{"id":289251,"date":"2023-04-12T11:30:35","date_gmt":"2023-04-12T06:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=289251"},"modified":"2024-12-12T16:30:17","modified_gmt":"2024-12-12T11:00:17","slug":"cruelty-against-married-woman-latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-498a-in-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/12\/cruelty-against-married-woman-latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-498a-in-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Safeguarding Dignity or Misuse? Latest Supreme Court Judgments discussing Section 498-A IPC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A critical provision addressing cruelty within marriages, Section 498-A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) seeks to protect women from cruelty by the husband and his family, but considering the current trends, it raised important questions about its application and potential misuse.<\/p>\n

There is a latest Supreme Court judgment on 498-A in 2024, wherein the Court said, “a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud”1<\/sup><\/a>. There is another judgment on Section 498-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a> restricting leniency against mother-in-law treating the daughter-in-law with cruelty. But how do Courts decide when to be lenient and when to be strict in such cases?<\/p>\n

Section 498-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a> lays the provision against a husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.<\/p>\n

Section 498-A<\/a> of IPC 1860<\/a> provides that “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

It further explains Cruelty as<\/p>\n

“(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or<\/span><\/p>\n

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Although the provision is clear enough to make one understand what constitutes cruelty under IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a>, it sometimes becomes confusing when the same is applied to specific facts of the case. In fact, the 498-A false case percentage is higher than the genuine cases as reflected through conviction rate (Click here<\/a> for NCRB data) which reflects its misuse. This is where the Supreme Court judgments on IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a> bring clarity to confusing state of facts.<\/p>\n

This article is a curation of the latest and important judgments by the Supreme Court on Section 498-A<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Latest Supreme Court Judgments on 498-A Specific allegations against husband’s relatives<\/h4>\n

In case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana<\/span> v. State of Telangana<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682<\/a> the Court said that the “inclusion of Section 498-A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife<\/span>” Read detailed case here<\/a><\/p>\n

In case of Kahkashan Kausar<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162<\/a> the Court held that husband’s relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in absence of specific allegations of dowry demand.<\/a> It was further observed through this latest judgment of Supreme Court of India on 498-A that “a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

Another, compelling case, Charan Singh<\/span> v. State of Uttarakhand<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454<\/a>, dating back to 1995, wherein a woman died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, the bench of Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ held that mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304-B and 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> if the cruelty or harassment has not been proved to be soon before the death. Read detailed analysis here<\/a><\/p>\n

In Nimay Sah<\/span> v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 982<\/a>, the Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 498­A read with Section 34<\/a> IPC<\/a> for the death of his brother’s wife after it was found that the case against him was not proved beyond doubt. Read detailed analysis here<\/a><\/p>\n

Mother-in-law treating daughter-in-law with cruelty<\/h4>\n

In case of Meera<\/span> v. State<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 31<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that “when an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence.” It further added that woman meting out cruelty to another woman deserves no leniency. Mother-in-law must protect daughter-in-law, not harass her.<\/a><\/p>\n

498-A IPC Evidence<\/h4>\n

Since matters of cruelty under IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a> are related to a matrimonial home, most of the witnesses are related to each other by birth or marriage. Hence, they are the interested parties whose statements may or may not be genuine enough to be relied upon by the judges. In Surendran<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 621<\/a>, this latest Supreme Court judgment on 498-A (2022) reiterated the well settled principle of law that “the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

In Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2989<\/a>, the Supreme Court considered an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had upheld the accused’s conviction under Section 498-A<\/a> of the Penal Code<\/a> (IPC) for cruelty and had commuted the sentence to the period already undergone. The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. examined the facts and legal aspects of the case, ultimately setting aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Court found that there was no iota of evidence against the accused to hold that he was guilty under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Furthermore, just because the accused’s wife was found guilty under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>, it cannot be a ground to hold the accused guilty in the absence of any specific material on record. Read detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Abetment of suicide after Cruelty against women<\/a><\/h4>\n

In a latest case concerning Section 498-A<\/a> and Section 306<\/a> IPC<\/a>, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal discharging the accused of charges under Section 306 opining that- mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws did not appear to create a scenario where the deceased-wife was left with no option other than to end her life. The Court held that the essential ingredient of mens rea<\/span> to instigate the suicide of the deceased persons was absent. Read detailed analysis here<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, in its 2022 Judgment on 498-A discussed the nexus between offences under Sections 498-A<\/a> and 306<\/a> of IPC<\/a> in Mariano Anto Bruno<\/span> v. State<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387<\/a>. The Supreme Court reiterated that “Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

