Introduction: This section was enacted to meet the cases of dowry deaths. It was introduced in the year 1983. It's objective is to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband. The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this section.
In Inder Raj Malik v. Mrs. Sumita Malik, it was contended that this section is ultra vires Art. 14 and Art. 20(2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry Prohibition Act which also deals with similar type of cases, therefore, both statutes together create a situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatived this contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary, whereas Section 498-A deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands of property or valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her. Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
It was held in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, that the object of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or his relatives in connection with demand of dowry. This section was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. In the present case proceedings were initiated by wife under section 498-A against her husband and his relatives and subsequently she settled her disputes with husband and agreed for mutual divorce. Later she moved an application for quashing proceedings initiated by her against husband and his relatives.
The SC held that refusal by High Court to exercise the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of section 498-A of the Indian penal code.
It was further held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Meaning of relatives - It was held in V. Seevetha v. State of Inspector of Police, that in the absence of any statutory definition of the term "relatives" of husband, the term relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine of the husband in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A. Section 498-A being a penal provision ought to be given strict construction. Therefore a girlfriend or concubine of husband cannot be charged under Section 498-A of IPC.
Meaning of cruelty - It was held in Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, that cruelty is a common essential in offences under both sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. The two sections are not mutually inclusive but both are distinct offences and a person acquitted under section 304-B for the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The meaning of cruelty is given in explanation to section 498-A. Section 304-B does not contain its meaning but the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under section 304-B the offence is that of dowry death and the death must have occurred within seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.
Cases - In Virender Bhatti v. State, it was held that where the suicide had taken place within seven years of the marriage and the convincing evidence had come on record that the deceased wife was was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused husband, a presumption that it was the accused who abetted the commission of suicide by his wife could be drawn and thus, the conviction for offences under sections 306 and 498-A was proper.
In P. Bikshapathi v. State of A.P., one Rajyalakshmi aged about 19 years committed suicide as she was ill treated and harassed continuously be her husband and his parents for not getting the T.V. set and gold ring from her parents. Her husband was addicted to alcohol and sometimes fell unconscious after consuming alcohol. He used to come late and on being objected used to beat his wife. Thus she was compelled to commit suicide by setting herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her body. It was held that taking drink and coming late home much against the will of wife may not per se, amount to cruelty but the acts coupled with beating and demanding dowry and harassment to bring money clearly amount to cruelty under section 498-A of the Code. Further ill treatment meted to the deceased by her and in-laws prior to the date of her death made her to commit suicide. The accused were therefore liable under section 306, IP Code also. It was held in Madhuri Mukund Chitnis v. Mukund Martand Chitnis, that where malicious and vexatious litigations are instituted by the husband against wife out of a sense of vindictiveness and wife is humiliated and tortured through execution of search warrants and seizure of personal property it was held that section 498-A includes even such class of cruelty committed through litigative process.
In the case of Mangar Ram v. State of Haryana, the appellant Mangat Ram, a member of SC community, married the deceased Seema, a member of the Aggarwal community on 13.07.1993 at Ambala. Few months after the marriage, on 15.09.1993, according to the prosecution, the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and set her on fire, having failed to meet the dowry demand. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbours assembled and took her to Civil Hospital, Gohana and, later, she was shifted to the Medical college and Hospital Rohtak, where she died on 17.09.1993. The appellant, along with his parents and sister, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC.
After examining the case Supreme Court held that "we have every reason to believe that, in the instant case, the death was accidental, for the following reasons : - Though not proved in her dying declaration, it has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years, i.e., before 15.03.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under his treatment from 23.12.1992 to 2.4.1993 at kuldeep hospital, Ambala City. His evidence was brushed aside by the trial Court on the ground that Dr. Kuldeep was not a psychiatrist. It may be noted that Epilepsy is not a Psychiatrist problem. It is a disease of nerves system and a MD (Medicine) could treat the patient of Epilepsy. The reasoning given by the trial Court for brushing aside the evidence of DW1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, the possibility of an accidental death, since she was suffering from Epilepsy, cannot be ruled out. Evidently, she was in the kitchen and, might be, during cooking she might have suffered Epileptic symptoms and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire, resulting he ultimate death. DW2 ASI Ram Mohan, the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that he had recorded the statements of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years before the incident and that on 15.9.1993 while she was preparing means on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove and caught fire. She had also depose at that time that her husband was away at duty at Madhuban , Karnal. The Court held that the evidence of DW2 has to be appreciated in the light of overall facts and circumstances of the case. Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, the Court was of the view that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court , were set aside.
0 Comments