Supreme Court: Whether the court should held that deceased wife committed suicide due to ill treatment on account of demand of dowry if no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage?

The High Court after reappreciating the evidence confirmed those findings. The High Court has held that the whole story regarding demand of dowry was unnatural and improbable in view of the fact that Rajeeva was married to respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that before or at the time of marriage they had not demanded any dowry and that they also knew that financial condition of the father of Rajeeva was not such that he could have given a scooter, a fridge, an almirah, a water filter and cash of Rs. 2000/-. {Para 5}

6. On going through the judgments of both the courts and the evidence, we find that the reasons given by the two courts for not placing reliance upon the aforesaid two witnesses are not at all improper. PW 1-father of Rajeeva, happened to be a friend of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. His daughter was married to respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was also not disputed that while fixing the marriage, no demand for dowry was made. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is not believable that within seven days of the marriage, they would have started demanding such articles. Even in the letter, Ex. P.4 produced by the friend of Rajeeva - PW 5, there is no mention of demand of dowry or ill-treatment, by any of respondents. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 136/94

Decided On: 08.01.1998

Meka Ramaswamy Vs. Dasari Mohan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.T. Nanavati and S.S.M. Quadri, JJ.

Judgement Pronounced by G.T. Nanavati, J.-

Citations: AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 774,1998 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 156/1998 ALL M R (Cri) 419 MANU/SC/0042/1998.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence of demand of dowry if there is evidence that family of accused was more prosperous than family of deceased wife?

 In the instant case, there is no doubt that there is evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the Appellant and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence of PWs. 4, 5 and 6 do support the case of the prosecution in this regard. It is, however, contended on behalf of the Appellant that though these witnesses have made such allegations, the allegations are not true. In the first instance, it was submitted that the family of the Appellant is relatively more prosperous than the family of the deceased. There is no allegation that any dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. The defence evidence also proves that the marriage ceremony was a simple ceremony where only the chunni ceremony was performed with only 11 or 17 persons constituting the barat. It was further contended that the family of the Appellant has considerable landed property, about 30 bighas of land and they are agriculturists. That apart the father of the Appellant was employed with the Electricity Board at Nabha. The Appellant had no reason to demand Rs. 10,000/- for supporting a shop because he did not intend to start any such shop nor was there any necessity to do so. So far as demand of a fridge is concerned, only three weeks before the occurrence they had purchased a new fridge and therefore, the allegation regarding demand of articles and Rs. 10,000/- appear to be false. Even before the marriage, the Appellant had in his house a black and white T.V. and therefore, there was really no need for the Appellant to demand a T.V. In any event, in these circumstances, it does not appear probable that for such petty things the Appellant would commit the murder of the deceased. The Learned Counsel therefore, argued that the prosecution evidence regarding demand of dowry must be rejected outright. There is no evidence to establish that such a complaint was ever made to anyone before the occurrence, nor had the parents of the deceased convened any panchayat making such a grievance, particularly in the background of the fact that the family of the Appellant had twice convened panchayat and had even taken the panchayat members to the village of the deceased to complain about her conduct. It was, therefore, submitted that Section 304B was not attracted to the facts of this case. It may be that the deceased committed suicide after she had a serious quarrel with her husband for her having stayed for the night at the house of Balwant Rai with whom the husband suspected her illicit relationship. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2005

Decided On: 07.11.2006

Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Author: B.P. Singh, J.

Citation: 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 330,MANU/SC/8928/2006

Print Page

Supreme court: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if there is allegation that accused demanded dowry after passing of near about six years from the date of his marriage?

