Madras High Court: Section 498A IPC Not Limited To Dowry Harassment; Includes Other Instances Of Cruelty Meted Out On Wife By Husband Or His Relatives
The Madras High Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC against a husband and in-laws who allegedly forced the wife to take abortion pills.
The Madras High Court clarified that Section 498A of the IPC is not limited to dowry harassment but also includes other instances of cruelty meted out on a wife by her husband or his relatives.
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the husband and the in-laws (Appellants) under Section 498A of the IPC, who allegedly administered some pills into the mouth of the wife by force to abort her pregnancy.
A Single Bench of Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup held, “Nowhere in Section 498 (A) of IPC, it is stated that it is the offence only if it involves dowry harassment. A married woman may be subjected to cruelties by her husband and other relatives for very many reasons. Section 498(A) only specifies cruelty meted out to the wife by the Husband. As per the evidence available before the trial Court, P.W-1 was forcibly administered some medicine into her mouth by Accused-1 and Accused-2 to abort the child in the womb.”
Advocate R Sankara Subbu appeared for the Appellants, while Government Advocate V Meganathan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the stepmother of the husband did not like the wife and instigated the husband to drive her out of the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that when the wife became pregnant, the husband and the stepmother forcibly administered pills to abort the pregnancy. Later, the Prosecution alleged that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home, and when she refused to leave, the husband threatened her with a machete.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “The evidence of P.W-1 regarding the sufferings she had undergone at the hands of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been clearly narrated and it attracts the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate on proper appreciation convicted Accused-1 and Accused-2 for the offence under 498(A) of IPC. On re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal as Appellate Court had arrived at the same conclusion.”
“Even if there is no dowry harassment, the atrocities and cruelties meted out to P.W-1 had been clearly spoken to by her in her evidence. On the other hand, the Accused did not examine any witness on their side or marked any document to support their weak defence. The attempt of the Accused to prove the accusations levelled against them is futile and infirm. On the other hand, the other witnesses examined on the side of the Prosecution supported the evidence of P.W-1,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram in C.C.No.50 of 2011, dated 30.05.2017 and confirmed in Appeal by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2017 dated 26.11.2018 are confirmed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision.
Cause Title: Ramasamy & Anr. v. State (Criminal Revision Case No.504 of 2019)
