The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to explain the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).

The Court made these observations while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging his conviction for cruelty against his wife. Although the trial court convicted him under Section 498-A IPC, the appellate court upheld his conviction while acquitting his mother of the charges under the same provision.

Section 498-A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives, including wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and harassment to coerce her or her relatives into meeting unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“Considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the view that in a criminal case, when there is a clear allegation of torture upon a married woman on account of a demand for additional dowry, and after trial it has been disproved that there were no demand for additional dowry, the sole allegation of torture, as alleged to have been meted out by the husband and his relatives, cannot stand alone; moreover, delay in lodging FIR was not explained by prosecution in this case.”

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the husband and his wife, who married in July 2002. According to the prosecution, the wife's family had given ₹1 lakh as dowry and a wristwatch at the time of marriage.

The wife alleged that her husband, who was addicted to liquor and gambling, subsequently harassed her by demanding an additional ₹50,000, gold ornaments and a house plot. She further alleged that her mother-in-law joined in the harassment and abused her for giving birth to a girl child.

Although a meeting was held between the families, during which the accused allegedly assured the wife's family that the harassment would stop, the alleged ill-treatment continued.

The wife claimed that she was beaten on April 11, 2006, following which she left the matrimonial home and lodged a private complaint before the court. The complaint was referred to the police, which registered a case under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The trial court convicted the husband and his mother. In appeal, the court set aside their convictions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted the mother-in-law of the charges under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. However, it upheld the husband's conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

Challenging the decision, the husband argued that the allegations against him and his mother were based on the same evidence and that the appellate court had erred in acquitting her while sustaining his conviction. He also questioned the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, describing them as interested witnesses, and contended that the allegations of torture were general and omnibus in nature.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the evidence sufficiently established that the husband had physically and mentally harassed his wife. It argued that their roles differed because the husband lived with the wife in the matrimonial home, whereas his mother resided elsewhere.

Examining the rival submissions, the High Court considered whether the appellate court was justified in acquitting the mother-in-law while maintaining the husband's conviction.

It noted that the allegations of torture against both accused were linked to the demand for additional dowry. Since the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had not been proved, the Court held that, in the facts of the case, the allegation of torture could not stand independently of the alleged dowry demand.

The Court also considered the wife's testimony and noted that two defence witnesses had spoken about a meeting held to resolve the matrimonial dispute.

Further, the Court noted that the appellate court had observed that the FIR was lodged more than ten days after the alleged incident and appeared to have been drafted by a lawyer. Consequently, the appellate court had not placed much reliance on the FIR.

In view of these circumstances, the High Court held that the husband's conviction under Section 498-A IPC could not be sustained.

Accordingly, it allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the husband.

It further directed that any fine already deposited be refunded in accordance with law and that his bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRA Rosedar

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor; V. Nageswara Rao