Lack Of Independent Witnesses Does Not Dilute Cruelty Allegations In S.498A IPC Cases: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the absence of independent witnesses in cases arising under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot, by itself, weaken the prosecution's case. The Court stressed that evidence from close relatives is not to be discarded merely because of their relationship with the victim.For context, Section 498A of IPC deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or a relative of the husband. Justice M B Snehalatha, was delivering the judgment in a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging the conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The accused husband was initially sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, which was later reduced to 6 months on appeal. The accused approached the High Court arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of IPC and the Appellate court failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses and also failed to take note of the fact that though the case of the de facto complainant was that she was subjected to cruelty from 2003 onwards, no complaint was lodged by her till 2009. The prosecution submitted evidence and witness statements, including that of the relatives of the defacto complainant, wife, which corroborated that there was continuous harassment demanding dowry. The Court noted that the argument that there is no independent evidence regarding the alleged act of cruelty and the oral testimonies are not reliable since they are given by close relatives was found to be untenable. “The acts of cruelty which attract the offence under Section 498A IPC are offences committed within the privacy of matrimonial home. By its very nature, the offence is one that occurs behind closed doors away from public view and ordinarily without the presence of independent witnesses” the Court observed. The Court opined that the expectation of independent evidence ignores the social realities of domestic violence; hence, the testimony of a married woman regarding the physical assault carries significant evidentiary value. “The testimony of a married woman regarding the physical assault she was subjected to on account of dowry demand carries significant evidentiary value if her version is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy.” Court notedThe Court has further noted that the argument that if there was continuous harassment and ill treatment demanding dowry , the de facto complainant would have approached the police or any other authorities and the absence of any such complaint indicates that there was no cruelty was untenable. “One cannot adopt a stand that whenever there is an act of cruelty by the husband, the victim wife should rush to the police station or any other authorities to lay a compliant. The victim wife may wait with a hope that things may change, especially to safeguard her children born in the said wedlock. So the contention put forward by the accused that in spite of the cruelty allegedly suffered by her from 2003 onwards she laid complaint only in the year 2009 and the delay in lodging complaint shows the falsity of her case, is unsustainable.” Court noted. The Court concluded by underlining that the practice of dowry perpetuates gender inequality, financial exploitation and domestic violence. “Assaulting the wife in connection with dowry demands is not a mere domestic dispute but a serious offence rooted in greed, coercion and gender based violence. When a woman is physically harmed because she or her family cannot meet the unlawful dowry demands, it reflects the deliberate and oppressive misuse of power within the matrimonial home.” Court added. It thus dismissed the revision petition, observing that no interference is needed in the matter of sentence. Case Title: Tomon v State of Kerala Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 890/ 2018Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 794Counsel for Petitioner: Anu Krishna T U(Amicus Curiae)Counsel for Respondent: Maya M NClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Lack Of Independent Witnesses Does Not Dilute Cruelty Allegations In S.498A IPC Cases: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

Tags