 The instant case is required to be examined from another angle also. The marriage took place on 1st December, 1978. The complainant party could not place any correspondence on record prior to February 1985 except letter dated 24th February, 1979 written by the deceased herself to her husband. However, it goes in favour of the appellants. Therefore, it is evident that the controversy arose only after the expiry of the period of more than 6 years from the date of marriage. It is quite possible that the dispute arose between the parties only because of the suspicion that the deceased had developed an illicit relationship with Kake. Had there been a demand of dowry or ill-treatment to her on any other ground by the appellants, there could have been some correspondence between the parties during the aforesaid long period of more than 6 years. None of the prosecution witnesses had made any allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment during the said earlier period. It is unnatural that after expiry of such a long period, the appellants suddenly became greedy and started demanding ornaments and for not meeting their demand, started ill treating the deceased to the extent that she had to commit suicide. Thus, the allegations made by the complainant party remained unnatural and improbable. More so, the demand had been only of a thin gold chain which could not be very expensive in those days, especially given the socio-economic status of all the parties. For the gold ornament worth such a petty amount after the expiry of a long period of about 6 = years, from the date of marriage, it is not natural that the appellants could treat the deceased with such cruelty that she was drawn to commit suicide. {Para 34}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 770,2011 ALLMR 288 (SC),MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores

 Criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure

that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases

involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC

and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious

approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the

provisions are intended to protect women from

cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be

used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior

motives. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.1754/2024)

P.V. KRISHNABHAT & ANR Vs  THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS.

Dated: JANUARY 15, 2025.

Print Page

Whether demand of articles towards customary rituals amounts to Dowry demand attracting prosecution U/S 498A of IPC?

 Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, whatever allegations are made about demand, is not illegal demand towards any dowry. According to him, demand was towards customary rituals which are acknowledged in the community. Hence, according to him, rigors of section 498-A of IPC would not be attracted. {Para 20}

21. Here, father and uncle of deceased have both deposed about demand of "Mul". As stated above, learned APP herself clarified that, when newly wedded bride visits her parent's place for the first time or during first visit after conception and delivery, there is a custom of giving articles. Informant narrated that on 19.02.2002, his brother PW2 Shiwaji was sent to fetch deceased, but she was not allowed to go, saying that, said customary 'Mul' is not given.

22. Though above demand of articles is customary, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SC/0210/2015 : 2015:INSC:161 : AIR 2015 SC 1359, observed that, any demand made by husband or his relatives before, during or after the marriage are considered as a dowry. This view is again reiterated in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0027/2022 : 2022:INSC:30 : (2022) 5 SCC 401.

In view of above, though demands are termed as 'customary' in view of above ruling, every demand is to be held as dowry demand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Important Provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961

 2. Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,

at or before 4[or any time after the marriage] 5[in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation I.—6[* * *]

Explanation II.—The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Print Page

Supreme Court: Seeking Financial Assistance Can Constitute Demand For Dowry

 Mr. Raval relied on decision of this Court in the case of Appasaheb &

Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, in this judgment it was

observed:

“11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the

word “dowry” any property or valuable security

should be given or agreed to be given either directly

or indirectly at or before or any time after the

marriage and in connection with the marriage of the

said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of

property or valuable security must have some

connection with the marriage of the parties and a

correlation between the giving or taking of property

or valuable security with the marriage of the parties

is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be

strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well-known

social custom or practice in India. It is well-settled

principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is

passed with reference to a particular trade, business

or transaction and words are used which everybody

conversant with that trade, business or transaction

knows or understands to have a particular meaning

in it, then the words are to be construed as having

that particular meaning.(See Union of India v.

Garware Nylons Ltd. (1996) 10 SCC 413 and

Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India

(1997) 2 SCC 664.) A demand for money on account

of some financial stringency or for meeting some

urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure

cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said

word is normally understood. The evidence adduced

by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any

demand for “dowry” as defined in Section 2 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants

as what was allegedly asked for was some money

for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing

manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section

304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established,

the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”

7. But the view of the Court reflected in that judgment that seeking

financial assistance would not per se constitute demand for dowry has been

rejected by a later judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the

case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477. Upon

considering the case of Appasaheb (supra) and certain other authorities, it

was held in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra):-

“20. Given that the statute with which we are

dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and commonsense

interpretation so as to fulfil the object sought to

be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment

in Appasaheb case followed by the judgment of Vipin

Jaiswal do not state the law correctly. We, therefore,

declare that any money or property or valuable

security demanded by any of the persons mentioned

in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or

before or at any time after the marriage which is

reasonably connected to the death of a married

woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in

relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given

case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.”

