; appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC; bail bonds discharged; no order as to costs.