In a significant legal development in Paranagouda<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369<\/a>, an appeal filed against the judgment passed by Karnataka High Court on 20-07-2022 affirming sentence convicting the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498-A<\/a>, 304-B<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), and Sections 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a> (‘DP Act’), the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. modified the impugned order by acquitting for dowry death but convicting for offence punishable under Section 306 for abetment to suicide, in the absence of any charge framed, but accused persons having knowledge of the acts being tried for. Read detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> Cruelty to Women [S. 498-A IPC and allied sections]<\/a><\/p>\n

Section 498-A of IPC and dying declaration as evidence<\/h4>\n

In Rajaram<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1733<\/a>, the victim’s husband came up with an appeal against conviction under IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a>. According to the facts, the victim was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition and lost her life thereafter. Two dying declarations of the victim were recorded by the authorities. The first dying declaration elaborated the acts of burning her with kerosene oil, wherein, there is no mention of the appellant, i.e., her husband. The second dying declaration did mention previous acts of cruelty, which includes the husband along with other family members. The High Court had discredited the second dying declaration, being the only piece of evidence against the husband. Hence, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence for cruelty under Section 498-A.<\/p>\n

In Paranagouda<\/span> (supra), the Court also perused the dying declaration of the deceased who self-immolated herself, on account of her inability to tolerate the torture meted out by the accused persons and she was not able to withstand the same. The Court expressed that “The physical disability suffered by her on account of the burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing the consequences thereof and such statement or declaration cannot be brushed aside only on the ground of burn injuries (in the instant case 70% to 80%) having been sustained by her.” The Court stated that the dying declaration could not be found faulty due to doctor’s conscious expression on the deceased’s mental capacity, placing reliance on Kamalavva v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 13 SCC 614<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also Watch:<\/b> Dowry Death under IPC: Supreme Court Judgment on death within 7 years of marriage<\/a><\/p>\n

FAQs on Latest Supreme Court Judgment on 498-A<\/h4>\n

Q-<\/b> What is the new amendment in an IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a> case?<\/p>\n

A- There is no Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> amendment available till date. There have been petitions and proposals for amending the provisions related to making the offence compoundable, gender neutral, etc. It may be noted that any change brought to the existing legal practice on cruelty against married woman is through the latest supreme court guidelines on 498-A through various case laws.<\/p>\n

Q-<\/b> What are the latest guidelines of IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a>?<\/p>\n

A-<\/b> The latest Supreme Court guidelines on 498-A clarify that husband’s relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in absence of specific allegations of dowry demand.<\/a> Further important 498-A guidelines were laid by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine All 395<\/a> for a cooling period of 2 months against arrest of accused persons in these cases.<\/p>\n

Q-<\/b> Is 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> a continuing offence?<\/p>\n

A-<\/b> As the term suggests in consonance with Section 472<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>, a continuing offence is one which repeats and the right to take legal action in such cases begins every time such offence is repeated. As per Section 468<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, the time limit for a complaint for an offence under Section 498-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a> is 3 years. In the case of Rupali Devi<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2019) 5 SCC 384<\/a>, the Supreme Court explained the scope of a continuing offence in a detailed manner and affirmed IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a> to be a continuous offence for deciding jurisdiction of Courts.<\/p>\n

Q-<\/b> What is the average time for 498-A case?<\/p>\n

A-<\/b> Neither a latest Supreme Court judgment on Section 498-A in 2022 nor any other case law provides for a fixed timeline within which, a case for cruelty against women may be wrapped. However, the legal proceedings may be concluded within 1-2 years if the allegations are baseless and Section 498-A FIR quashing application is accepted. It may stretch to 5-7 years for the trial to wrap.<\/p>\n

Q-<\/b> Can police reject IPC<\/a> Section 498-A<\/a> case?<\/p>\n

A-<\/b> Yes, whenever a criminal complaint is filed with the Police, it is their duty to register a First Information Report based on the ingredients of the offence to be duly satisfied. Hence, if Section 498-A ingredients are missing as per the complainant’s story, the Police may refuse to register such case of cruelty to woman.<\/p>\n

Q-<\/b> Is there any 498-A judgment in favour of husband?<\/p>\n

A-<\/b> When Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> was introduced through a 1983 criminal amendment, it was said to be a weapon in the hands of women to humiliate their husbands. There was a need to protect the husbands and their relatives against the misuse of 498-A. One such Supreme Court judgment on 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> was Arnesh Kumar<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (2014) 8 SCC 273<\/a> wherein, directed the police authorities not to automatically arrest in a Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> case or other cognizable offence, but satisfy themselves on necessity for arrest following the parameters under Section 41<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. This case brought some relief for husbands dealing with false cruelty cases ruining marriages. The same was followed in the latest Supreme Court judgment on 498-A in 2022 – Satender Kumar Antil<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, (2022) 10 SCC 51<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n