Unexplained Injuries on Husband Showed Matrimonial Discord Not Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S. 498A IPC
Generalised accusations cannot substitute proof of cruelty under Section 498A IPC
The Calcutta High Court, noting that the allegations in the matter were general in nature and that the prosecution failed to explain injuries found on the husband, thereby casting doubt on its version, observed that the case reflected matrimonial discord rather than unilateral cruelty.
Allowing a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1890, the Court emphasised that omnibus and generalised allegations, unsupported by specific instances or corroborative material, cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction.
Accordingly, reassessing the entire evidentiary record, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed, “…cumulative assessment of the entire fact and circumstances, their remains no doubt that the prosecution failed to establish that any physical or mental torture was inflicted upon the victim to that extent for which she was compelled to commit suicide. The place of occurrence where the unfortunate incident took place is found not mentioned. After the incident, none of the F.I.R named accused persons left the premises and each of the witnesses found present at the place. Not taking the victim to the hospital only cannot be the reason for raising doubt against the accused persons that they intentionally did not took her to hospital when the factum of sustaining injury the husband also sustained injury. From the examination of the mother of the appellant, the co-accused that while removing the body of Uma to Hospital the injury was sustained in her legs, and this also corroborate with the version of the doctor. So, there was no other injuries found in the body to establish any physical torture”.
Advocate Achin Jana appeared for the appellant, and Advocate Baisali Basu appeared for the respondent.
The appeal before the High Court arose from a conviction under Section 498A IPC, where the victim allegedly committed suicide, and the husband and the mother-in-law were held guilty of subjecting the victim to cruelty by the trial court. As per the facts, the marriage was solemnised against the wishes of the parents.
The prosecution relied primarily on the victim’s letter written 4 months ago from the date of incident, relatives’ allegations, alleging ill-treatment during the subsistence of the marriage, while the defence assailed the conviction on the ground that the allegations were vague, uncorroborated by medical or independent evidence.
Noting the contents of the letter, the trial court was of the opinion that the letter contained no allegation of physical cruelty but reflected the victim’s unhappiness and mental distress arising from neglect and lack of appreciation in her marital home. On finding no evidence of dowry demand or dowry-related harassment, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 304B IPC, and the prosecution did not challenge that finding.
However, pertinently a significant circumstance weighed by the High Court was the presence of injuries on the husband, which remained unexplained by the prosecution. The Court observed that this fact materially weakened the prosecution version and indicated that the dispute was mutual and stemmed from matrimonial discord, rather than constituting unilateral cruelty of the degree required to attract Section 498A IPC.
The Court also noted that in absence of the original investigating officer in the matter, it could not be ascertained regarding the treatment of the accused persons because of such burn injury.
“…Most of the witnesses, family members or near relatives made omnibus allegations about the torture inflicted upon the victim by the husband and in laws without giving any specific day or time or year and what steps they took after being aware about the same when the parties were continuing with the marital relation about 5 years”, the bench opined.
The bench further observed, “Not taking the victim to the hospital only cannot be the reason for raising doubt against the accused persons that they intentionally did not took her to hospital when the factum of sustaining injury the husband also sustained injury”.
On the dowry charge, the Court reiterated that dowry must be shown to be a quid pro quo for marriage. In the absence of any evidence of marriage-linked demand, the Court held that voluntary or customary gifts cannot be treated as dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Cause Title: Jagadish Mishra & Another v. The State of West Bengal [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:99]
Appearances:
Appellants: Achin Jana, Prosenjit Ghosh, Chetna Rustagi, Advocates
Respondent: Baisali Basu, Jr GA, Sobhan Gani, Advocates