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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Vinod Kumar son of Tola Chand Panchal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B Criminal Revision No. 667 of 2013
Decided On : 21-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. MC Bishnoi.
For the Respondent: Mr. OP Rathi, P.P

An extramarital affair between two consenting adults does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC unless the relationship is procured by fraud or deceit.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 498A, 306 IPC - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, was accused of abetting the suicide of his sister-in-law, Deepika, by engaging in an extramarital affair with her. The prosecution alleged that Deepika committed suicide due to the humiliation she faced after her illicit relationship with the petitioner was exposed. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that Deepika's suicide was a result of taunts and insinuations by her matrimonial relatives.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's extramarital affair with Deepika did not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner instigated or abetted Deepika to commit suicide. The court concluded that Deepika's suicide was the result of her own actions and that the petitioner could not be held responsible for her death.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's extramarital affair with Deepika amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC? 2. Whether the petitioner instigated or abetted Deepika to commit suicide?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An extramarital affair between two consenting adults does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC unless the relationship is procured by fraud or deceit. 2. The mere fact that a person's extramarital affair is exposed does not make them liable for the suicide of the other person involved in the affair.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the charges framed against the petitioner, and discharged him from the offenses under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner Vinod Kumar has approached this Court by way of this revision being aggrieved of the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur Camp Sagwara in Sessions Case No. 55/2013 whereby, charges were directed to be framed against him for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Deepika (referred to herein as the deceased) was married to Suresh Chandra Panchal about 12 years before the incident. A son and a daughter were born from her wedlock with Suresh Panchal. She allegedly called her brother Deepak on 14.7.2012 in the morning at about 9:30 AM and complained that her mother-in-law and her husband were quarreling with her and her brother-in-law (Devar) was also threatening that she should either be turned out of the house or killed. Just 15 minutes later, Suresh called him and informed that Deepika had caught fire. On this, Deepak rushed to the Village Diwara Bada and saw the dead body of Deepika lying in the rear courtyard of her matrimonial home. An FIR was lodged by Deepak at P.S Chitari with the specific allegation that his sister was harassed and humiliated by her husband, mother-in-law and Pawan and as a result thereof, she committed suicide. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 129/2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and investigation commenced. During course of investigation, the I.O collected evidence to the effect that the deceased was carrying on an affair with the present petitioner who happens to be a cousin brother of Suresh. She went missing upon which Suresh got a search warrant issued from the Court of S.D.M, Sagwara and in pursuance thereof, the lady was traced out on 12.7.2012 As desired by her, she was allowed to go with her husband. The first informant, upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C resiled from the allegations set out in the FIR and stated that the FIR had been lodged against the husband and in-laws on an impulse and as a matter of fact, the deceased had committed suicide because she felt grave ignominy on account of her seduction by Vinod. He further alleged that Vinod had done some black magic on his late sister and as a result, she committed suicide. Similar allegations were leveled by Suresh Chand husband of the deceased, Smt. Santok her mother-in-law, Geeta and numerous other witnesses examined during investigation. These witnesses also alleged that accused forcibly put a sim in Deepika's mobile and also did some black magic on her and as a result thereof, she became mentally perturbed. She was very troubled because of the situation created by the disclosure of her relations with the petitioner and as a result, feeling ashamed, she committed suicide. In view of these statements, the I.O filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

3. The trial Court drew the following inferences and directed framing of charges against the petitioner as above:—

^^fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd Jh ea;d nks"kh dk rdZ gS fd e`rdk dks mlds llqjky okyksa us vfHk;qDr fouksn ds lkFk Hkkx tkus dks ysdj rkus fn, Fks] ftlls ijs'kku gksdj e`rdk us Loa; dks vkx yxkdj vkRegR;k dh gS] ftlds fy, vfHk;qDr fouksn dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA

ysfdu eS bl rdZ ls fcYdqy Hkh izHkkfor ugh gwa] D;ksfd ifr] lkl o tsB dk ?kj dh cgq dks fdlh nhxj O;fDRk ds lkFk Hkkx tkus ij rkus nsuk furkr LokHkkfod ckr gSaA e`Rkdk 8 o"khZ; iq=h o 5 o"khZ; iq= dh eka Fkh o fookfgrk iRuh ds :i es vius llqjky esa jg jgh Fkh] ftls vius lkFk lac/k cukus ds fy, mdlkus dk vfHk;qDr fouksn dks u rks dkuwuu] u gh uSfrd dksbZ vf/kdkj Fkk] fo'ks"kr% tcfd ;fn vfHk;qDr tknw earj dj e`rdk dks /kkxk ugh igukrk ;k viuh fle }kjk mls Qksu ugh djrk] mls vius lkFk Hkkx tkus ds fy, ugha mdlkrk o vius lkFk ugha ys tkrk rks ;g lEiw.kZ ?kVukØe gh tUe ugha ysrk] blfy, bl LVst ij vfHk;qDr fouksn e`rdk dh vkRegR;k ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls eqDr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA pwafd vfHk;qDr fouksn











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