Husband Acquitted From Offence Of Dowry Death U/S 304B IPC Can Be Held Guilty Of Marital Cruelty U/S 498A Depending On Facts: Kerala HC

The judgment was made by Justice Johnson John while deciding a Criminal Appeal against the decision of Sessions Judge where he found the appellant guilty of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court found the accused not guilty under Section 304B and abetment of suicide under Section 306.

As per prosecution, accused started demanding dowry from his wife after 5 months of marriage and used to beat her for the same. He did not settle for a lesser dowry offered by wife's parents. A quarrel ensued and the accused beat her. She consumed formic acid. She informed her parents what had happened when they saw her in the hospital where she was admitted for treatment. She died in the hospital while being treated.

The appellant argued that the charge will not stand as the marriage between the accused and the deceased was not valid. The appellant was a Muslim and the deceased was Hindu. They registered their marriage at the Sub Registry Office and there was exchange of garlands.

The Trial Court had observed that the appellant was a Mohammedan and the marriage between a Mohammedan male and a Hindu female is not invalid but only irregular according to Sunni Law. Since there is no plea that the petitioner belongs to Shia community, the marriage cannot be considered as invalid. High Court found this view to be correct. Moreover, the Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and A. Subash Babu v State of Andhra Pradesh and Another which held that 498-A will apply when there is a marital relationship between the parties. The legal validity of the marriage does not matter.

The deceased was admitted to a hospital on 16/02/2002 and she died on 29/05/2002. The FIR was filed by the stepfather of the deceased on 29/05/2002. The appellant alleged that there was delay in filing the FIR. The accusation was made only after the death. They had no complaints till her death and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon.

Stepfather and mother of the deceased gave evidence that the deceased was undergoing intensive treatment and there was no one else to help them. The Court accepted this as explanation for delay.

The appellant had also argued that harassment simpliciter does not come under 498A. Only when harassment is for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for dowry will it amount to cruelty under Section 498A. Here there is no proof that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.

The Court held that there is evidence from the stepfather and mother of the deceased about demand of dowry and subsequent cruelty faced by her. She was manhandled and driven out of their house. She was also told that she will be allowed to reside there only if she fulfilled the demand of dowry made by the appellant. The Court also referred to Kaliyaperumal v State of T.N which held that cruelty by itself is an offence under Section 498A and distinguished it from Section 304 B where death is a necessary element.

Therefore, the Court did not think it was necessary that it should be proved that the cruelty happened soon before her death. It is enough if it is proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

The Appeal was dismissed.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Biju Hariharan

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 353

Case Title: N. Ansari v State of Kerala

Case No.: Crl. A. 1578/2007