U. Subba Rao and Others vs State of Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mangalore in S.C. No. 179/ 1996. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable Under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. Accused 1, 2 and 4 are acquitted for the charge Under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. But, convicted for committing offences punishable u/s 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default, S.I for a period of 15 days. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed.

According to the prosecution case, one Smt. Mahalakshmi is the deceased, wife of accused No. 3, who is acquitted. The appellants 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No. 3. The third appellant is the daughter of appellants 1 and 2. The marriage of the deceased with third accused took place on 1.4.1994 at Kalasa. There is no allegation of payment of dowry at the time of marriage. But, however, after the marriage it is said that the accused persons were harassing and ill-treating the deceased. Therefore, she gets frustrated and commits suicide by jumping into a well. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rendered the aforesaid conviction and sentence in respect of the appellants.

P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the another brother of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the wife of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is an inquest and punch witness. P.W. 6 is a Priest to perform the marriage. P.W. 7 is the Doctor, who has conducted the post mortem. P.W. 8 is the Village Accountant, who furnished land record extract. P.W. 9 is a police Constable, who has submitted the FIR to Court. P.W. 10 is the PSI-cum-I.O, who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the relevant portion of depositions of P.Ws. 1 to 4 contend that there is no material placed by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 498-A. Therefore, argued that the order of conviction is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

Learned SPP submitted that the conviction is sound and proper based on the incriminating material and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

The husband or relative of husband becomes liable for punishment u/s 498-A of I.P.C., if they subject the woman to cruelty. The offence punishable u/s 498-A has two salient features. Firstly, the cruelty is explained to mean a physical or a mental cruelty, which has the effect of driving a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. Secondly, any harassment meted out 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 is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand is also defined as cruelty.

In the present case, the evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that the deceased has informed him about the trivial incidents that have taken place in her in-law''s house. She has also written a letter during her stay in her in-law''s house to P.W. 1 saying that if P.W. 1 were to come, she would explain the things. The letter does not discloses any details or nature of harassment or cruelty. Except the aforesaid material; there is no other incriminating material available in the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 in his evidence does not say anything about the cruelty or harassment meted out the deceased by the accused in any manner nor claims that the deceased has informed anything about her problems with him. P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased in her evidence states that the deceased was telling that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law are giving trouble to her. In her evidence, she does not detail the facts relating to the nature of harassment and cruelty. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 3 does not say anything about the nature and details of the harassment meted out by the deceased to know whether the facts alleged amounts to cruelty in law.

According to P.W. 4, the in-laws used to taunt the deceased saying that she has come from an affluent family and they cannot afford to bear her prodigal conduct as she was indulging in wasting of the things in kitchen. Therefore, she was told not to visit the kitchen. Because of such a treatment the deceased gets frustrated and commits suicide.,

After carefully going through the evidence in the light of the definition of cruelty envisaged u/s 498-A , I am unable to agree with the arguments of learned SPP Mr. S. Marigowda that the conduct of the accused in relation to the deceased amounts to a cruelty. It is not the intendment of law u/s 498-A of I.P.C. to favour or pamper a woman to be dominating and obdurate in the family sans the social and family responsibilities and accountability. Merely, because her in-laws or husband were to chastise a woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does not necessarily amounts to a cruelty. It appears that the deceased is a hyper-sensitive lady not used to usual wear and tear of social life and does not have flexible temperamental compatibility to the changing circumstances of life. The accused persons appear to be modest and thrifty persons. The deceased perhaps indulging in wastage of material in the kitchen. Therefore, they might have chastised the deceased and told her not to attend the kitchen to prevent the wastage. Such a conduct on the part of the appellants cannot be construed as a one which is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide and it is only in the nature of censure or a mild reprimand not amounting to cruelty.

In that view of the matter, the finding of the Trial Court that the accused-appellants are guilty of offence punishable u/s 498-A of I.P.C. appears to be untenable and liable to be set aside and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellants-accused are acquitted. The bail bonds executed stand cancelled. The fine amount deposited shall be refunded.