While setting aside the conviction of a man under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court has held that once the allegation of cruelty is not proved against the husband, merely not talking to the wife for some days, proof of which is not available, would not suffice to construe an act of cruelty by the husband.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and directing him to undergo the sentence of three years' Rigorous Imprisonment.

The Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “The prosecution was duty bound to prove such allegation of lack of communication between the Appellant and the deceased with the call details of the deceased, accused and the parents of the deceased, who deposed against the Appellant. In defense, the Appellant stated that he made an attempt to communicate with the deceased, however it could not be materialized because the mobile phone of the deceased was not in order, therefore, he called the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, merely oral testimony to say that because of non-communication on the part of the Appellant, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide was not sufficient to bring the charge within the purview of cruelty. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence in the form of call details, supporting oral testimony. The said duty has not been discharged.”

“Once the allegation of cruelty is not proved against the Appellant or the co-accused, merely not talking to the deceased by the Appellant for some days, proof whereof is also not available, would not suffice to construe an act of cruelty by the Appellant”, it added.

Senior Advocate R Basanth represented the Appellant, while Additional Advocate General Balaji Subramanian represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the deceased committed suicide by hanging while she was staying at her parental home. The appellant-accused was the husband of the deceased. As alleged, at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Rs 3 lakh, 20 sovereign gold jewels and other things to the appellant. It was further alleged that the appellant often asked the deceased to bring money from her parents, while the remaining accused persons consistently agitated the issue of demand for additional dowry, subjecting the deceased to persistent harassment. Additionally, the prosecution alleged that the appellant reprimanded the deceased for visiting her parents against his family’s wishes and refused to speak to her over the phone.

It was alleged that this non-communication caused severe mental agony to the deceased, resulting in her being forced to commit suicide. On such allegations, a case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC against the appellant and four co-accused persons, viz., father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and one of them was a juvenile. The trial was only conducted against four accused persons, while no trial was conducted against the juvenile. By a common impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, maintaining the conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 498A IPC and also dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the appellant. Assailing the common impugned judgment, the appeals were filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Referring to section 498 A IPC, the Bench explained that if the husband or the relatives of the husband subject the woman to cruelty, they shall be punished under the said section. In the explanation appended to Section 498A IPC, the word ‘cruelty’ has been defined, which primarily includes any willful conduct of a nature which may drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

The Bench further explained, “...it is quite clear that the question of mental cruelty must be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. Whether an act amounts to cruelty or not varies from person to person, their sensitivity, their mental fortitude and faculties all come into the picture. An innocent quarrel may affect a person more than others depending upon their mental state of being. As such, there cannot be a thumb rule with respect to determination of mental cruelty which can be applied uniformly to all cases.”

The Bench noticed that the substance of the allegation against the appellant, which had resulted in his conviction under Section 498A IPC, was his refusal to communicate with the deceased over the phone and his displeasure over the deceased going to her parental home without informing the in-laws, which hurt the deceased, who was forced to commit suicide as a result. The Bench reiterated that the prosecution had to establish the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt to bring home the charge as alleged against the accused. As per the Bench, it was not the accused who had to dispel such a burden, especially when the charge under Section 498A IPC was involved. “The prosecution was duty bound to prove such allegation of lack of communication between the Appellant and the deceased with the call details of the deceased, accused and the parents of the deceased, who deposed against the Appellant”, it added.

The Bench noted that, as per the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court, the deceased could not have travelled to Muscat along with the appellant due to pending formalities in her passport, as the visa could not be issued. “Therefore, in absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case”, it added.

Thus, holding that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the ingredients to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC, the Bench allowed the appeal and ordered, “...it is directed that the passport of the Appellant, if seized by the Trial Court, shall be returned to him.”

Cause Title: Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order (West) Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 615)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate R Basanth, AOR A. Lakshminarayanan, Advocates K P Sivakumar, Akash Rajeev, P Venkatesan

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Balaji Subramanian, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Akash Kundu, Veshal Tyagi

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: