State of H.P. vs Satish Kumar and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—State in this appeal has challenged the acquittal of the Respondent for the offences punishable u/s 498A and 506 Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 2-1/2002/2-II/2002 decided on 31.3.2003.

Heard and gone through the evidence on record.

In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. Complainant Smt. Sureshta Devi was married to Respondent Satish Kumar in the year 1997 in village Dangoh. From this marriage, she gave birth to three children (two male and one female). According to the complainant, her parents provided dowry according to their status but after about one month of her marriage, her husband Satish, mother-in-law Sheela Devi and brother-in-law Ashok Kumar Respondents started harassing her and demanded more dowry. Failing to do so, she was maltreated and given beatings. At times, she used to fetch money from her parents and paid it to her husband, despite that the behaviour of the Respondents did not improve. Her husband used to beat her after consuming liquor. Local Panchayat was also informed, ultimately her husband tendered apology and the matter was compromised on 11.7.2000. Even thereafter behaviour of the Respondents did not improve and they started demanding more money. Thus on 2.11.20001, her father took her along with her children to the parental house. She got recorded her statement u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ASI Jasbir of Police Station Dehra. Since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gagret, thus her statement was sent to the concerned Police Station and FIR Ext. PW-9/A was registered there.

During the investigation, police took into possession photocopy of compromise Ext. P-1 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completing the investigation challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondents, for the aforesaid offences.

Respondents were accordingly charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted on the ground that the complainant party had failed to prove the allegations of maltreatment/beatings to the complainant, as alleged. Further that the compromise Ext. P-1 was arrived at on the complaint Ext. D-1 made by the Respondent-husband. The allegations as projected had not happened in the manner deposed by her and her parents, rather defence taken by the Respondents was probablised that the complainant had gone to the house of her parents along with jewellery and some money, without seeking any permission and her husband informed Pradhan vide his complaint Ext. D-1 and the compromise Ext. P-1 was effected to remove the doubt from the mind of the complainant that if she would resume the matrimonial ties, she would not be beaten-up by her husband on the allegations of taking jewellery and money from the house of her in-laws.

Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be relevant to see the ingredients which constitute offence u/s 498A Indian Penal Code.

Section 498A Indian Penal Code reads as under:

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation._ For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

"Cruelty" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code but the above explanations added to the Section spells out the ingredients of the offence of "cruelty" which are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as Clause (a) is concerned can be classified as follows:

(i) Any ''wilful'' misconduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or

(ii) any ''wilful'' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or

(iii) any ''wilful'' act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman; and,

In order to constitute "cruelty" under Clause (b), there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2000 SC 3559 the apex Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498A IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet in another case Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.

Taking note of the above judgments amongst others Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam 2009 (2) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1036 observed that "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A Indian Penal Code is to be established in the context of Section 498A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ''cruelty'' to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as "cruelty".

In view of the above settled position of law I proceed to examine the evidence in the instant case. Mainly the prosecution relied upon the compromise Ext. P1 to substantiate the plea raised by the complainant and her parents. It is admitted by her that her husband Satish Kumar had presented the complaint Ext. D-1 against her to the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dangoh mentioning therein that he was Delhi in search of job to earn livelihood. In his absence, his in-laws had taken the complainant-wife to their house on 20.6.2000, on the pretext that she was in family way and her husband was not there, as and when he would return, they would send her back. When he reached in his village, he came to know about the fact of taking money and jewellery by her. He intended to call her back but his in-laws did not agree for sending the complainant to the matrimonial home. Thus, he convened a biradari-Panchayat and contacted his in-laws but this was an exercise in futility. Therefore, he sought the intervention of the Pradhan Gram Panchayat. It was against this background, compromise Ext. P-1 was executed. The original compromise did not find the light of the day but the prosecution has relied upon the photocopy of Ext. P-1. The above facts with respect to the application Ext. D-1 and Ext. P-1 were also admitted by her father Gorkhu Ram PW-2. Even PW-4 Gurbachan Singh and PW-5 Rasila Ram, both admitted that he was called in the Panchayat, convened by Respondent Satish Kumar.

Pertinently, Rasila Ram admitted that so long as complainant remained with her husband, there was no quarrel between them and both of them lived together with love and affection. He also admitted that although there was reference in the compromise Ext. P-1 that the Respondent would not give any beating to her on resuming marital ties but explained that it was because she apprehended that she had left his house without taking the permission of the Respondents with jewellery, she might be beaten up but she was repentant. He further categorically stated that before executing the compromise, complainant had admitted that Respondents had never given beatings to her. On this narration, neither the said witness was re-examined by the prosecution nor declared hostile. Therefore, his testimony remained unchallenged on record. 12. Further, the similar version was given by Joginder Singh (PW-6) Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and PW-7 Gurdeep Singh.

On culling the evidence, it appears that the complainant was having some doubt that she might be scolded or might be beaten up because of the above reason, that was the background of executing Ext.P1, on which the prosecution has relied heavily more than the statement of the complainant.

Therefore, against the above factual background, tested upon the law discussed above, I do not find that the prosecution could prove the case against the Respondents beyond reasonable doubt. As such the acquittal of the Respondents cannot be interfered with. Hence the appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.