(Non-Reportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1850 OF 2010

Jatinder Kumar  Vs.  State of Haryana 

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Dated:Dated: December 17, 2019

Print Page

Whether demand of property in connection with marriage amounts to dowry demand?

Learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the following observations made by this Court in the case of Appasaheb1:

A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.

The above observations of this Court must be understood in the context of the case. That was a case wherein the prosecution evidence did not show 'any demand for dowry' as defined in Section 2 of the 1961 Act. The allegation to the effect that the deceased was asked to bring money for domestic expenses and for purchasing manure in the facts of the case was not found sufficient to be covered by the 'demand for dowry'. Appasaheb1 cannot be read to be laying down an absolute proposition that a demand for money or some property or valuable security on account of some business or financial requirement could not be termed as 'demand for dowry'. It was in the facts of the case that it was held so. If a demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, in our opinion, such demand would constitute 'demand for dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand being immaterial.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2006

Decided On: 08.02.2011

 Bachni Devi  Vs. State of Haryana through Secretary, 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court should grant decree for divorce if wife makes false allegations of demand of dowry?

Though the husband would be entitled to a decree of nullity, we must add that if at all we were not to grant a decree of nullity in favour of the husband, we would have granted a decree in his favour under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act on the ground of cruelty as the wife has levelled serious allegations that the husband had asked huge amount from her father at the time of the marriage and had also sought a large amount from him for purchasing a luxury bus and since her father had not paid the amount, he had filed a false case that she suffers from sickle cell anemia. The fact that the wife suffers from sickle cell anemia is proved by the husband and it is also held so, by the Family Court. The wife has not proved the serious allegations that she has levelled against the husband in the written statement. She has not entered into the witness box to prove the allegations about the wrongful demands made by the husband at the time of the marriage or even thereafter. It is well settled that levelling of false allegations against the husband, specially in respect of demand of dowry and failing to prove the same would tantamount to cruelty. Be that as it may, since we are granting a decree of nullity in favour of the husband, it would not be necessary to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as, as soon as we hold that the marriage is a nullity, there is no question of dissolving the marriage under Section 13 of the Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Family Court Appeal No. 158/2014

Decided On: 26.04.2017

 Pradeep Vs. Sau. Pallavi Pradeep Ambhore

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.A. Naik and Swapna Joshi, JJ.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 627

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 498A of IPC is made out even if there is no dowry demand?

 In Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0576/2013 : (2013) 7 SCC 108, while dwelling upon the concept of 'cruelty' enshrined Under Section 498-A the Court has opined thus:

Clause (a) of the Explanation to the aforesaid provision defines "cruelty" to mean "any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide". Clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand. Clause (a) can take in its ambit mental cruelty.

13. The aforesaid analysis of the provision clearly spells how coercive harassment can have the attributes of cruelty that would meet the criterion as conceived of Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the emphasis is on any wilful conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the first limb of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has nothing to do with the demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the person concerned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 5928-5929 of 2016)

Decided On: 22.11.2016

K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Citation:2017(11) SCC176.

Print Page

Whether cruelty as per S 498A of IPC can be inferred if wife commits suicide?

Considering   evidence   of   material   witnesses   namely   PW­1
Ashish and PW­4 Dr. Yadavrao on the point of cruelty provided by accused
to  deceased  Vandana  and on  demand of  dowry, we  do not  find their
evidence to be sufficient to attract provisions of Sections 498­A and 304­B
of the Indian Penal Code.  As in the evidence of neither of these witnesses,

