Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Meera - Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty – Conviction and sentence – Appellant is mother-in-law of deceased – Victim was staying all alone with her in-laws – It was duty of appellant, being mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues – It has been proved that deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by appellant-mother-in-law with regard to jewels – Mother of victim has clearly stated that her daughter was frequently subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning jewels – Findings recorded by both Courts below are on appreciation of evidence – Appellant has been rightly held guilty for offence under Section 498A IPC – No leniency is required to be shown to appellant – Conviction of appellant confirmed – However, instead of one year R.I. for offence under Section 498A, IPC, appellant directed to undergo imprisonment of three months R.I. with fine and default sentence as imposed by Trial Court. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010 by which High Court has dismissed the said appeal so far as the appellant – original accused No.2 is concerned, upholding the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, original accused No.2 –mother-in-law of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
As appellant is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled and the appellant shall now surrender before the appropriate Court / jail authority to undergo the sentence as per the present order within a period of four weeks from today. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal so far as the appellant – original accused No.2 is concerned, upholding the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the original accused No.2 – mother-in-law of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by PW-1 Ramathilagam, mother of the victim therein alleging that all the accused – her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-law were harassing the deceased and she was subjected to torture/cruelty for want of jewels. It was alleged that due to which her daughter had immolated herself. She was taken to the hospital, however, she succumbed to the injuries. All the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
2.1 The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 203 of 2008. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they claimed to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
2.2 To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses. The prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence through the aforesaid witnesses. After completion of the evidences on the side of the prosecution, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused pleaded total denial and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted accused No. 4, however, it convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under Section 498A IPC and three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, accused No. 1, husband of the deceased, accused No. 2, mother-in-law of the victim and accused No. 3, sister-in-law of the victim preferred the appeal before the High Court. By impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and has acquitted all the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also set aside the conviction in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC. However, the High Court has maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of accused No. 2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, dismissing the appeal of accused No.2 and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the original accused No.2, mother-in-law of the victim has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original accused No.2. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent State.
4. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
4.1 It is submitt
To establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC, consistent and specific instances of harassment must be proven; vague allegations are insufficient for conviction.
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for convincing evidence to prove the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing the need to establish cruelty likely to ....
The main legal point established is that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code encompasses both mental and physical well-being of the wife, and actions leading to emot....
The guilt under Section 498A IPC was established through consistent witness testimony despite minor contradictions, affirming the necessity for reliability in evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused to commit cruelty or abet suicide, and the evidence presented must be specific and cre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
