S.498A IPC Does Not Require Demand Of 'Dowry'; Any Unlawful Demand For Property Or Valuables Is Covered: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not require an allegation of demand for “dowry”, and that harassment to coerce a woman to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security can constitute cruelty under the provision.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made the observation while setting aside an appellate court's judgment acquitting a husband and his family members of offences under Section 498A and restoring their conviction by the Trial Court.
The criminal revision was filed by the complainant-wife against a February 2017 judgment of the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatshila, which had set aside the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 498A and 323 IPC.
The complainant married one of the accused in June 2008. She alleged that cash of Rs.1 lakh, gold ornaments and household articles were given to her husband and his family at the time of marriage. According to the complainant, after she became pregnant, her husband demanded another Rs.1 lakh from her father for purchasing a hauler machine for his rice business. When she stated that her father, a retired UCIL employee, was unable to meet the demand, she was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. On appeal, however, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction, reasoning, among other things, that the demand for Rs.1 lakh was for development of the husband's business and was not related to dowry. It consequently found that Section 498A was not attracted.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. It noted that the complainant's allegations of cruelty were corroborated by other witnesses, including a villager described as an independent witness. The Court found that the Appellate Court had erred in treating the absence of a demand specifically characterised as “dowry” as a reason for taking the case outside Section 498A. The Court observed:
“It is quite clear from the explanation that the cruelty includes any willful conduct or harassment with a view to coercing her (the woman) to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security, resulting in likelihood of causing danger to life, limb or health.There is no whisper in the said definition about demand of any dowry rather demand of any property or valuable security which should be unlawful.”
Applying this to the case, the High Court noted that there was no defence that the Rs.1 lakh sought from the complainant's father was merely a loan which was to be subsequently returned. Rather, the Court found that it was alleged to be an unlawful demand followed by physical and mental harassment aimed at compelling the complainant to obtain the money from her father.
The Court therefore held that the allegations fell within the ambit of Section 498A IPC. It termed the Appellate Court's view that the demand was merely for development of the husband's business and was not dowry as “very absurd”. The Court held that the Appellate Court had failed to consider that Section 498A “does not speak about demand of dowry rather any unlawful demand of money or property”.
It consequently held that the findings acquitting the accused were “absolutely unwarranted, illegal and perverse”. The High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored and upheld the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed.
Case Title: Smt. Anita Bhakat v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Case Number: Cr. Revision No.337 of 2017
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Kishlay Kumar, Advocates
For the State: Ms. Shweta Singh, APP
For O.P. No.2: Mr. Manoj Kumar Dash, Advocate