Husband and in-laws convicted under Section 498A IPC after acquittal for dowry death under Section 304B; the wife committed suicide within seven years of marriage amid cruelty. The Supreme Court held the sections are distinct, not mutually inclusive, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 1005
RAJENDRAN & ANR.
.A
v.
STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF POLICE LAW & ORDER (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002)
DECEMBER 2, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498A and s.3048 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113A - Suicide by married woman - Husband and C in-laws of deceased charge-sheeted for offence under s.3048 and s.498A - Acquittal under s.3048 but conviction under s. 498A - Challenged on the ground that since accused were acquitted for offence under s.3048, courts below ought to have acquitted accused in respect of offence under s.498A - Held: D A person charged and acquitted under s. 3048 can be convicted under s.498A, if such a case is made out - s. 3048 and s.498A cannot be held to be mutually inclusive - Presumption under s. 113A of Evidence Act that suicide was abetted by husband and in-laws was not rebutted by accused E - Clause (a) of Explanation to s.498A applicable in the facts of the case - Conviction upheld - Crime against woman.
D
E
Prosecution case was that appellants who were husband and parents-in-law of the deceased tortur.ed the deceased. She committed suicide by setting fire on herself after pouring kerosene. Appellants were chargesheeted and tried for offence under s.3048 and s.498A IPC. Trial Court held all the appellants guilty under s.498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three'years. The High Court did not accept the plea that since the appellants were acquitted of the charge punishable under s.3048 IPC, therefore, High Court ought to have acquitted appellants in respect of offence under s.498A. It, therefore, held that the 1005
F
G ·
H
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1006
A appellants were rightly convicted. Hence the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely B to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental ·or · physical of the woman are required to be established in: order to bring home the application ofs.498A IPC. Cruelty has ·been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of C s.498A. Substantive s.498A IPC and presumptive s.1138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 have been ins.erted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Seccm.d Amendment) Act, 1983. 5.3048 and s.498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with D two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common · e~sential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to s.498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty!. In s.3048 there is no such explanation about the meanin.g of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to E these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to s.498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under s.3048 it is 'dowry death' .that is punishable and such death should have occurred F .· within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in s.498A. A person charged and acquitted under s.3048 can be convicted under s.498A without that . charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the G sections. S.498A IPC and s.1138 of the Evidence Act ii:iclude in their amplitude past events of cruelty. [Para 8] [1011.-B-G]
t
Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh AIR (1991) SC 1142 and Ba/want Singh & Ors. v. H State of H.P. (2008) 10 JT 589, relied on.
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTI. COMMNR. OF 1007 POLICE LAW & ORDER
t
A
E
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 10 JT 589 relied on Para 9
F
CRIMINA~ APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap·peal No. 53 of 2002.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2001 of the High Court of.Judicature at Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 6590 of G 1992 in Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 1992.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2003.
H
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1008
1
·shekhar Naphade, Anil Kaushik, Jaspreet Aulakh, Meenakshi Thareja, A. Santhakumaran, Gopal Singh Chavan,· Shiv Prakash Pandey, K.V. Vishwanathan, Deepak Jain, Judy James, Subra Rai, T". Raja and S. Thananjayan fo_r the appearing parties.
A
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These two appeals are High Court. interlinked and have their matrix . By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld on a judgment of the Maras . c- the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The conviction was imposed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, and D appeal was preferred by the appellants questioning conviction; and· the sentence imposed. Originally, .the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Setion 498A and 304. B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of Eoffence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for offence under Section 498A IPC.
)- ~
Appellant-Rajendran, was married to Shanthi (hereinafter F referred to as the 'deceased'). The other appellants are the parents of Rajendran. On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got ·.married. to appellant-Rajendran. Since there was torture at the hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi committed suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 AM. by setting fire on herself after Gpouring kerosene.
On the complaint of Ganesan (PW-1 ), the father of the .. deceased, a case was registered in Crime No. 99 of 1991 for suspicious death by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.9).
-r---
J.._
H After-examination of witnesses and recovery of material
G
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF -1009 POLICE LAW & ORDER [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
objects, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (PW-11) filed a A charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.3.1992 for the offences under Section 498(A) and 304(8) IPC.
; i
~
-i
~1--
During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined, Exs. P1 to P16 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked.
B
The trial court on completion of trial, concluded that all the appellants were gurlty of offence under Section 498 A IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Same was challenged before thec High Court.
The appellants in the appeal before the High Court submitted that in the absence of any dying declaration or suicide note or any evidence relating to dowry torture the trial .D court ought not to have convicted the appellants for offence ~ punishable under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted that since the appellants were acquitted of charge punishable under Section 3048 IPC, consequentially the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants in respect of other offence. The High E Court did not accept this plea. It held that on going through the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 it was clear that there was no offence relating to dowry torture but there are materials to show that deceased was being tortured by the appellants.
E
F
The High Court also referred to the evidence of independent witness Dhanam (PW 3) who was a neighbour. She had specifically stated about the ill-treatment by the appellants'. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants were rightly convicted. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.
H
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1010
A considered to be inauspicious and after the birth of the said female child, the Rajendran's broth.er's wife died a11d th~ appellants thought that the birth of the said female child was the reason for various debacles in the family and consequently, she was tortured by the appellants.
B
E
"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband _or the relative of the husband ofa woman, subjects such F woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may. extend to three years and shall also .be liable to fine.
G
Explanation - For the purpose qf this section 'cruelty' means -
.H
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to coh1mit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTI. COMMNR. OF 1011 POLICE LAW & ORDER [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.-i
"'i
-;
..,/
, i
A
(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."
1138 of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of crl1elty. Period of operation of Section 1138 of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman H
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1012
t
J
F
A committed suicide within a period of sev~n years from the date of marriage.
.. 9
D
E
Appeal dismissed.
D.G.
~.
:- . '
}- ~
~-
y··
2 issues framed by the court
Can a person acquitted under Section 304B IPC nonetheless be convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty?
Was the presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act that the husband or in-laws abetted the wife's suicide rebutted?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶8
(AIR 1991 SC 1142) · Who else cites this
Balwant Singh & Ors. v. State of H.P.Relied on¶9
[2008(10) JT 589] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajendran & Anr.
State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law & Order
Arijit Pasayat
Mukundakam Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
