2023 Supreme(Cal) 1170
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Ranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRA 16 of 2019
Decided on : 22-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Hillol Saha Podder
For the Respondent: Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Mr. Saurav Ganguly
To establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution must prove specific instances of conduct that are likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, beyond mere day-to-day bickering between spouses.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Section 498A IPC - Cruelty - Interpretation and Application: The court interpreted Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines cruelty against women by their husbands or relatives. Cruelty, as defined in the provision, includes any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health, or harassment with the intent to coerce her or a related person to meet unlawful property demands.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 498A (dowry harassment) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting his wife to cruelty and physical assault. The wife alleged demand for dowry, torture, and an attempt to murder by the appellant and her mother-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any specific instances of torture, assault, or harassment as alleged by the wife. The medical reports showed only simple injuries like bite marks, which did not constitute cruelty under Section 498A.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC? 2. Whether the evidence supported the conviction under Section 498A IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that cruelty under Section 498A IPC requires more than day-to-day bickering between spouses. Sweeping and general allegations are insufficient to establish the offense. In this case, the evidence lacked specific instances of cruelty or harassment, and the medical reports did not support the allegations of grave injury or danger to the wife's life, limb, or health.
Final Decision: The court quashed the conviction under Section 498A IPC but upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt.
JUDGMENT :
Sugato Majumdar, J :
1. The instant appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/07/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tufangunj, Cooch Behar in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2017, corresponding to Sessions Trial No.11 (5) of 2017 whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months as well as fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month. The Appellant was also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Wife of the Appellant being the de-facto complainant lodged complaint in Boxirhat Police Station on 31/05/2016 alleging demand of dowry, torture and attempt to murder against her husband, the present Appellant and the mother-in-law. The written complaint was received and registered as Boxirhat P.S. Case No. 125/2016 under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was initiated after completion of which charge sheet was filed under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was triable by the Court of Sessions. After commitment charges were framed under Sections 498A/323/324/307/34. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial began.
3. In course of the trial prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and produced various documents which were marked and exhibited. No defense witness was produced.
4. Defense of the accused persons were false implication and innocence, as appears from the trend of cross-examination and examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid and acquitted the mother-in-law.
6. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the instant appeal is preferred.
7. Mr. Saha Poddar, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that no material evidence is there to invite convictions under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the prosecution failed to establish any of the charges levelled against the Appellant.
8. There was failure to appreciate evidence and failure to apply the correct principle of law by the Trail Court, according to him. Mr. Saha Poddar prayed for acquittal of the Appellant.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State argued, on the contrary, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was correctly passed on proper application of law and perfect appreciation of evidence. The Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 582] to fortify his argument.
10. I have heard rival submissions.
11. Section 498-A reads as follows:
“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 wilful 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.”
12. The de-facto complainant stated in evidence that she was assaulted and tortured on demand of Rs. 50,000/-; she was beaten on chick by the Appellant; from time to time she was tortured; she was about to be killed on a railway bridge b