Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Death of married woman due to self-immolation – Allegation of dowry demand against in-laws – Conviction of mother-in-law and one year RI – Challenged – Held: Deceased was staying with her in-laws, while husband of deceased was staying abroad – It was established and proved that deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by her mother-in-law (appellant) regarding jewellery – Conviction of appellant u/s.498-A was, therefore, justified – As regards the plea of lenient view in sentencing, incident having occurred in 2006 and appellant presently about 80 years old, as a mitigating circumstance, her sentence reduced from one year RI to 3 months RI – Crime against women.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It was established and proved that the deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant – mother-in-law with regard to jewels. PW-1 – mother of the victim in her evidence clearly stated that her daughter was frequently subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning jewels. Similar was the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both the witnesses were subjected to cross- examination. However, after detailed cross-examination, they stood by what they had stated. Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 fully supported the case of the prosecution. There were concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on the harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty by the appellant – accused No. 2 with regard to jewels. The findings recorded by both the Courts below were on appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appellant was rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. [Para 7] [227-D-F]
2. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A. The incident is of the year 2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellant – mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-inlaw, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughterin-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. In the present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant in this case. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating circumstance, the sentence is reduced from one year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained. [Para 8][227-G-H; 228-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.