Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Gautam Verma on 6 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 881 of 2022
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Jamul,
Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
Appellant
Versus
Gautam Verma S/o Shivprasad Verma, Aged about 30
years, Occupation Private Employee, R/o LIG
01/1820, Vishwa Bank Colony, Karan Patle's House,
Kurud, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
06/07/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 378(3) of CrPC against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 22/12/2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44/2018 by which learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has acquitted the respondent herein from charges punishable under Section 498A, 304B in alternative 306 of IPC.
2. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave 2 legal error in acquitting the respondent from the aforesaid charges by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record. He would submit that in the suicidal note (Ex. P/32), the deceased has clearly mentioned that she was being beaten and harassed by the respondent and he had illicit relationships with other girls, as such, it is a case where the leave to appeal deserves to be granted for converting into acquittal appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the records.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Kriti Ramteke started residing with the respondent herein as husband and wife from 20/01/2017. Thereafter, the respondent herein started treating her with cruelty and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ as dowry due to which on 12/08/2017, she committed suicide by hanging herself and the respondent herein thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B in alternative 306 of IPC.
5. Learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 22/12/2021, though has clearly held that deceased Kriti Ramteke committed suicide on 12/08/2017 i.e. within seven months from the date on which she started residing with the respondent as husband and 3 wife and though their marriage has not been proved, but in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Others1, the respondent would be considered as the husband of the deceased for the purpose of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC but ultimately, acquitted the respondent herein holding that it has not been proved that respondent demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ as dowry from the deceased and moreover, even if the allegation of illicit relationship is proved against the respondent, then also the provisions of Sections 498A and 306 of IPC would not be attracted.
6. A careful perusal of the suicide note (Ex. P/2) would show that the deceased has nowhere alleged that the respondent demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ as dowry from her which the trial Court has relied upon and accepted and found progression from the fact that it is the case of the prosecution that on the date of suicide i.e. 12/08/2017 deceased called her father Santosh Kumar Ramteke (P.W.1) and told him about the cruelty of the respondent, but from the call details of the deceased, it is not established that such a call was made by the deceased to her father informing him that respondent demanded Rs. 2,00,000/ as dowry from 1 2004 (3) SCC 199 4 him. As such, the offence under Section 498A and 304B of IPC is not established against the respondent herein beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The crux of the suicidal note (Ex. P/2) is that prior to the marriage of respondent and deceased, the respondent had illicit relationships with girls and he had kept obscene photographs and videos of those girls.
8. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka2 has held that extra marital relationship, per se, or as such, would not come within the ambit of Section 498A and it would be an illegal or immoral act and observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under : "14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat3, the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationshop is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the Explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below: (SCC pp. 75960, para 21) "21. .... True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. IT would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extramarital relationship, even if 2 (2017) 11 SCC 176 3 (2015) 11 SCC 753 5 proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat4, but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted."
15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalise but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extramarital relationship, per se, or as such, would not come within the ambit of Section 498A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extramarital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC."
9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, even if it is held that the respondent herein had extra marital relationship with other girls, it cannot be held that offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B/306 of IPC would be attracted against him. Furthermore, the trial Court has relied upon 4 (2013) 10 SCC 48 6 the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of M.P.5 and has rightly held that no offence under Section 306 of IPC has been proved against the respondent herein. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.
10.In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and this CrMP is dismissed summarily without notice to the other side.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Harneet
5 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731