Back
2003 Supreme(Gau) 222
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
I.A.Ansari, J.
Krishna Deka -Appellant
Versus
Bichitra Deka @ Lahkar -Resopndent
Crl.Revn.No. 333 of 2001
Decided On : 23-05-2003
S.Medhi, J.Ahmed , B.Rajkhowa
The case established that wrongful retention of exclusive properties of the wife by the husband constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Breach of Trust - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 406 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute where the complainant alleged torture and cruelty by her husband, leading to her being driven out of her matrimonial house without her properties and daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC based on the unshaken evidence of the complainant and upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence from 6 months to 2 months of rigorous imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused wrongfully retained the complainant's properties, constituting criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the retention of the complainant's exclusive properties by the accused amounted to misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, supported by the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 406 IPC was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to 2 months of rigorous imprisonment.
If the wife brings furniture from her parental house and her parents gift these items to her, such furniture can be considered her personal property or stridhan, especially if the gift is made specifically to her and intended for her exclusive use (!) . Such gifted furniture would typically be regarded as her separate property, distinct from joint family assets or household items used jointly by the family (!) .
However, if the furniture was simply brought from her parental house without a formal gift or specific transfer of ownership, it might be considered part of her personal belongings at the time of marriage, but its status could depend on the nature of the transfer and the intention behind it (!) .
In summary, furniture gifted by the parents to the wife is generally regarded as her personal property or stridhan, whereas furniture merely brought from her parental house without a formal gift may not automatically be classified as her exclusive property unless supported by evidence of gift or ownership transfer (!) .
The judgment and order under challenge in the present revision was passed by learned Sessions Judge, Marigaon, on 19.6.2001, in Crl. Appeal No. 7/2001, upholding the judgment and order, dated 26.02.2001, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Marigaon, in CR Case No. 24667 99 convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 406 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months.
2. Briefly stated, the materials facts leading to the present revision may be stated as follows:-
(i) One Smti. Bichitra Lakhar instituted CR Case No. 2466/99 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Marigaon, her case being, briefly stated, Thus: The complainant and the accused-petitioner, namely Sri Krishna Deka are legally wedded husband and wife. After their marriage, the complainant started living with the accused at her matrimonial house and out of their wedlock, a female child was born to them. During her conjugal life with the complainant at her matrimonial house, she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the accused persons inasmuch as they used to assault her and torture her off and on and, lastly, on 19.11.98, she was beaten by the accused persons and driven out of her matrimonial house by them and she was not allowed to take her “stridhan” (i.e. her properties) and her daughter. On the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned trial Court, some properties were recovered and seized from the house of the accused and the same were handed over to the complainant. Along with the properties aforementioned, the female child was also recovered and was given in custody of the complainant. The original complaint was instituted by the complainant against her husband, Krishna Deka and Miss Deepa Deka.
(ii) During trial, charges under Sections 406 and 323IPC read with Section 34IPC were framed against the accused, but the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. The complainant examined altogether there witnesses. The two accused afore mentioned were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. PC. and in their examination aforementioned, they denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial and of the complainant having left her matrimonial house on her own free will. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.
(iii) The trial ended with the conviction of the present accused-petitioner under Section 406 I PC and t he other c o-accused, namely, Miss Deepa Deka was acquitted. Aggrieved by this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 7/2001 aforementioned and upon hearing, learned Sessions Judge, Marigaon, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 19.6.2001, dismissed the appeal as indicated hereinabove. The accused petitioner has, now, approached this Court by way of the present revision application.
3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned judgments and orders. I have heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the complainant-opp. party. I have also heard, Mr. B. Rajkhowa, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
4. The main thrust of the submissions of Mr. Medhi is that the accused petitioner is the husband of the complainant and the properties as claimed by the complainant had already been recovered and taken possession of by the complainant and in this view of the matter, no case under Section 406IPC can be made out against the accused-petitioner. Mr. Medhi also submits that the properties, which t he complainant brought to her matrimonial house, were not entirely her properties and that the accused-petitioner, as husband, cannot be described as a trustee in respect of these properties. Mr. Medhi further submits that the complainant never demanded return of her properties and since the accused-petitioner never refused to part with any property, which the complainant had brought to
