Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 662
SURPEME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Jayesh Kanna – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Law And Order (West) Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382-2383 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 - 8582 of 2026) (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
Decided On : 07-05-2026
Important Points
(1) Cruelty – Question of mental cruelty must be determined in context of facts and circumstances of each case – Whether an act amounts to cruelty or not varies from person to person, their sensitivity, their mental fortitude and faculties all come into picture.
(2) Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication.
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty – Question of mental cruelty must be determined in context of facts and circumstances of each case – Whether an act amounts to cruelty or not varies from person to person, their sensitivity, their mental fortitude and faculties all come into picture – An innocent quarrel may affect a person more than others depending upon their mental state of being – As such, there cannot be a thumb rule with respect to determination of mental cruelty which can be applied uniformly to all cases – It is also required to be determined whether gravity or seriousness of act is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause injury or danger to her mental health – Petty quarrel cannot be termed as cruelty to attract charge under Section 498A. (Paras 15 and 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 304B – Cruelty and dowry death – Conviction and sentence – Refusal to Return Passport – Allegation of dowry death has also not been proved against Appellant as well as against in-laws – Trial Court observed that prosecution has not established that Appellant has instigated deceased to commit suicide or engaged himself in a conspiracy with others for commission of suicide – Prosecution has to establish allegations beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of any material, mere non-communication with deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, fall within ambit of cruelty – Prosecution has utterly failed to establish ingredients to prove charge under Section 498A IPC – Conviction and sentence set aside and Passport of Appellant, to be returned to him. (Paras 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
By common impugned judgment, High Court confirmed judgment of Trial Court maintaining conviction and sentence for charge under Section 498A IPC and also dismissed criminal revision petition filed by Appellant. Assailing the common impugned judgment, instant appeals have been filed.
Findings of Court:
Since, the appeals against such conviction and sentence are allowed by this order, in consequence, it is directed that the Passport of the Appellant, if seized by the Trial Court, shall be returned to him. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Basanth, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. K P Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv. Mr. P Venkatesan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Balaji Subramanian, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Akash Kundu, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
ORDER :
1) Delay condoned.
2) Leave granted.
3) The instant appeals have been preferred, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 09.01.20231[Crl.A.No.831 of 2018 and Crl.R.C. No. 1351 of 2019] passed by the Madras High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) confirming the judgment dated 29.11.2018 of the Trial Court2[IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore in Session Case No.248 of 2015] convicting the Appellant for the iced harge under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and directing him to undergo the sentence of three years Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as ‘RI’) with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, six months RI. The High Court, vide the impugned order has also dismissed the criminal revision3[Crl.RC No. 1351 of 2019] filed by the Appellant challenging the order4[Order dated 18.10.2019 in C.M.P. No. 476 of 2019 in S.C. No. 248 of 2015] of the Trial Court refusing to return his passport (marked as M.O.12).
4) As per the case of prosecution, the deceased Sangeetha committed suicide between 5.00-6.45 P.M. on 31.01.2015 by hanging, while she was staying at her parental home. The Appellant-accused is the husband of the deceased. As alleged, at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Rs.3 lakhs, 20 sovereign gold jewels to her and 1 sovereign chain of 3 gm., dollar, 1/2 sovereign ring, 3 gm kanganam and 2 kg of silver to the Appellant. It was further alleged that Appellant often asked the deceased to bring money from her parents while the remaining accused persons consistently agitated the issue of demand for additional dowry, subjecting the deceased to persistent harassment. The allegation against the brother-in-law is of scolding the deceased due to her dark complexion. Additionally, the prosecution alleges that the Appellant reprimanded the deceased for visiting her parents against his family’s wishes and refused to speak to her over the phone. It is alleged that this non -communication caused severe mental agony to the deceased resulting in her being forced to commit suicide on 31.01.2015. On such allegations, the case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B IPC by the Police, Coimbatore City, against the Appellant and 4 co-accused persons viz., fatherin-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law and one of them was a juvenile. The trial was only conducted against four accused persons, while no trial was conducted against the juvenile.
5) It is not in dispute that the Appellant, at the relevant point of time, was working at Muscat, Oman as an Engineer and after marriage, the deceased resided with and her in-laws and the Appellant for some time; later, she shifted to her parents’ house. As alleged, after the deceased came to her parental house, the Appellant had told her that he would not communicate with her over the phone because she had gone there without consulting her in-laws. Therefore, due to such immense mental agony, the deceased committed suicide. With the aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 45 of 2025 dated 31.02.2015 was registered with the B8 Variety Hall Road Police Station initially for the offence under Section 304B IPC. After investigation and submission of the chargesheet, the Trial Court framed charges against the Appellant and the co-accused under Sections 498A and 304B IPC vide the order dated 05.04.2016.
6) In the trial, all other accused persons (in-laws) were acquitted by the Trial Court for the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC since the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment was not proved against them bringing cogent evidence to bring the charge home. However, the Appellant, though acquitted for the charge under Section 304B IPC, was convicted for the charge under Section 498A IPC, and was sentenced as described above. Trail Court further directed that the passport of the Appellant (being M.O. 12) shall be returned to the Accused No. 3 (mother-in-law)
