Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons
This judgment from Supreme Court of India revisits the evidences submitted at the trial court stage and overturns the conviction under 498A due to no material evidence in regards to cruelty under the statutes of IPC 498A.
Key point on delay in filing the complaint
The complaint of cruelty was lodged by filing an FIR on 23.5.1997 i.e. after four years of leaving the matrimonial home. More so, the mental or physical torture was not continuous on the part of the appellant as there is no complaint against him between 1993 to 1997 i.e. leaving the matrimonial home by the wife and performing the second marriage by the husband.
Here are list of judgments where husband and/or his family and relatives acquitted from False Criminal Matrimonial Cases. These are the so called Success Stories. Hope it helps.
Bombay High Court:
MASTER SITEMAP here.
A hyper sensitive Knife killed herself by hanging. And so Hon’ble Justice of Bombay High Court said,
Para 10,
Prima facie, this discloses hyper sensitivity of a wife, and ordinary petulance and discord in matrimonial life. Prima facie, this incident cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of ingredients of offence of cruelty defined in Section 498A of the IPC.
Similarly, for making out an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, what is required to be proved is mens rea. Without knowledge and intention, there cannot be an abetment. There must be some active suggestion or stimulation by accused persons to the victim.
This is a landmark judgment from Hon’Ble Delhi High Court based on which recent Landmark Rajesh Sharma Judgment is delivered issuing guidelines in regards to heavy misuse is matrimonial cases.
Operating portion of judgment:
Para 19,
Only allegation against the respondents is that they did not like the clothes brought by the petitioner as customary gifts for relatives of the husband. One of the sisters-in-law remarked that had the marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received. These allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests, do not make out a case of either `cruelty’ or `harassment’ as contemplated by section 498A IPC.
Non-acceptance of gifts might have hurt her feelings and other remarks might have been unkindly and incisive but by no stretch of imagination, such a conduct involves any of the ingredients of either offence under section 498A IPC or 406 IPC.
Neither such an act nor conduct has the effect of driving the woman to commit suicide nor of causing grave injury nor is likely to cause danger to life or limb nor did it amount to tormenting her either physically or mentally to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the demands of any property or valuable security.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is highly misconceived and is being used as a tool to hold the entire household to ransom and jeopardy. Petition is dismissed.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
In this case, a cunning Knife faked a ‘InLaws-set-fire-on-me’ drama and got rightly rapped by the Hon’ble High Court. The law point elucidate here is: in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
From the Judgment
When giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents-accused, it was noticed by the trial Court that in the witness box, applicant- complainant PW-3 had made many improvements, so far as her allegations are concerned. It was also noticed that the burnt clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. In the witness box it was stated by the complainant that after she was put on fire, she grabbed mobile phone from one of the culprits and made a telephonic call to her brother and thereafter, she doused the fire by sprinkling water upon her from a drum. On this aspect, deposition made by the complainant, was rightly discarded by the trial Court.
30% burns on exposed body parts would be visible to anyone and had there been any such apparent injury, the police would not have dismissed her stand for want of sufficient proof. Moreover, the infant daughter of the complainant was with her. If at all the complainant would have been badly burnt, she could hardly have handled an infant child.
The fact that neither Imlesh nor Satbir have referred to their visit to the police reflects their mala-fides.
The Investigating Officer further clarified that it was the accused who had informed the police on the telephone No.100 that Imlesh had been harassing them and wanted to set their house on fire. In pursuance of this, the concerned official had advised the accused to inform the Police Station Surajkund whereupon it was the accused who had informed this witness (PW-7) of the occurrence telephonically that Imlesh was trying to set their house on fire. When the police reached the spot, no one was present there and part of the house had already been burnt. The neighbours had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that it was Imlesh who had put certain goods on fire in the house and had thereafter run away.
The trial Judge has thrashed the entire evidence in a proper manner and the opinion formed is as per evidence on record.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1093 access attempts in the last 7 days.
