S. MAHABOOB BASHA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1266 · Decided: 23-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1266 
S. MAHABOOB BASHA 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2115 of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A - Conviction under, of 
appellant-husband by Courts below - Justification - Held: 
C Justified - PW-1(complainantl victim) was subjected to 
cruelty by her husband (appellant) and also harassment to 
meet the unlawful demand of dowry- Essential ingredients 
of s.498A /PC were established - Prosecution adduced 
cogent evidence to prove that after his second marriage, the 
D appellant was ill-treating PW-1 who had no reason to 
prosecute the appellant after ten years of marriage- On facts, 
interference with concurrent findings of fact by the courts 
below not warranted. 
E 
Sentence I Sentencing - Duty of the Court to pass 
appropriate sentence - Demand of dowry and harassment-
Con vi c ti on uls. 498A /PC -
On facts, sentence of 
imprisonment imposed on appellant-husband for conviction 
uls. 498A reduced to the period already undergone by him -
F Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A. 
G 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 498A -
Cruelty to wife -
Allegations of- Held: In such cases to bring home the guilt 
of the accused, it is not essential to examine independent 
witnesses - Witnesses -Appreciation of 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Evidence adduced by the prosecution 
clearly proves that PW-1 (complainant/ victim) was 
subjected to cruelty by her husband (appellant) and also 
H harassment to meet the unlawful demand of dowry and 
1266 
S. MAHABOOB BASHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
1267 
the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are A 
· established_. In cases of cruelty meted out to the wife to 
bring home the guilt of the accused, it is not essential to 
examine independent witnesses. Prosecution has 
adduced cogent evidence to prove that after his second 
marriage, the appellant was illtreating PW-1. PW-1 had B 
no reason to prosec\jte the appellant after ten years of 
marriage. [Paras 8, 9][1270-E-H; 1271-A-C] 
2. Interference by the Supreme Court with 
concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not 
warranted, except where there is some serious infirmity C 
in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are 
perverse. In the case at hand, there is no infirmity in the 
concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the 
appellant under Section 498A IPC. [Para 10][1271-C-E] 
3. The conviction under Section 498A IPC where D 
wife is subjected to cruelty, sentence imposed on the 
husband and in-laws should be commensurate with the 
charges and court should impose punishment befitting 
the offence. Considering the totality of the facts and E 
circumstances of the instant case, the sentence of 
imprisonment imposed on the appellant for conviction 
u/s. 498A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone 
by him and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) 
is imposed. [Para 11, 12][1272-C-D; 1271-G-H; 1272-A] 
Narsingh Prasad Singh v. Raj Kumar@Pappu & 
Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 522 - referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
(2001) 4 SCC 522 
referred to 
Para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 2115of2014. 
F 
·r 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2013 in 
CRLRP No. 2148 of 2010 passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad. 
H 
. .. 
1268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Shiv Prakash Pandey, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. for the Respondent. 
Thi~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the Order of the Karnataka 
High Court in Crl. R. P. No. 2148 of 2010 dated 29.10.2013, 
confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A 
C IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year to 
six months and enhancing the fine amount from Rs.3000/-to 
Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment 
for two months. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant-first 
o accused is the husband of PW-1, Smt. Noorunnisa and their 
marriage was solemnized on 06.02.1994 and the couple has 
two daughters and one son. Sometime after the marriage, 
accused No.1 started physically torturing PW-1, and subjected 
her to cruelty by assaulting her and demanded/dowry of Rs. 
E 50,000/- or a house from her parents. On 25.05.2001, at about 
9.30 p.m., when PW-1 was in the house situated at Gandhi 
Nagar, Bellary, the appellant abused PW-1 and her father PW-
2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.