SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1139

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Kamalakar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011
Decided On : 12-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. (Not Present) Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.

The main legal point established in this judgment is that the appellant's actions constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but there was no evidence to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Headnote:

cruelty - IPC - Section 498A, Section 306 - Section 498A IPC penalizes husbands or their relatives who subject a woman to cruelty, with penalties of up to three years' imprisonment and a possible fine. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide, punishing those who abet the commission of suicide with imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine. The court analyzed the elements and requirements of both sections in reaching its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves offences relating to cruelty towards the deceased at her matrimonial home under Section 498A IPC and subsequent allegations of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The appellant, the deceased's husband, was convicted for the offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant appealed the judgment, arguing lack of evidence and parity with the acquittal of his parents.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and found that the appellant had assaulted and ill-treated the deceased, leading to her suicide. The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC due to lack of evidence of abetment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's actions constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but there was no evidence to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC. The court also considered the presumption of harassment under Section 498A IPC and the requirements for abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Result: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the said offence. The conviction under Section 498A IPC was affirmed, but the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

1. This Appeal is by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 102/2022 on 7.11.2007.

2. FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1. The case pertains to offences relating to cruelty towards deceased at her matrimonial home under Section 498A IPC and subsequent allegations of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The deceased, who is the informant’s daughter, was married to the appellant for four and a half years until her death in 1994. After their marriage, the couple resided in their matrimonial home in Chinkera Village along with the appellant’s parents. The prosecution alleges that after two years of marriage, all the three accused, i.e., the appellant and his parents, started ill-treating and assaulting her owing to not giving birth to a child and accusing her of not doing household and agricultural work properly. The deceased informed the same to her father when she went to her parental home. The informant, i.e., the father of the deceased, advised the accused and requested them not to ill-treat his daughter.

2.2. About two months prior to the incident, the appellant took the deceased to Bombay for about 4-5 days and then brought her back to her parents’ house. Upon her return, the deceased informed her parents that the accused had assaulted her in Bombay and consequently, her father went to the accused and requested them to take her back to their house. The accused refused his request and told the informant that they were going to remarry the appellant as they were not happy with the conduct of the deceased. The informant came back to his house and informed his family, including the deceased, of the response of the accused.

2.3. On 04.09.1994, at about 08.00 AM, the informant along with his wife and other children, went off to his agricultural land. The deceased was alone at home. They were informed around 10.00 AM that their daughter had poured kerosene oil on her body and burnt herself. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the deceased had burnt herself due to the increasing harassment and mental cruelty from the accused persons.

2.4. On 05.09.1994, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR bearing Cr. No. 81/94 at Hallikhed-B police station Humnabad circle under Section 498A IPC. Since the daughter of the informant succumbed to her injuries on 06.09.1994, offence under Section 306 IPC was added to the FIR. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charges were framed against the accused by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC on 28.11.1998.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, vide order dated 11.12.2001, acquitted accused no. 2 and 3, i.e., the parents of the appellant herein owing to lack of evidence against them. However, the husband (accused no. 1), i.e. the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

4. Thereafter, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal under S. 374(2), Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgement of the Sessions Judge. The High Court of Karnataka, vide order dated 7.11.2007, partly allowed the appeal. While the Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, it modified the sentence in respect of Section 306 IPC

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top