Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. While hearing arguments having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court had occasion to peruse records of the courts below, perusal whereof certainly compels this Court to agree with the arguments having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that there was no occasion for the Courts below to hold the petitioner guilty on the same set of evidence, on the basis of which other co-accused were acquitted, because, bare perusal of evidence led on record by the prosecution suggests that allegations of cruelty, if any were not specifically against petitioner and there was no specific allegation of cruelty as provided under Section 498 IPC against the petitioner, which could compel the Courts below to .

record conviction under Section 498-A IPC against petitioner. Since, there is no dispute, if any, with regard to the factum of marriage inter se complainant and petitioner, this Court, need not look into that aspect, as agreed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner also. This Court, solely with a view to find answer to the arguments having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, carefully perused Section 498-A IPC, perusal whereof certainly suggests that 'cruelty', if any, is to be construed strictly in terms of explanation given to aforesaid Section. At this stage, it may be profitable to reproduce Section 498A IPC as under:

24. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000 SC 3559 the apex Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Further, in another case Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078, the Supreme Court held that "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498-A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.

26. Taking note of the above judgments amongst others Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam 2009 (2) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1036 observed that "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is to be established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be 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 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as "cruelty"."