Kerala High Court: The present appeal was filed by the Accused 1 to 3 wherein the conviction and sentence passed against them, by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’), for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was challenged. The PW-1 (‘wife’) alleged that Accused 1 (‘husband’), Accused 2 (‘father-in-law’), Accused 3 (‘mother-in-law’) and Accused 4 (‘sister-in-law’) subjected her to cruelty and harassed her for her dowry. The husband even compelled her to abort her foetus. A Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., held that the prosecution failed to establish the main act of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC and found the conviction unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused.
Background:
The couple got married on 28-3-2004 and were residing together in their matrimonial home. It was alleged that husband as well as his parents and sister started to ill-treat and harass the wife alleging that she brought insufficient dowry. On 12-5-2005, she reported the matter to the police after which an investigation was conducted. Following the final report, the Judicial Magistrate First-Class committed the case to the Court of Session, and it was transferred to the Trial Court where charges were framed against all four accused persons under Sections 313, 406, 506(1) and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
During her examination, the wife testified that her family had given her 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹1.5 lakh in cash at the time of marriage. The cash was handed over by her uncle to her father-in-law. The day after the wedding, her husband took most of her gold ornaments, leaving her with only 15 sovereigns. The remaining 45 sovereigns were retained by the accused persons. She further stated that the marriage was agreed upon by the husband’s family as they needed money, and they later demanded an additional ₹50,000. It was alleged that she was beaten by the accused persons and insisted that she slept separately from her husband.
In the seventh month of her marriage, the wife became pregnant. She alleged that on 20-11-2004, her husband forced her to take abortion pills and locked her in a room. The next day, she was taken to Malabar Hospital, and on 22-11-2004, she was shifted to the National Hospital where a D&C procedure was performed after informing that the child was not alive. She was not allowed to contact her parents. When she finally managed to inform her mother about the harassment, she was beaten and thrown out of the house by her husband and father-in-law. Later, when her mother and brother came, she was hit again in their presence.
Upon examining the allegations and material on record, the Trial Court acquitted the sister-in-law of all charges but convicted and sentenced the husband and his parents under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC who then preferred this appeal. The accused persons submitted that the Trial Court convicted them without any evidence to prove an offence under Section 498-A IPC, and it was unsafe to rely upon the solitary evidence of the wife to record a conviction. It was further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged forced abortion.
The Public Prosecutor contended that the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC were fully established. He further stated that the incidents of domestic violence and ill treatments often occurred inside the house and hence it was not prudent to look for corroboration by other independent evidence and in such cases, the solitary evidence of victim would suffice to enter into a conviction if the same inspired the confidence of the Court.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that apart from the evidence of the wife, the prosecution banked upon the evidence of her parents which revealed that they only had hearsay knowledge regarding the incidents in this case. So, the prosecution relied on the sole evidence of the wife to prove the acts of cruelty. The Court opined that in cases of domestic violences, it is not prudent to look for independent corroboration for the evidence of a victim, particularly when the incidents of domestic violence including ill-treatments and harassments often occur within the confines of a house and held that there was nothing wrong in relying on the solitary evidence in entering into a conviction, provided the evidence was convincing and reliable.
The Trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 406 IPC as there was no evidence suggesting that the husband had obtained possession of the gold ornaments through coercion or force. Neither the wife nor her parents alleged misappropriation of the ornaments, nor was there any indication that a demand for their return had been made. The wife merely stated that the ornaments remained with the accused, which did not substantiate a criminal breach of trust.
Regarding the charge under Section 498-A IPC, the Court clarified that not every instance of harassment or ill-treatment qualifies as cruelty and only acts that met the specific legal definition under the explanation to Section 498-A could be considered cruelty. The Court emphasized that petty quarrels between spouses did not amount to cruelty and that a single instance of harassment generally did not constitute an offence under this section. However, it acknowledged that a single act could suffice for conviction if it was sufficiently grave.
In evaluating the evidence, the Court noted inconsistencies in the wife’s testimony. During cross-examination, she failed to recall her earlier claims of physical assault by her husband and in-laws. Furthermore, the prosecution did not present any supporting material evidence, such as medical records, to corroborate her allegations. Her parents, when examined, also did not state any complaints of physical assault.
The main incident of cruelty alleged by the wife was forced abortion. The Court noted that no documentary evidence was produced to show that she visited Malabar Hospital, and the prosecution did not even examine the doctor who treated her. The Court further noted that the doctor who did her D&C procedure, testified that the wife came to her on 20-11-2004 and she even produced the prescription which clearly established that the wife lied about the visit on 22-11-2004. The doctor further said that when she examined the wife, the foetus was already dead, and the patient did not complain of being administered any pills by anyone and was perfectly calm with no symptoms of having taken pills. Even the wife’s mother was told by her daughter about it upon her return to her house later, after visiting her daughter in the hospital.
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused administered pills forcefully which led to a miscarriage and since the main act of cruelty was unproven, convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC would be unjustified. Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused for the offence and acquitted them.
[Sajudheen v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4535, decided on 30-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants/Accused: T.G. Rajendran, Adv.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
