Cruelty And Abetment To Suicide Are Distinct Offences, Acquittal Under One Will Not 'Necessarily Lead' To Acquittal In The Other: Kerala HC

A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas in its order clarified that a person can be convicted under Section 498A if the evidence proves the commission of that offence, even in the absence of a specific charge under 498A, as long as the charge under Section 306 clearly indicates the necessary elements for attracting an offence under Section 498A.

“Even if the accused was charged only under Section 306 of IPC, and he was found not guilty of that offence, there is nothing improper in convicting him for an offence under Section 498A of IPC, on proof of commission of such offence, if from the statement of charge under Section 306, it was clear that all the ingredients for framing a charge under Section 498A existed in the case. If so, that was sufficient to convict the accused under Section 498A of IPC, on proof of commission of such offence, though no specific charge was framed for that offence.”

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the deceased were in a live in relationship and they had two children. It was alleged that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison after being scolded by the appellant.

The appellant argued that he was convicted for cruelty without framing charges for it and without being given an opportunity to defend it. It was argued that IPC Sections 306 and 498A were distinct offences for which separate charges were to be framed as per Section 218 CrPC. It was also stated that IPC Section 498A cannot be attracted since there was no legal marriage.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that testimony of witnesses prove that appellant was in a marital relationship with the deceased. It was also argued that there is evidence of ill treatment and cruelty to attract prosecution under Section 498A. Relying upon Section 222 CrPC, it was argued that an offence under Section 498A is included in an offence under Section 306 of IPC since cruelty is considered as a minor offence as compared to abetment to suicide. It was stated that appellant had sufficient notice to defend himself for Section 498A also while answering a charge against him under Section 306 of the IPC.

The High Court observed that cruelty as mentioned in Section 498A of the IPC is wider and includes cases when the wife suffers cruelty from her husband or his relatives which could even drive her to commit suicide which would amount to abetment to commit suicide. On the other hand, the Court observed that to prove abetment to suicide, the offence of abetment has to be proved which is a distinct and separate offence.

It said, "Marriage is sine qua non, to attract an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. But, for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there need not be any relationship between the accused and the victim. Where the cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A of IPC is proved to have contributed to the suicide, and the intention of the accused to abet that suicide can be inferred, from his cruel or harassing behaviour, then the accused can be charged both under Section 498A and 306 of IPC. The basic ingredients of an offence under Section 498A of IPC can be said to be there, in a charge under Section 306 of IPC, where the cruelties meted out to the wife, by her husband or his relatives were of such a nature, to drive her to commit suicide".

The high court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2002), and said that offences under Section 306 and 498A are distinct and there has to be a charge under both Sections and conviction and sentence can also be imposed separately.

"So, obviously even if a man is acquitted under Section 306 of IPC, he need not be necessarily acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or vice versa," the high court underscored.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions, the Court further stated that mere omission or defect in framing charges will not by itself be a reason to acquit an accused for an offence which is found to be proved based on evidence on record.

The Court further stated that marriage is an essential pre-condition to attract an offence under Section 498A, whereas there is no such condition precedent under Section 306 of the IPC.

The Court stated that no person can be condemned unheard since that would cause a failure of justice. It stated that the appellant cannot be convicted for matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A of IPC when there were no specific allegations of matrimonial cruelty which compelled the woman to commit suicide.

“ If the appellant had an opportunity to meet the ingredients of a charge under Section 498A of IPC also, in the charge framed against him under Section 306 of IPC, no injustice could have been caused to him, even if he was convicted under Section 498A of IPC, without a separate charge for that offence. But the facts of the case would reveal that there occurred failure of justice in convicting the appellant under Section 498A of IPC, as he had no notice of that offence, and he did not get an opportunity to defend the same.”

As such, the Court set aside his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and acquitted him.

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Renjith B.Marar, Prabhu Vijayakumar

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M C Ashi

Case Number: CRL.A NO. 850 OF 2007

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699

Click Here To Read/Download Order