LexMANJU RAM KALITA versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2009] 9 S.C.R. 902 MANJU RAM KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal NO. 299 of 2003) MAY 29, 2009 iPR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.498A, 494 - Bigpmy and c;ruelty on account of dowry demand - Complainant-wife left matrimonial house in 1993 - In 1997; she found that husband married another woman - Thereafter complaint filed under ss.498A/494 ..... Conviction under ss.498A/494 by courts below- On appeal, Held: Courts below arrived at a concurrent finding of fact regarding the factum of second marriage-_ Therefore, finding of fact on issue of bigamy is not interfered with - Convlction under s.494 is maintained - As regards cruelty, s.498A is attracteq if woman is subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint - Complainant had left her matrimonial house in 1993 and she lodged complaint · of cruelty in 1997 - There was no complaint for the period 1993-1997 - None of witnesses deposed that there was continuous physical or mental torture after 1993 - Therefore, conviction under s.498-A is set aside - Jurisdiction of higher court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. Prosecution case was that the complainant was . •. ~ married to appellant in 1992. The relationship between husband and wife were not cordial and wife was allegedly tortured mentally and physically by the appellant. She left the matrimonial home in 1993 though she was seven months pregnant at that time. She gave 902 ...... • ... ~ .... ~ MANJU RAM KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM 903 birth to a male child and the appellant did not even come A to see the child. In 1997 she came to know that the ~ppellant married one 'RS'. Thereafter she filed an FIR against the appellant. Appellant was charged under Sections 498A/494 IPC. The Trial Court found both the charges proved, against the appellant beyond reasonable B doubt and convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 494 and sentenced him accordingly. First appellate Court dismissed appeal filed by appellant. His second appeal before High Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court Held: 1. The issue no. 1 as to whether the appellant got married with 'RS' is a pure question of fact. All the D three courts below gave concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its ".:tlidity. It was held to be a valid marriage. It is settled legal proposition that if the courts below record the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the third court would not E arise ,unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. It's function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such .... a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings F on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. Where the court below considered the material facts and did not take into -I consideration any inadmissible evidence etc., the G - interference is not required by court on third instance. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [908-G-H; 909-A-D-E] Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad & Ors.; AIR ·- H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009} 9 S.C.R. A 1951 SC 177; Mis. Tutsi Das Khimji v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1007; and Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors. v. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 4362; Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10 SCC 553, relied cm. B 1.2. It is evident that this Court being the fourth Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below even if two views are possible on the question of fact as the said courts have exercised their C discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. The finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned and the quantum of punishment on this count is not required to be interfered with. [Paras 12 and D 13] [909-F-G; 910-A] 2.1. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A l.P,.C. is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as. it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.