[Section 498A IPC] Minor Quarrels Between Spouses Due To Difference Of Opinion Does Not Establish Offence Of Cruelty: Kerala High Court

While setting aside the conviction, Justice Johnson John stated that minor quarrels between spouses due to differences of opinion or sporadic instances of ill-treatment would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. 

“ In this case, there is no satisfactory evidence for any cruelty or harassment to the deceased as a consequence of her failure to meet any demand for dowry and the evidence from the side of the prosecution that the deceased feared or apprehended that her husband will beat her if in case she fails to bring money for the construction of the house, is not sufficient to constitute the ingredients of cruelty or harassment contemplated under Section 498A IPC, as it is well settled that minor quarrels between the spouses in the ordinary life because of difference of opinion or mere sporadic incidents of ill treatment are not sufficient to establish the offence under Section 498A of IPC,” the Court said.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for cruelty under Section 498A IPC by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc- II), Thiruvananthapuram. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees and in default of the fine, simple imprisonment for six months.

The case involves the suicide of a married woman by allegedly pouring kerosene on herself and her parents have alleged physical and mental cruelty upon her husband (1^st accused) and mother-in-law (2^nd accused) for demanding dowry. 

The counsel for the husband contended that it was an accidental death while the deceased was boiling milk in the kitchen. He denied all allegations of cruelty and stated that there was no evidence to prove cruelty.

The Court took note of the fact that the prosecution had not taken the dying declaration of the deceased while she was undergoing treatment for burn injuries in the hospital as she was conscious at that time. It also found that the prosecution haf not produced treatment records nor examined the doctor who treated the deceased.

Additionally, the Court stated that the prosecution had also suppressed material evidence regarding accidental death.

Further, the Court observed that to attract an offence of cruelty, it haf to be proved that the wife was forced to cause injury to herself by committing suicide due to the cruelty or harassment from the husband.

It stated that for proving an offence of cruelty under Section 498A, the prosecution has to establish the consequences of cruelty which are likely to cause a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger.

In the facts of the case, the Court also noted that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased had raised any allegations of ill-treatment or manhandling against the husband before her death. It also stated that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased was harassed for failing to meet dowry demands by her husband.

Thus, the Court stated that since there was no evidence to prove allegations of harassment or cruelty against the husband, he was entitled to receive the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered acquittal.

Counsel for the appellant: Advocates K P Majeed, M Isha, T H Abdul Azeez, P Anoop Mulavana, M Chandran

Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor Prasanth M P

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

Case title: Sreekumar v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.A NO. 3 OF 2007

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment