LexSATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 451 SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001) APRIL 1, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 498A - Wife subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand - Conviction of husband and his relatives uls. 498A by courts below - Justification of - Held: Evidence of complainant-wife, mother and brother, clear and cogent and A B c ~ + establishes accusations as regard the husband - Conviction 0 of husband upheld and sentence reduced to the period already undergone - However, lot of improvements in the evidence of complainant-wife, mother and brother as regard appellant no. 2 and 3 - Pr:Jsecution unable to establish their accusations, thus, conviction of appellant no. 2 and 3 set aside. E s. 498A - Object of enactment - To combat menace of dowry death and cruelty. The question which arose for consideration was F whether High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under s. 498A IPC. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely 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 ~tJ1 G H 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498-A. Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a 8 common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304-B there is no su.ch explanation about the meaning of "cruelty". But having regard to common background to these offences it has C to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence. [Para 11) [459-E-H; 460-A] 1.2. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was D introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint. E Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such F cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to G combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. [Para 12] [460-8-D] H 1.3. The basic difference between the two sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his SA TISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. ST ATE OF HARYANA 453 relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, A ... while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended. (Para 13) (460-E) 2.1. In the first information report the thrust of -<::. allegations was primarily directed against the acquitted B 4 accused persons. They have been acquitted by the High Court. So far as the evidence of PW 1-complainant, PW 5-mother and PW 6-brother, the High Court noticed that there were lots of improvements. But the High Court found that even if these improvements are kept out of c consideration, the evidence was sufficient to hold the present appellants guilty. It is to be noted that these improvements primarily related to appellant nos. 2 and 3, therefore acquittal as directed qua the co-accused • persons should have also been done in the case of D appellant nos. 2 and 3. However, the evidence is clear and cogent so far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned. (Para - 5) (457-G-H; 458-A-B] 2.2. The evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 clearly establish the accusations as regard appellant no.1, thus there is E nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.