MEERA versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 11-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 223
223
MEERA
v.
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR
POLICE STATION CHENNAI
(Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2022)
JANUARY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Death of married woman due to
self-immolation – Allegation of dowry demand against in-laws –
Conviction of mother-in-law and one year RI – Challenged – Held:
Deceased was staying with her in-laws, while husband of deceased
was staying abroad – It was established and proved that deceased
was subjected to torture/cruelty by her mother-in-law (appellant)
regarding jewellery – Conviction of appellant u/s.498-A was,
therefore, justified – As regards the plea of lenient view in sentencing,
incident having occurred in 2006 and appellant presently about 80
years old, as a mitigating circumstance, her sentence reduced from
one year RI to 3 months RI – Crime against women.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It was established and proved that the deceased
was subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant – mother-in-law
with regard to jewels. PW-1 – mother of the victim in her evidence
clearly stated that her daughter was frequently subjected to
harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning jewels. Similar
was the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both the
witnesses were subjected to cross- examination. However, after
detailed cross-examination, they stood by what they had stated.
Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 fully supported the case
of the prosecution. There were concurrent findings of facts
recorded by both the Courts below on the harassment and/or
torture and/or cruelty by the appellant – accused No. 2 with regard
to jewels. The findings recorded by both the Courts below were
on appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appellant was rightly
held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. [Para 7]
[227-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
2. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of one year R.I.
for the offence under Section 498A. The incident is of the year
2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed in
concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court,
is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the
sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellant
– mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section
498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-
law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-
in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by
meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it
becomes a more serious offence. In the present case, even the
husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying
all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the
appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of
her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/
or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or
on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to
be shown to the appellant in this case. However, considering the
fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the
appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating
circumstance, the sentence is reduced from one year R.I. to three
months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained.
[Para 8][227-G-H; 228-A-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 31 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A.No.748 of 2010.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, A. S. Vairawan, R.
Sudhakaran, Mrs. Shalini Mishra, T. Hari  H ara Sudhan, Vikash G. R.,
Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated
30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010 by which the
High Court has dismissed the said appeal so far as the appellant – original
accused No.2 is concerned, upholding the judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), the original accused No.2 – mother-in-law of
the deceased has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a complai

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