'Cruelty Committed By A Woman Against Another Woman More Serious' : Supreme Court Upholds 80 Yr Old Mother-in-Law's Conviction Under Section 498A IPC

Observing that when cruelty is committed by one woman against another woman the offence becomes more serious, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother-in-law for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The mother-in-law was found guilty of having committed cruelty against the daughter-in-law when her husband was abroad.

"Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-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. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable", observed a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna.

The Court went on to say :

Though the conviction was upheld, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year to three months, having regard to the fact that the appellant is 80 years old and the incident occurred in 2006.

The Top Court also observed that merely because a long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court was no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone.

Factual Background

The victim's mother had lodged a complaint that her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-law were harassing her daughter and subjecting her to torture/cruelty for want of jewels because of which her daughter had immolated herself. All the accused(s) were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and a charge sheet was filed against them u/s 498A and 306 of IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted accused No 4(father-in-law) but convicted the accused(s) u/s 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC and three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.

Aggrieved accused No. 1 (husband of the deceased), accused No. 2 (mother-in-law of the victim) and accused No. 3 (sister-in-law of the victim) preferred the appeal before the High Court. By impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the accused(s) u/s 306 IPC. The High Court also set aside the conviction in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 3 u/s 498A IPC. However, the conviction and sentence in respect of accused the mother in law for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

Assailing the High Court's judgement, the mother in law approached the Supreme Court.

Submission Of Counsels

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in holding the appellant guilty for offence u/s 498A. It was also his contention that the domestic quarrel on account of the insistence of the deceased that her husband should not go back to Saudi Arabia would not amount to harassment in terms of Section 498A IPC.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The bench in the judgement authored by Justice MR Shah opined that it had been established and proved that the deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant/ mother-in-law with regard to jewels.

On the aspect of Senior Counsels' submission to take a lenient view looking at the appellant's age, the bench said, "It is required to be noted that as such the Trial Court has imposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years R.I. At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was approximately between 60-65 years. 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."

Case Title: Meera v. State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai| Criminal Appeal No. 31 Of 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Click here to read/download the judgment