Patna High Court
Demand Of Dowry Is Not Sine Qua Non To Make Out Offence Of Cruelty U/S. 498A IPC: Patna High Court
|The Patna High Court allowed a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the Judgment of the Appellate Court, which upheld the conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The Patna High Court held that the demand of dowry is not sine qua non to make out an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court held thus in a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the Judgment of the Appellate Court, which upheld the conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “As such, demand of dowry is not sine qua non to make out an offence of cruelty under Sectin 498A IPC. Hence, an accused can be convicted of charge under Section 498A IPC, even if there is no evidence of demand of dowry, if otherwise his willful conduct or harassment caused by him comes under the definition of cruelty as defined by two limbs of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC.”
The Bench remarked that the harassment of a woman by unlawful demand of dowry also partakes character of cruelty.
Senior Advocate Rajendra Narain represented the Petitioner while APP Upendra Kumar and Advocate Birendra Kumar Chaudhary represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, the informant (wife) was married to the Petitioner-accused (husband) in 1993 and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, jewelry of golden and silver, clothes, utensils and furniture were also given. After the marriage, the informant joined the matrimonial home but after sometime, the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in law, and husband of sister-in-law allegedly started demanding additional dowry by way of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-, failing which she was threatened not to be allowed to settle at the matrimonial home. It was alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused started committing physical and mental cruelty against the informant. She used to inform her parents regarding the demand of dowry, but they used to express their inability to fulfill the demand.
Despite that, the accused persons allegedly mixed poison in her food with intent to kill her. However, she got inkling that poison was mixed in her food and hence, she threw the food. The accused persons also tried to allegedly kill her. In 2001, they allegedly snatched all the gift items from the informant and ousted her from the matrimonial home after beating her. Somehow, she came back to her parental home along with her daughter. The Trial Court found the Petitioner guilty under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The Appellate Court also upheld the conviction and being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… the petitioner was acquitted of charge under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same has not been challenged by the informant before any higher Court. As such, this finding of the Court below stands final.”
The Court said that the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court suffers from perverse appreciation of evidence and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
“From the statutory provisions of Section 498A IPC, it clearly transpires that Section 498A IPC gets attracted against the husband or his relative only when they subject the women to cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ has been defined by the Explanation to Section 498A IPC and it has two limbs – (a) and (b). As per the first limb, ‘cruelty’ means any willful conduct which is of such a nature which is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Here, there is no reference to any demand of dowry”, it added.
The Court was of the view that in this case, there is no reference to demand of dowry, though demand of dowry is covered under the unlawful demand.
“Now coming to the case on hand, I find that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of demand of dowry by the Trial Court and the same has not been challenged by the informant in any higher Court and hence, finding of the Trial Court regarding demand of dowry stands final”, it further observed.
The Court also noted that the allegation of demand of dowry has already been found false by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and the same has not been challenged by the informant in any higher Court.
“As such, there is no cogent evidence adduced by the informant and her witnesses to prove any willful conduct on the part of the petitioner/husband against the informant/wife which could have caused grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the informant/wife. There is also no evidence to prove the allegation of harassment with intent to coerce the informant or her relative to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the finding of conviction by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is based on perverse appreciation of the evidence and misreading/overlooking material evidence, causing miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by the Revisional Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused of all the charges.
Cause Title- Md. Aftab Ahmad @ Aftab Ahmad v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No.23 of 2022)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajendra Narain, Advocates Prashant Kashyap, and Annapurna Sinha.
Respondents: APP Upendra Kumar and Advocate Birendra Kumar Chaudhary.