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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Kajamaideen – Appellant
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police Thudiyalur All Women Police Station – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 373 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Ganeshkumar
For the Respondent: A. Gokulakrishnan.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for a conviction under Section 498-A of IPC, there must be cogent evidence of persistent cruelty that could drive a woman to suicide, which was not present in this case.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - CRUELTY UNDER IPC - IPC SECTION 498-A, Cr.P.C. SECTION 374(2) - The court discussed Section 498-A of the IPC, which penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. The court interpreted 'cruelty' as conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury. The court found that the evidence did not establish the accused's actions as 'cruelty' under this section, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, married to two women, was charged with cruelty against his second wife, Fathima Bivi, leading to her suicide. The prosecution claimed he neglected and assaulted her, resulting in her self-immolation. The trial court convicted him under Section 498-A of IPC, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily from relatives of the deceased, lacked corroboration and was insufficient to prove the charge of cruelty. The court noted that the accused's actions did not constitute the level of cruelty required under Section 498-A IPC.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not every act of harassment constitutes cruelty under Section 498-A. It required evidence of persistent and severe conduct that could drive a woman to suicide, which was not established in this case.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, and acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 498-A of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in S.C.No. 100 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) at Coimbatore, allow the appeal, set-aside the judgment and order of conviction dated May 4th, 2016 and acquit the appellant.

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred, assailing the judgment dated May 4th, 2016, passed by the 'learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court) Coimbatore' (henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity) in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2013, by the 'appellant herein' (henceforth 'accused' as per Trial Court's description) in which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo three months of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of brevity].

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

    2.1. The accused belongs to Islam religion and has two wives. First wife is Maria Bivi. He had two children through his first wife Maria Bivi. During the subsistence of the first marriage, the accused herein married Fathima Bivi as his second wife. Out of the marriage between the accused and Fathima Bivi, they had two children, one aged two years and another aged one year.

2.2. Ayisha Bivi (PW-1) is the mother of Fathima Bivi. Shahila Banu (PW-2) is the sister of Fathima Bivi. Meharunisha (PW-12) is the sister of PW-1.

2.3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused neglected his second wife and her children and used to assault, torture and inflict cruelty on his second wife frequently. On April 18th, 2011, the accused scolded his second wife Fathima Bivi and assaulted her with his hands and thereafter, he abetted her to commit suicide. Hence, Fathima Bivi set herself and her two toddlers ablaze with kerosene. Due to the said incident, she suffered 90% burn injuries and her two toddlers suffered 10% burn injuries. Upon learning the said incident, the accused took Fathima Bivi and his two toddlers to Mettupalayam Government Hospital and then shifted them to Coimbatore Government Hospital at 08.30 a.m. At 08.45 a.m., Fathima Bivi passed away despite medical treatment. Ayisha Bivi (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased filed a complaint against the accused at 05.30 p.m., on the aforementioned date.

2.4. The Police initially registered a case under Section 174 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973', [henceforth "Cr.P.C." for the sake of brevity] and conducted investigation.

2.5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore District conducted inquest on the dead body of Fathima Bivi on April 19th, 2011 in the presence of Panchayatdars at Government Hospital, Coimbatore and submitted Ex-P.8 Report.

2.6. The Investigating Officer, during his investigation, found that the deceased committed suicide due to the cruelty inflicted and abetment caused by the accused. Hence, he altered the section of law from Section 174 of Cr.P.C., to 498-A and 306 of IPC and sent the alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, he examined the Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased. After completing investigation, he filed a final report against the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

2.7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, registered a case in PRC No. 49 of 2012. After following the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate, observing that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

2.8. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, assigned Sessions Case No.

      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