Denying Daughter-In-Law To Accompany On Temple Visit Not Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds In-Laws Acquittal In 498A IPC, Dowry Death Case

Upholding the acquittal of in-laws in a case of dowry death and cruelty, the Gujarat High Court observed that the refusal to permit daughter-in-law to accompany her in-laws to the temple would not amount to an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC and would also not amount to harassment for property under explanation (b). 

In the present case, the daughter-in-law had insisted on accompany her in-laws but was refused, pursuant to which she allegedly committed suicide. 

For context, explanation (a) to Section 498A(cruelty)  states, "For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means (a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman"

Explanation (b) states that cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachchani in its order said:

"The incident that immediately preceded the deceased consuming poison was trivial and formed part of the ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. The substance of the complaint and the dying declaration itself reveals that on the fateful day the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased were proceeding to Santram Mandir at Nadiad for darshan. The deceased insisted on accompanying them, but was not permitted. Hurt by this refusal, she consumed poisonous substance (Celphos). A mere refusal to allow the wife to accompany the in-laws to a temple cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as wilful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide within the meaning of the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, nor does it constitute harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security under clause (b) thereof"

The court passed the order while hearing the State's appeal challenging the trial court's 2002 order acquitting the in-laws for offences under Sections 498A(cruelty), 306(abetment of suicide), 304B (dowry death) IPC among other provisions. 

The high court observed that the  prosecution had "utterly" failed to prove cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. It said that apart from the "solitary incident of refusal to take the deceased to the temple", no specific instance of physical or mental cruelty has been established through any independent or corroborative evidence.

"There is no evidence of recurring ill-treatment, beating, starvation or persistent harassment. The contradictions between the testimony of the mother (PW-4) and the sister (PW-7) on vital aspects of alleged dowry demand and the manner of harassment further erode the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of proof of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, the discretionary presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service. Even otherwise, the material on record does not disclose any active instigation, intentional aiding or engagement in a conspiracy by any of the accused that directly led the deceased to commit suicide (Section 107 IPC)," the court said.

It observed that the act of the deceased in consuming poison appeared to be a "spontaneous reaction born out of her own sensitivity" rather than any positive act of abetment on the part of the accused persons.

"Mere hurt feelings arising from a trivial domestic disagreement do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The conduct of accused No.1 (husband) in immediately rushing the deceased to the hospital after she consumed poison clearly negatives any intention on his part to cause her death or to abet the extreme step. This act is wholly inconsistent with the theory of abetment," the court added. 

The high court said that the sessions court had rightly and flawlessly appreciated evidence and had also applied provision of law correctly.

"In overall, it is found that learned Sessions Court has not committed error to reach to the conclusion of acquitting the accused. Insofar as Sections 201, 176 and 304B/114 IPC are concerned, the evidence of IOs  shows that accused delayed informing police and buried the body hastily (Exh.22, 23), but this is rebutted by their explanation of cultural/religious haste in burial and lack of intent to destroy evidence, as PM was eventually conducted exhumation-wise (Exh.18). No direct proof of knowledge of suicide abetment at burial time. For 304B, dowry death requires proof of demand soon before death, which remains general without specifics," it added. 

Upholding the trial court order, the high court dismissed the state's appeal. 

Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s RAJESHBHAI PITAMBERBHAI PARMAR & ORS.

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 457 of 2002

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 202