JUDGEMENT
N.V.ANJARIA -
(1.)APPLICANTS are original accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively.
They came to be convicted for the offences under section 498A read with section
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one
month by judgment and order dated 23.10.2003 of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Mehsana, in Reference Case No. 92 of 2002. The said conviction and
sentence came to be confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mehsana, Third Fast Track Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2003 decided on
11.11.2005. The present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as
'the Code') is directed against the said judgment and order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
(2.)ONE Jiluji Keshaji Solanki of village Hebuva, Taluka and District Mehsana, who was father of the deceased, filed a complaint (Exh.22) on
25.10.2001 against the applicants, who were the husband and mother-in-law of complainant's daughter Hetal. The prosecution case based on that complaint
was that the accused persons used to harass his daughter, which led her to
commit suicide by burning herself. According to the complaint, marriage of
Hetal with accused No.1 was solemnized about two years back. Deceased used
to be taunted for not doing household work by accused persons, and therefore,
she committed suicide at the matrimonial place, alleged the complainant. The
complaint was registered with Vasai Police Station at C.R. I-110/2001 for the
offences punishable under section 498A, 306 and 114 IPC.
After investigation of the case, police filed the charge sheet. As the offences were triable exclusively by court of session, the case was committed to
District Court, Mehsana, and Sessions Case No. 93 of 2002 was registered.
Charge (Exh.4) was framed. According to the charge, accused No.2 mother-
in-law used to taunt the deceased after passage of one year of marriage, and also
used taunt the deceased and used to instigate accused No.1 against the deceased.
Both used to harass the deceased mentally and physically, and often used to
drive her out of the house. It was alleged that by exerting such cruelty, the
accused committed offence under section 498A, and further that they abetted and
instigated the deceased to commit suicide, as a result of which, on 25.08.2001,
the deceased tried to burn herself. At the end of the trial, trial court convicted
the applicants-accused under section 498A read with section 114 IPC. It was
held that offence under section 306 was not proved.
(3.)LEARNED advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the applicant submitted that the conviction under section 498A read with section 114 IPC recorded against the
applicants-accused was not sustainable in law because there was no evidence of
cruelty having been meted out to the deceased by the accused persons. It was
submitted that the concept of cruelty for the purpose of making out offence under
section 498A IPC has a definite requirement in law. According to him, where
the conduct is harrasive, persistent and grave in nature, then only it would
amount to cruelty. Referring to the evidence on record, he submitted that what
was coming out was only a single incident, and at the most few solitary incidents
of the alleged harassment, and the same could not be treated as sufficient to
sustain the charge and conviction for the offence under section 498A. He also
submitted that evidence on record indicated that the deceased was sensitive lady,
that she was not keeping well and was also getting treatment. It was submitted
that the attendant circumstances were suggestive that the deceased might have
committed suicide as she was wary of life and tired off person.
4.1 He relied on decision of this court in Indrasing M. Raol v. State of Gujarat [(1999) 2 GLH 596] to bring his point home that every act of cruelty or harassment is not one contemplated under section 498A IPC. Regarding the standard of proof to be applied, he relied on apex decision in Rajbabu v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 17 SCC 526]. 4.2 On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. L.R. Pujari submitted that the marriage span of the deceased was barely two and half years. It was submitted by him that the evidence of the mother, father and the relatives of the deceased regarding harassment by her in-laws was required to be appreciated in that context and keeping the said factor in view. It was submitted by him that from the cumulative reading of evidence it could be made out that the deceased was subjected to harassment, and that she used to frequently come to her parental house because of cruel and harrasive conduct in the matrimonial home. It was submitted that on a careful reading of the evidence of the parents and the relatives of the deceased, it was possible to infer that she committed suicide because of ill treatment meted out to her. He submitted that even though she was not keeping well, she was forced and required to do the entire household work along at her matrimonial house. He relied on section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to submit that presumption was required to be drawn when married women had committed suicide within a period less than three years of marriage. He submitted that cruelty would mean any willful conduct, which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. He submitted that since the physical condition and health of the deceased was not good, the conduct on the part of the accused amounted to willful conduct of the nature contemplated in sub-clause (a) of the Explanation of section 498A IPC.