KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 25-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 137 
KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1567 of 2007) 
JULY 25, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A - Suicide by second wife of 
appellant - One day earlier, the deceased-wife had written 
C 
letter to the police station against the appellant - Conviction 
of appellant u/s.498A - Justification - Held: Not justified -
Explanation uls. 498A defines "cruelty" for purpose of s. 498A 
to mean any of the acts mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) 
of the Explanation - Alleged acts or conduct of the appellant D 
did not amount to cruelty within meaning of clauses (a) or (b} 
of the Explanation - As the cause of the death of deceased 
was not in question, the statements made by her in her letter 
to the Police Station cannot be taken to be proof of cruel acts 
committed by the appellant for holding him guilty u/s.498A -
E 
Except the letter written by the deceased to the Police Station, 
no other witness spoke about the appellant having starved her 
of food and having committed acts of mental cruelty to her -
In view of the evidence of deceased's mother (PW-3), the 
High Court could not have come to the conclusion that the 
F 
deceased was subjected to financial exploitation and starving 
and mental cruelty by the appellant - Finding of the High Court 
that the appellant committed a cruel act by permitting his first 
wife to enter the house of the deceased with new born child, 
is erroneous - No evidence of any physical harm or mental 
G 
cruelty by the appellant against the deceased - Appellant 
therefore acquitted. 
The appellant had two wives. The second wife of the 
appellant wrote a letter dated 26.03.1992 to the police 
137 
H 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A station complaining that the appellant's family was living 
on her salary and the appellant had started torturing her 
to a limit no longer tolerable by her and she was also not 
given meals and that the appellant was threatening to kill 
her and for all this the appellant and his first wife and his 
B 
o~her family members were involved. The next day, the 
appellant's second wife jumped into a well and died. 
In view of the allegations made by the deceased in 
her letter dated 26.03.1992 to the police station, FIR was 
registered under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The trial 
C court acquitted the first wife of the appellant, but 
convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306, 
IPC. In appeal, the High Court acquitted the appellant 
from the charge under Section 306, IPC, but maintained 
the conviction under Section 498A, IPC, and therefore the 
D instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is clear from the language of Section 
498A, IPC, that if a husband subjects his wife to cruelty, 
E he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which 
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
The Explanation under Section 498A defines ''<:ruelty" for 
the purpose of Section 498A to mean any of the acts 
mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b). In this case, clause 
F . (b) is not attracted as there was no harassment by the 
husband with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful 
demand for any property or valuable security or on 
account of failure by her to meet such demand. [Para 10) 
[146-C-E] 
G 
1.2. The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of 
Section 498A, IPC, states that "cruelty" means any wilful 
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the 
woman to commit suicide. In the present case, although 
the trial court found the appellant guilty of conduct which 
H had driven the deceased to commit suicide and hence 
KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT 139 
liable for the offence of abetment of suicide under 
A 
Section 306, IPC, the High Court has given a clear finding 
in the impugned judgment that the conviction of the 
appellant under Section 306, IPC, cannot be sustained in 
the eye of law and the appellant deserves to be acquitted 
of the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306, 
B 
IPC. This part of the finding has not been challenged by 
the State in appeal before the Supreme Court and has, 
-
therefore, become final. Thus, the appellant cannot be 
held guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a 
nature as is likely to drive the deceased to commit c 
suicide. [Para 11] [146-E-H] 
1.3. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation 
of Section 498A

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