GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 18-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 594 
GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 262 of2009) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
B 
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
C 
Pena/Code, 1860- 498A, 306, 201 and114-Dowrydeath 
-
The deceased committed suicide - Deceased-wife 
suspecting illicit relationship of her husband-accused -
Conviction by courts below of the husband and other three D 
accused - On appeal, held: Mere extra-marital relationship, 
even if proved, would be illegal and immoral unless proved 
that the accused had conducted in such a way which 
amounted to high degree of mental cruelty driving a woman 
to commit suicide - The facts of the present case did not E 
amount to cruelty under the first limb of s.498-A - The 
evidence against other appellants-accused also not sufficient 
to hold them guilty- All the accused acquitted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The first limb of Section 498A IPC, which 
refers to cruelty, has nothing to do with demand of dowry. 
F 
In the present case, there is no demand of dJwry. The 
deceased was pained and disturbed as the husband was G 
having an illicit affair with appellant No.4. Such a 
situation would not amount to cruelty under the first limb 
of Section 498A IPC. Mere extra-marital relationship, even 
if proved, would be illegal and immoral. However, it 
594 
H 
595 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A would take a different character ifthe prosecution brings 
some evidence ~>n record to show that the accused had 
conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit 
suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been 
involved in an illicit relationship with appellant No. 4, but 
B in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on 
record that can establish such high degree of mental 
cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes 
cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not 
C be attracted. [paras 18 and 20] [602-C-D; 604-G-H; 605-
A-B] 
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat 2013 
(10) SCR 306 = 2013 (10) SCC 48 - relied on. 
D Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra 2002 
(3) SCR 376 =20.02 (5) SCC 177, Gurnaib Singh v. State of 
Punjab 2013 (3) SCR 563 = 2013 (7) SCC 108 - referred to. 
2. So far as the other accused persons, viz. appellant 
E Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, there is no allegation of 
any kind of physical torture. The evidence brought on 
record against them with regard to cruelty is absolutely 
sketchy and not convincing. 
On the basis of the 
evidence against them, it is difficult to sustain their 
F conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Since the 
offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC is not 
sustainable, the conviction under Section 201 IPC also 
cannot be sustained. [para 21] [605-C, D-E] 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
2002 (3) SCR ·376 
2013 (3) SCR 563 
2013 (10) SCR 306 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
para 16 
para 17 
para 18 
c 
GH!JSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA v. 
596 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
A 
262 of 2009 
From the Judgment·and Order dated 09.07.2008 of the High 
Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 
Haresh Raichura, Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura, RajatVats 
for the Appellants. 
B 
Anurag Ahluwalia, Hemantika Wahi, Puja Singh for the C 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. The present appeal, by special 
leave, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order D 
of sentence passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad 
in Criminal Appeal No. 444/2005 whereby the Division Bench 
has affirmed the conviction recorded by the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, who had found the appellants guilty 
of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 
E 
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and 
sentenced Ghusabhai Raisinghbhai Chorasia, appellant no.1 
to suffer five years imprisonment, Rakesh Ghusabhai 
Chorasia, appellant no.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for F 
seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-with a default clause 
and other accused persons, namely, Bakuben W/o Ghusabhai 
Chorasia and Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai, appellant 
nos. 3 and 4 herein to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three 
years and to pay fine of Rs.250/-with a default clause under G 
Section 306 IPC. That apart, separate sentences were 
imposed under Section 498A and 201 with the stipulation that 
all the sentences w.ould run 

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