Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 23) while acquitting a husband convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her, held that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not attract in any and every harassment or type of cruelty.Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare sitting at Aurangabad held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish 'continuous' harassment."Section 498A of the IPC does not attract every harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to establish that the beating and harassment of the deceased were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry. Mere harassment for dowry or causing grave injury to her life or limb or health is not cruelty, as explained in Section 498-A of IPC. To constitute the offence under this Section, it is to be established that the harassment was caused by coercing the woman to meet unlawful demands. To hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another," the judge said.The allegations in the instant case, revealed that the accused husband caused cruelty to the deceased wife by persistent demand for money for the golden ornaments. She was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty as her parents could not satisfy the demands of the accused as they were financially poor. The prosecution case revealed that the accused husband went to fetch her back when she used to stay with her parents and he had assured he would not ill-treat her and only then she went to cohabit with him. The bench noted that there was no cogent and reliable evidence of her last visit to her parents. "The record reveals that there was no continuous state of affairs of torture by the husband to the deceased wife. It has been established that her parents-in-law were residing separately. The counsel for the petitioner succeeded in pointing out that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner/accused willfully drove the deceased by his conduct to commit suicide nor the harassment as alleged prove that she was harassed with a view to coerce her or to her relatives to meet any unlawful demand of golden ornaments. There were general allegations of cruelty to the deceased or the demand for ornaments," the judge noted.The defence of the accused was that he did not allow her to go to her parent's home with her brother. Hence, she took a drastic step to end her life, appears probable from the material produced on record, the judge noted further.The judge therefore, acquitted the accused husband from the section 498A and 306 (abetment of suicide) case.Background:The bench was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC by a court in Aurangabad on April 28, 2004.It was the prosecution case, that the accused husband harassed the wife and demanded gold jewellery from her parents and since she could not fulfil the same, he would subject her to physical and mental torture. The accused, however, claimed that the wife took the extreme step as she was 'depressed' for not being able to conceive. He further contended that on the day of the suicide, the wife wanted to go to her parental home along with her brother but the accused did not let her go, due to which she ended her life by consuming pesticide. The bench noted that the woman died within 2 years of her marriage. It noted that for a reasonably long period the woman stayed with her parents alleging that the husband was demanding gold ornaments. Thereafter, she returned with the husband, after he went to fetch her back and on an assurance he allegedly gave to her parents that he will not harass her.The judges noted that very vague and omnibus allegations were levelled by the wife's parents against the husband and thus, the same fell short to hold him guilty.Appearance:Advocate Arun Shejwal appeared for the Applicant Additional Public Prosecutor SB Narwade represented the State.Case Title: Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application 344 of 2004)Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

Tags