MOHD. HOSHAN, A.P. AND ANR. versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 16-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHD. HOSHAN, A.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A: Abetment to suicide-
W!fe subjected to cruelty by husband-Suicide by burning-Charges against 
C husband and his mother-Acquittal by trial Court on benefit of doubt-High 
Court o.n re-appreciation of evidence found them guilty of committing cruelty 
on deceased-wife and convicted under Section 306 and 498-A but confirmed 
acquittal under Section 304-B-On appeal, held, cruelty is essentially a question 
of fact-Mental cruelty varies from person to person depending upon the 
D sensitivity and degree of endurance to withstand such cruelty-High Court 
rightly concluded that continuous taunting of the deceased by accused amounted 
to mental crue/ty-C onviction confirmed but sentence modified to imprisonment 
already undergone. 
According to the pros~cution, the deceased wife was subjected to 
E cruelty by her husband (appellant No.I) and his mother (appellant No.2) 
for not bringing adequate dowry. They were continuously taunting and 
teasing her. She could not withstand such teasing and committed suicide 
by burning herself in the house of the accused. She was shifted to Hospital 
where she succumbed to burn injuries. 
F 
Accused-appellants were tried for offences under Sections 304-B, 306 
G 
H 
and 498-A IPC. Trial Court acquitted them of all the charges on benefit 
of doubt. On appeal, High Court, after re-appreciation of evidence, found 
them guilty of committing cruelty on the deceased and convicted them 
under Sections 306 and 498-A; however, it .:on firmed the ord.er of acquittal 
under Section 304-8. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that High Court committed an 
error in reversing the order of acquittal merely because it could take a 
different view. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
408 
·~ 
MOHD. HOSHAN v. STATE OF A.P. 
409 
HELD: I.I Trial Court committed manifest error in disbelieving the A 
dying declaration (Exbt. P/2) and the evidence of PWs 3 to 7. The view 
taken by the trial Court in acquitting the appellants was not a reasonable 
and justifiable view which could have been taken looking to the evidence 
keeping in view the well-settled principles. 1412-D, El 
1.2. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is B 
essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or 
taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like 
the sensitivity of the indlviduai victim concerned, the social background, 
the eilvironnient, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person 
to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of C 
courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. 1411-G, HJ 
1.3. In the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances, 
the High Court rightly concluded that the continuous taunting or teasing 
the deceased by the appellants on one ground or the other amounted to 
mental cruelty drawing her to end her life. High Court took note of the fact D 
that the appellants did not try to save the deceased although they were 
present when burn injuries were caused to her. [412-A, Bl 
1.4. High Court was right and justified in reversing the order of 
acquittal and convicting and sentencing the appellants for offences under 
Section 306 and 498-A IPC. However, it is just and appropriate to modify E 
the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone having 
regard to the fact that the incident took place long back; that both the 
appellants were in imprisonment for about two months; and that appellant 
No.2, mother of appellant No.I, is aged 60 years. (412-E, Fl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
871 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.1996 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 858 of 1992. 
F 
L. Nageswara Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, K.C_, Sudersah, Jayanth . G 
Muth Raj, K.V. Ramakrishna, Mohd. Wasay Khan and S. Udaya Kumar 
Sagar for the Appellants. 
G. Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
SHIVA RAJ V. PATIL, J. It is yet another unfortunate case of a young 
girl of 18 years whose all hopes and aspirations to live a happy married life 
were burnt and destroyed by the burn injuries caused by herself to end her 
life when the appellants subjected her 

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