Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The IInd Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, framed three charges against A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and S. 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence under S. 4, Dowry Prohibition Act. He, however, found the accused guilty of the offences under sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under S. 306, I.P.C. He also sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under S. 498-A I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against that, A-1 to A-3 filed an appeal in this court. This Court allowed the appeal by order dt. 27-10-1987 and set aside the conviction and the sentences passed against the accused. The Supreme Court by order dated 11-7-1988 in Crl. Appeal No. 349/88 set aside the order of this court by holding that the matter requires to be remitted back to this court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, PW-2, the father of the deceased who filed the appeal in the Supreme Court, also filed an application and submitted his written arguments.

40. Repeated instances are being highlighted in various newspaper in the country. There are also social organisation focusing the attention of public on this issue. To ventilate the grievances about atrocities of newly married brides due to dowry or other such similar demands from their husbands or in-laws, women social workers had taken up the cause in a movement in the country and due to the effective persuasion by social compulsions, S. 498-A IPC and S. 113-A, Evidence Act, have been introduced on 25th December 1983. The aforesaid provisions are obviously intended to cure the existing evil in the society. The evil at many times resulted in atrocities on married women and various acts of cruelty were being practiced. No doubt, there were some provisions available in the Penal Code such as S. 306 IPC but the instances were such which could not come to light due to their occurrence in the house of their in-laws. Naturally, the victims could not take recourse to public authorities to ventilate their grievances. After all, the social condition family traditions etc., prevented the brides to take any recourse to public authorities. They could not even convey the atrocities to their parent. It is therefore to curb this social evil which resulted in atrocities on women that the aforesaid provision are introduced.

45. The wilful conduct of the husband in taking liquor almost daily despite the constant protest by his wife and his habit of coming home late at night does not fulfil the essential ingredients of 'cruelty' as defined in S. 498A IPC. The first requisite for attracting the presumption under S. 113-A, Evidence Act, is that it must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in S. 498-A IPC. Taking drink and coming late home much against the will of the wife may not, per se, amount to cruelty, but the acts coupled with beating and demanding dowry and harassment to bring money clearly attracts the terms "cruelty" as defined in S. 498-A IPC. In this case also, the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 reveals that they came to know that A-1 was addicted to alcohol and the ill-treatment was started on account of their failure to fulfil the demand for the T.V. set and gold.

49. In Chanchal Kumari v. Union Territory Chandigarh, the Supreme Court considered a letter written by the deceased to her husband. That letter was found to be almost a love letter and in that letter there is no trace that she was being harassed, or teased by her in-laws. With that background in view, the delay of 1 1/2 months in narrating the incident for the first time has been found to be not convincing and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

50. Section 113-A, Evidence Act and S. 498-A IPC have come into force in 1983 and the courts are now considering the effect of it. Touching the scope and effect of S. 498-A IPC and S. 113-A, Evidence Act, we are having the following cases - Vasanta v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cri LJ 901 (Bom); Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana, 1988 Cri LJ 1048 (Punj & Har); Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1987 Cri LJ 1412 (Punj & Har) and Shyama Devi v. State of W.B. 1987 Cri LJ 1163 (Cal).