NOORJAHAN versus STATE REP. BY D.S.P.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 23-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 903 
NOORJAHAN 
A 
v. 
STATE REP. BY D.S.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2008) 
APRIL 23, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860: 
s.498A - Dowry death - Dowry demand by husband and c 
his relatives subjecting wife to cruelty - Death of wife due to 
strangulation - Incident witnessed by prosecution witness -
Conviction of all the accused u/ss 498A and 302 respectively 
- Husband's aunt also convicted uls 498A - Upheld by High 
Court - Challenge to, by aunt - Held: There was no evidence 
to show that aunt made any demand or was present when dowry D 
demand was made - Hence, her conviction order set aside. 
s. 498A - Object of - Held: Is to combat the menace of 
dowry death and cruelty. 
.. According to the prosecution case, A1 was married E 
to the deceased-wife. After the marriage, A1 and his 
relatives, ill treated the. deceased on account of dowry 
demand. On the fateful day, the husband and his brother 
strangulated the deceased with rope and his sisters 
caught hold of both the arms. The close relative of the 
F 
... 
mother of the deceased witnessed the incident. The 
incident took place within one year of the marriage. FIR 
was lodged. Investigations were carried out. All the 
accused were convicted and sentenced u/s 302 and 498A 
IPC. Accused-A7, who was the aunt of the husband was G 
also convicted and sentenced u/s 498A IPC. High Court 
upheld her order of conviction. Hence, the present appeal 
by A-7. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
903 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Substantive Section 498A IPC and 
presumptive Section 1138 of the Evidence Act have been 
inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law 
(Second Amendment) Act, 1983. Section 498-A and 
Section 113-8 include in their amplitude past events of 
B cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-8 is seven 
years, presumption arises when a woman committed 
suicide within a period of seven years from the date of 
marriage. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to 
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury 
c or danger to life, limb or. health, whether mental or physical 
of the woman is required to be established in order to 
bring Home the application of Section 498A. Cruelty has 
been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 
498A. Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be 
0 
mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct 
offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to 
both the Sections and that has to be proved. The 
Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. 
[Paras 8, 9 and 11] [908-F, G, H; 909-A, G, H; 910-A; 8] 
E 
2. With regard to the appellant-A-7, PW-1, mother of 
deceased stated that when she went to the place of her 
daughter, appellant was present alongwith A-1 and A-2. 
The said A-1 demanded jewels and presentation of 
Rs.5,000/- for Ramzan. She accepted that she told A-1 and 
F A-2 that she will send the same within a week. The next 
statement of A-7 that two months' time will be sufficient 
for offering the presentation is very significant. In other 
words, she did not make any demand for dowry. That 
aspect has been accepted by PW-1. Significantly, in her 
G cross examination PW 7 admitted that appellant is 
residing at Coimbatore for the last 35 years; and that while 
she went to the house of her daughter, she (appellant) 
was not present. Therefore, there is no evidence to show 
that appellant was either present when the demand was 
H made or she herself made any demand. Thus, the 
NOORJAHAN v. STATE REP. BY D.S.P. 
905 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 
prosecution failed to establish the accusations against A 
the appellant. Therefore, her conviction cannot be 
maintained and is set aside. [Paras 13 and 14] [910-F, H; 
911-A, B] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 706 of 2008. 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2007 of 
the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 283 of 
2004 
( 
K. Ragendra Chowdhary, V. Ramasubramanian for the C 
Appellant. 
V.G. 
Pragasam, 
S.J. 
Aristotle 
and 
Prabhu 
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal of the 
appellant and upholding the conviction for offence punishable 
E 
under Section 498-A of the Indian P

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