GANANATH PATTANAIK versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 06-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GANANATII PAITANAIK 
A -
v. 
ST A TE OF ORISSA 
FEBRUARY 6, 2002 
[R.P. SETHI AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal law: 
Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3048 & 498A/Section 
32-Dowry death-Cruelty-Suicide by wife-Conviction of husband by trial C 
court and High Court for cruelty-Held, mental torture and abnormfal 
behaviour may amount to cruelty-Statement of deceased to her family 
members is not admissible for the offence of cruelty being hearsay evidence-
On facts, no legal evidence for commission of cruelty-Hence husband 
acquitted giving benefit of doubt. 
D 
Wife of cppellant committed suicide by hanJing herself in the house. 
An FIR was IOOged with the po!il:e by the father of the deceased el?:ging murder 
of his daughter by the appellant and his family members. The pl'O"Aeution 
established that the deceased committed suicide due to ill-treatment, 
honmment end cruelty by the eppellant and his family membtrs for bringing E 
wuftltimt dowry. The nppellent was convitted under s=ctioes JMB &ad 49'JA 
IPC for the offence or dowry death and cruelty. Trial Court convicted the 
appellant for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to three 
years rigorous imprisonment which was upheld by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the findings by the F 
trial court regarding cruelty under Section 498A IPC were not based on any 
legal evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual G 
to individual and also depending upon the social and economic status to which 
such person belongs. Cruelty for the purposes of constituting the offence 
under section 498A IPC need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal 
behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. (848-El 
1.2. The statement of the deceased made to her family members, which H 
845 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 1 S.C.R. 
A luid been taken on record with the aid of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 
for the offence under section 3048 IPC is not edmissib!e in evidence for the 
offence punishnb!e under section 498A IPC. It hes to be termed m being oaly 
n hennny evidence. Section 32 of the Evidence Act is on exception to the 
beanuy rule und deals with the statement, or declarations by a person, s!~ce 
B deed, relnting to the cnus: of his or her death or the circumstances leading 
to such death. If n statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsny rule 
does not fan within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same 
cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the deceDsed. [849-E-F) 
1.3. There is no evidence on record to hold that the dee~ hnd 
C conceived the npprehension of the nppellant hnving illicit rebltions with his 
sister-hi-law, which J:cl th: deceased to end her life. There is no l:gal evidence 
tendered \7hich cou!d be me de the bnsis for returning n findine with respect 
to th: cl!2gcd cruelty of t~e eccused with the d~. 
In the nbsence of coy 
ltgnl cvideace, the prosecution bas fniled to prove tbnt the oppellont bnd 
cor::u:litt!Cl the ofi~nce unc!:r action 49aA IPC. Givbg t~ ep~ct tit: b:n~ 
D of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges under section 498A IPC. 
[CS9-G-H; 851-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I of 
1995. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.94 of the Orissa High Court 
F 
in Crl.A. No. 94of1992. 
K.P. Singh and Sanjiv Das for the Appellant. 
J.K. Das for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
SETHI, J. The appellant was charged for the commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for 
allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing the dowry death. After 
G trial, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him under 
Section 304B but convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 
sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the 
"" 
appellant against his conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC was 
dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. 
H 
The facts of the case are that the appellant's marriage with Rashmirekha 
• 
GANANATH PATTANAIK v. STATEOFORISSA [SETHl,J.] 
847 
was solemnised on 4.3.1984. A male child was born to the parties on 9.5.1985. A 
Rashmirekha, the wife of the appellant died by hanging herself in the bathroom 
regarding which the appellant is stated to have lodged a written repor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.