there are specific allegations of cruelty as required under the law to be
established by the prosecution.  The existence of cruelty cannot be proved
merely because suicide has been committed or deceased died of unnatural
death.     Undoubtedly   to   a   large   extent,   the   concept   of   cruelty   will   be
subjective, but no claim of cruelty can be made  within objective basis.
Thus, merely because victim has taken a drastic step of ending her life, it
cannot be presumed that the treatment that was being given to her was
cruel, so as to attract punishment provided for, in Section 498­A of the
Indian Penal Code.   Explanation to Section 498­A of Indian Penal Code
makes it clear that cruelty means “any willful conduct, which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman”.  The words “willful conduct” and “likely to” used in explanation
clause (a) are significant.   The words “likely to” used in the said clause
show that clause (a) of explanation to Section 498­A of the Indian Penal
Code requires a willful conduct to be of such a nature as would likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health.   The extent of cruel treatment needs to be objectively
assessed in order to see whether a reasonable or average person would
likely  to be driven  to  commit suicide  or cause grave  injury  to her on
account of treatment.  
Had
the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment to Vandana were
established thereby making an offence under Section 498­A of the Indian
Penal Code, the things would have been different.  However, in the absence
of such evidence and since we do not find dowry demand and harassment
to Vandana to be established, provisions of Section 304­B of Indian Penal
Code cannot put into play so as to attract presumption as to dowry death.
It is necessary to show that soon before the death, deceased had been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection
with, any demand for dowry.  When this essential ingredient has not been
established in the present case, the question of drawing any presumption
by invoking aforesaid provisions does not arise at all. 
Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to
bring in application of Section 304­B of the Indian Penal Code.  It has to be
shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection
with the demand for dowry.   Since the prosecution failed to prove that
aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.08 OF 2005
 Dnyaneshwar @ Nana Kashinath Jumade V State of Maharashtra,

  CORAM  : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
   P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

Dated :     AUGUST 19th, 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4783

Print Page

When offence of dowry death is not made out?

PW-1, Laxmi Prasad Lonia, uncle of the deceased acknowledged that
at the time of marriage, the Respondents had agreed that whatever would
be given would be acceptable to them. Silver ornaments, sofa, bed, TV,
Godrej Almirah, watch and utensils were given voluntarily. Thereafter,
general allegations have been made that dowry was being demanded
without any mention of the nature of demand much less any singular act of
cruelty or harassment described motivated by the desire for extraction of
dowry. Rs.5,000/- was demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker, which cannot be construed as a dowry demand.
There is no evidence of any specific dowry demand. Likewise, PW-2,
Shriram Lonia, father of the deceased also deposed in general terms that
dowry was being demanded without mentioning any specific items or much
less the nature of cruelty or harassment let alone any specific instance with
regard to the same. He also acknowledged that at the time of marriage, no
dowry was demanded and he gave gifts voluntarily. Likewise, PW-3,
Godavaribai, mother of the deceased also deposed in very general terms
not citing any instance of harassment or cruelty much less any nature of the
same or that in proximity to death. Other witnesses also have talked of
Rs.5,000/- having been demanded to ensure employment for the deceased
as an Anganbadi Worker. Even other witnesses on which reliance has been
placed have not spoken of any specific nature of cruelty or harassment
much less the nature of the dowry demand and have not cited a single
instance of harassment or cruelty for dowry.
8. We therefore do not find any reason to differ with the conclusions of
the Additional Sessions Judge that there was complete want of evidence
with regard to any cruelty or harassment for purposes of dowry, much less
any specific instance cited or the nature of such cruelty or harassment
mentioned let alone any specific demand for dowry made. There is
complete want of evidence with regard to any occurrence related to a
demand for dowry in proximity to death. The ingredients of Section 304B
IPC having not been fulfilled, we find no reason to interfere with the
acquittal.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2001
State of Chhattisgarh

v
 Mahendra Kumar Lonia, 
Dated:12/4/2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)237 CHH

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 498A of IPC is made out if there is illtreatment on account of demand of money for wine shop?

In the present case after noticing the injuries on the person of
victim which is not at all explained by the appellant husband
although in the fateful night he and the deceased slept together in the
same room before she consumed poison, the High Court has come to
a well considered finding in paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment
that the deceased was being harassed both physically and mentally
and in direct as well as indirect ways for non compliance with the
demand of the accused for Rs.1,00,000/- for investment in his wine
business. The High Court found that such harassment falls squarely
under clause (b) of the explanation of Section 498-A of the IPC. We
find no good reason to take a different view.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1358 of 2008

Satish Shetty Vs  State of Karnataka 

Citation:2016 CRLJ3147 SC

Print Page

Whether wife can be denied maintenance on ground that in laws are acquitted in dowry demand case?

