K.V. PRAKASH BABU versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 22-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 11S.C.R.509 
K.V. PRAKASH BABU 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of2016) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 498-A and 306 - Cruelty - Mental cruelty - Extra-marital 
relationship if 'cruelty', amounting to abetment leading to the act 
of suicide -Appellant's wife on suspicion of husband's extra-marital 
affair committed suicide - Trial court convicted appellant u/s.498-A -
High Court upheld conviction uls.498-A and also found appellant 
guilty uls.306 - Held: Under s.498-A, the emphasis is on any wilful 
conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive a woman to 
commit suicide - It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive 
a woman to commit suicide - Mental cruelty varies from person to 
person depending upon the intensity an.d the degree of 
endurance - Solely because the husband is involved in an extra-
marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, 
that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty - An extra-marital 
relationship, per se would not come within the ambit of s.,;/98-A -
On facts, no kind of cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband being 
meted out to the wife has been proved - The wife was guided by the 
rumour that aggravate'd her suspicion which has no boundary -
Such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt 
of the accused-appellant uls. 306 - Prosecution failed to prove the 
charge u/s. 498A and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife 
to commit suicide -Appellant~· conviction u/ss. 306 and 498-A set 
aside - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.3. 
s.498-A, Explanation (a) - 'Cruelty' - Mental cruelty-Ambit 
of - Held: Mental cruelty engraved in the first lin.1b of s.4<J8~A-has 
nothing to do with the demand of dowry and has to be of such 
nature as to drive a woman to commit ·suicide. 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.113-A - Presumption under - Held: 
509 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Said provision enables the Court to draw presumption in a particular 
fact situation 1i1hen necessary ingredients in order to attract the 
provision are established. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a studied scrutiny of the evidence, it is 
demonstrable that the father of the deceased in his deposition 
had not stated anything with regard to any kind of cruelty meted 
out to the deceased except stating that she quite often complained 
to the parents about the suspicion against her husband that he 
was going to have a second marriage. The other witnesses 
including. the investigating officer deposed that there was 
discussion in the locality about the illicit connection of the 
appellant with one lady. Barring the aforesaid, there was no 
whisper with regard to any kind of ill-treatment or cruel behaviour 
by the husband. [Para 9] [514-F-G] 
· 
Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra 
(2002) 5 SCC 17T: 2002 (3) SCR 376; Gurnaib Singh 
v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108 : 2013 (3) 
SCR 563 - referred to. 
L2 Under s.498-A of the IPC, the emphasis is on any wilful 
conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive the woman 
to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the 
first limb of Section 498-A of the IPC has nothing to d() with the 
demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can 
drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct 
of the person concerned. [Para 13] [516-D-E] 
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 
10 SCC 48 : 2013 (10) SCR 306; Ghusabhai 
Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat (2015) 11 
SCC 753 : 2015 (2) SCR 594 - relied on. 
1.3 The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu 
and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely 
has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's 
endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly 
it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-piarital 
n~lationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit 
. 
. 
·K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATA,K,\ 
of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but 
other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would 
constitute a criminal offence. There is no deniai of the fact that 
the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal 
behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. 
It will depend upon the facts of the s

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