Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 2078 Hon'ble Apex court held that "cruelty has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A IPC and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another."

"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498A IPC as it may be (SC No:118/2012) (State Vs. Mukesh) Page No.33 of pages 45 different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as 'cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty".

Explanation.­ For the purposes of this section, "dowry death", shall have the same meaning as in section 304­B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of (SC No:118/2012) (State Vs. Mukesh) Page No.35 of pages 45 1860)".

From a conjoint reading of Section 304­B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113­B of the Indian Evidence Act, it will be apparent that a presumption arising thereunder will operate if the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances as set out in Section 304­B of the Indian Penal Code.

In another case reported as Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 740 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 683 : 2004(13) SCC 129 was observed that "more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence U/Sec.306 IPC."

In another case reported as State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 186 : 1994(1) SCC 73 it was held that "the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in­laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per section does not attract Sec.306 (SC No:118/2012) (State Vs. Mukesh) Page No.38 of pages 45 read with Sec.107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide".

14. In the light of aforesaid, case of the prosecution fails U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.

15. Now let us see, as to whether the case of the prosecution succeeds U/s 306 IPC or not?

Sec.306 IPC provides as under:­ (SC No:118/2012) (State Vs. Mukesh) Page No.42 of pages 45 Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.