Acquittal of the petitioner and his family members in
dowry demand case is no ground to deny maintenance to the
wife and the child. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his
liability to maintain the wife and the child on this score. The case
in hand is required to be decided on the preponderance of
probabilities and no strict standard of proof is required to be
proved.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
 Crl. Misc. No.M-33576 of 2013(O&M)
 Date of decision : 20.09.2016
Narender @ Kala .
v
Sunita

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Print Page

Whether evidence regarding demand of Dowry can be disbelieved on the ground that family of Husband is wealthy?

Dowry demand-Wealth of Husband's family-Relevance-Appellant tried to show that family of appellant is quite well off having two cars and two scooters for use-Held by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve statement of witnesses regarding demand of dowry.
 After going through the relevant material including judgments of the courts below and evidence of material witnesses, particularly informant PW 8, her husband PW 9, a cousin of the deceased PW 10 and a friend of the deceased PW 18 this Court finds that the High Court has committed no error in appreciating the evidence for coming to the conclusion that allegations of torture as well as demand of articles by way of dowry against the Appellant was clear, specific and stood proved. Learned senior Counsel has tried to show that the family of the Appellant is quite well off having two cars and two scooters for use. But that by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of witnesses noticed above. Even the evidence of PW 12 who is the common relation of both the parties discloses in no uncertain terms that he had received information from not only the informant Chandirkaben (PW8) but also from his niece Aartiben (PW 10) of demand of dowry articles as well as harassment and torture made to deceased Hina and disclosed by her to the informant and PW 10. In the last part of his statement in chief, PW 12 has categorically stated that Hina was being harassed mentally and physically for the purpose of receiving dowry and therefore she committed suicide by taking poison. The evidence of PW 8, the informant at many places is very specific based upon version given by the deceased that her mother-in-law was finding faults repeatedly with her house hold work, she was compelling her to get up early in the morning and was misguiding Nilesh, accused No. 1 by talking about very minor matters about the deceased. At another place PW 8 deposed that the deceased informed her that her mother-in-law asked the deceased in the name of Nilesh to bring a big box type cot, room furniture, juicer mixer, gifts and cash amount received in marriage from her parents otherwise Nilesh would divorce her. When Hina told her mother in law that if such talk takes place she will commit suicide, the mother-in-law replied that her son will be relieved if she commits suicide.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2009
Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat
Citation;2015ALLMR(Cri)346(SC), 2015(1)BomCR(Cri)1, (2015)2SCC690

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment on appreciation of evidence in the offence u/s 498A of IPC

 Section 498A the requirement of the statute is acts of cruelty by the husband of a woman or any relative of the husband. The word cruelty in common English acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful and distressing to another. The legislative intent thus is clear enough to indicate that in the event of there being a state of conduct by the husband to the wife or by any relative of the husband which can be attributed to be painful or distressing. The same would be within the meaning of the Section. In the instant case there is no evidence whatsoever. It is on this score Mr. Verma contended that there is no sufficient evidence for even the dowry demand far less the evidence of cruelty available on record. No outside person has been called to give evidence and even the witnesses being in the category of interested witnesses also restricted their version to sufferings of burn injury and the purported dying declarations to the matter as noticed herein before apart therefrom nothing more is available on record to attribute any act or acts on the part of the husband or on the part of husbands relatives is that evidence sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 498A? The answer obviously cannot be in the affirmative having regard to the non-availability of any evidence in the matter. Significantly however, upon recording of the fact of no dowry demand prior to the date of occurrence the High Court thought it fit to record that charge under Section 498A stands proved and as such passed the sentence. We are however unable to record our concurrence therewith - torture is a question of fact there must be proper effort to prove that aspect of the matter, but unfortunately not even an attempt has been made nor any evidence tendered to suggest the same excepting the bold interpolated allegations which stand disbelieved and ignored by the High Court, and in our view rightly.

Supreme Court of India

Arvind Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 April, 2001

Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, K.G. Balakrishnan

Print Page