Calcutta High Court: A single-judge bench comprising of Sugato Majumdar,* J., quashed the appellant’s conviction under Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) who was charged for subjecting his wife to cruelty. The Court, however, upheld his conviction and sentence of ₹ 1,000 fine under Section 323 of the IPC.
In the instant matter, the appellant was convicted under Section 498A (cruelty towards wife) and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. The charges stemmed from a complaint filed by the wife of the Appellant, alleging dowry demand, torture, and an attempt to murder by her husband and mother-in-law. The complaint was registered under Sections 498A/307 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for Section 498A and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for Section 323 IPC.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31-07-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tufangunj, Cooch Behar, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court challenging the same.
The Court observed that the complainant’s allegations against the appellant were vague and lacked specificity, moreover, there was no mention of specific instances of torture, assault, or harassment.
The Court observed that the two eye-witnesses who had allegedly rescued the complainant did not corroborate her claim that she was about to be killed by the appellant. The Court further observed that medical reports showed only simple injuries like bite marks on the complainant, which did not meet the threshold for cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court emphasized that cruelty under Section 498A is distinct from ordinary marital disputes and should be based on specific and credible evidence. The Court stated that
“Cruelty contemplated in Section 498A of the Penal Code is different from day to day bickering between the husband and wife. Sweeping and general allegations cannot be relied upon to conclude that offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been perpetrated.”
The Court held that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciation of evidence with regards to the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court quashed the appellant’s conviction under Section 498A of the IPC but upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 323 based on oral and corroborating documentary evidence. The Court directed the appellant to pay the fine within fifteen days of the date of the judgment.
[Ranjan Das v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2459, order dated 22-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Sugato Majumdar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty and Mr. Saurav Ganguly, Counsel for the Respondent/State
