Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 498 IPC in St. vs . Kailash Sharma & Ors. on 15 September, 2014Matching Fragments
6. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 208 Cr.PC. Arguments on the point of charge heard and vide order dated 05.10.2010 charge u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against accused Kailash Sharma, Har Prasad Sharma and Suresh Sharma under section 498A/34 IPC and charge under section 406 IPC was framed against accused Kailash Sharma to which they individually pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Premwati, Pawan Sharma and Rekha Sharma were discharged vide order dated 05.10.2010. During the course of trial, accused Kailash Sharma unfortunately expired, on receiving his death verification report, proceedings against him were abated.
(iii) Beatings given to complainant were simple and regular beatings and no MLC was required to be prepared,
(iv) No question or suggestion was put to PW1 regarding lodging of complaint by the complainant at the instance of an advocate,
11. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through entire record including testimonies of witnesses. The court shall deal with charge framed under section 498A/34 IPC only as charge under section 406 IPC has not been framed against present accused persons but was framed against accused FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA Kailash Sharma only, who has unfortunately expired. Before appreciating evidence on record, let us first discuss the relevant legal provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
12. In the light of aforesaid legal provision, the court would now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if alleged acts of accused persons amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
(v) No question or suggestion was put to PW1 regarding lodging of complaint by the complainant at the instance of an advocate. Though no question was put or suggestion was given to witness during cross examination but but bare perusal of complaint Ex PW1/D disclose that it was not written by the complainant in her own handwriting and words, •
17. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced in order to secure conviction. Accused persons, accordingly, deserve acquittal and are acquitted from the charge framed under section 498A/34 IPC .