LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1170 A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1697 OF 2008 OCTOBER 24, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ~- Penal Code, 1860 - s. 49BA - Cruelty - Meaning of - Held: For purpose of s. 49BA, every harassment is not "cru- I>, c elty" - Only when harassment is committed for coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under s. 498A - Crime against Women. Appeal - Criminal appeal - Interference by Appellate D Court - Scope - Held: Where approach of the lower court in considering the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegal- 'f. ity or conclusion recorded by the court is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is liable to be characterized as perverse E and only then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate ,.,. court is obliged to interfere. _.__ FIR - Lodging of - Delay in - Held: It is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily ex- ' plained - Importance of prompt lodging of FIR highlighted. F ;- According to the prosecution, Respondent-husband (A-1) with assistance from his mother (A-2) and two sis- ter-in-laws (A-3 and A-4) used to harass and beat his wife (PW1) and also pressurized her to bring additional G Rs.50,0001- though at the time of marriage, on the insis- tence of Respondent and his mother, the father of PW1 i.e. ,."- PW3 had already given one house, Rs.60,0001- in cash, six ,... tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- I- It was alleged that on 19th April, 1996 i.e. about three 'j) H 1170 ··.~ STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1171 MADHUSUDHAN RAO ~ years after marriage, Respondent and the three other ac- A cused forced PW1 to consume poison as a result of which she was admitted in a nursing home in an unconscious state. PW1 was discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996 whereafter she went to stay with her parents and since then she is staying there. A complaint regarding the ~ said incident of forced poisoning was lodged by PW1 on y 22nd May, 1996 whereafter the prosecution machinery was set in motion. The Trial Court held that though no specific instances of harassment had come on record but the long course c of conduct of Respondent showed that the allegations of harassment were not totally baseless and on that ground it ordered conviction of Respondent under s.498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The other three accused were however acquitted. D The High Court, however, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, set aside the conviction of Respondent. In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the State that the High Court took an unreasonable view in acquit- E ting the Respondent, overlooking his conduct before and after the marriage; that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly proves that even before marriage, Respondent was insisting on transfer of house in his name; that even on the date of marriage demand for t money was made and though Respondent purchased F lorry in the name of PW1, it was not by way of any love and affection but to extract an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents and thus in light of the sur- rounding circumstances of the case a clear case for con- viction under s.498-A IPC had been made out against the G ., Respondent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. S.498-A 1.P.C. makes "cruelty" by husband or his relative a punishable offence. The word "cruelty" H 1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A is defined in the Explanation appended to the said Sec- tion. As per clause (b) of the Explanation, every harass- ment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of s.498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or B any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand .. In other words, for the purpose of s.498-A l.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand c for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under s. 498-A l.P.C. [Paras 10, 11] (1178-F; 1179-E, F, G) Harbans Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab1 (1962) Supp 1 SCR 104; Shri Gopal & Anr. v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.