LexRAJENDRAN & ANR. versus STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF POLICE LAW & ORDER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... [2008) 16 S.C.R. 1005 RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF POLICE LAW & ORDER (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002) DECEMBER 2, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] .A B Penal Code, 1860: s.498A and s.3048 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113A - Suicide by married woman - Husband and C in-laws of deceased charge-sheeted for offence under s.3048 and s.498A - Acquittal under s.3048 but conviction under s. 498A - Challenged on the ground that since accused were acquitted for offence under s.3048, courts below ought to have acquitted accused in respect of offence under s.498A - Held: D A person charged and acquitted under s. 3048 can be convicted under s.498A, if such a case is made out - s. 3048 and s.498A cannot be held to be mutually inclusive - Presumption under s. 113A of Evidence Act that suicide was abetted by husband and in-laws was not rebutted by accused E - Clause (a) of Explanation to s.498A applicable in the facts of the case - Conviction upheld - Crime against woman. Prosecution case was that appellants who were husband and parents-in-law of the deceased tortur.ed the deceased. She committed suicide by setting fire on herself after pouring kerosene. Appellants were charge- sheeted and tried for offence under s.3048 and s.498A IPC. Trial Court held all the appellants guilty under s.498A F IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three'years. The High Court did not G · accept the plea that since the appellants were acquitted of the charge punishable under s.3048 IPC, therefore, High Court ought to have acquitted appellants in respect of offence under s.498A. It, therefore, held that the 1005 H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A appellants were rightly convicted. Hence the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely B to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental ·or · physical of the woman are required to be established in: order to bring home the application ofs.498A IPC. Cruelty has ·been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of C s.498A. Substantive s.498A IPC and presumptive s.1138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 have been ins.erted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Seccm.d Amendment) Act, 1983. 5.3048 and s.498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with D two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common · e~sential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to s.498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty!. In s.3048 there is no such explanation about the meanin.g of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to E these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to s.498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under s.3048 it is 'dowry death' .that is punishable and such death should have occurred F .· within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in s.498A. A person charged and acquitted under s.3048 can be convicted under s.498A without that . charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the G sections. S.498A IPC and s.1138 of the Evidence Act ii:iclude in their amplitude past events of cruelty. [Para 8] [1011.-B-G] Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh AIR (1991) SC 1142 and Ba/want Singh & Ors. v. H State of H.P. (2008) 10 JT 589, relied on. t ... t RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTI. COMMNR. OF 1007 POLICE LAW & ORDER 2. S.498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb of s.498A A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to. cruelty shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to B drive a woman to commit suicide. When there is demand of dowry, the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to s.498A. Clause (a) of the Explanation has . definite application to the facts of the present case. Additionally, effect of s.113A of the Evidence Act cannot c be lost sight of. Further as per s.113A of the Evidence Act when the question as to whether commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.