Taunting Wife For Dark Complexion Does Not Amount To Cruelty Under S. 498A Of IPC

In all fairness, the Bombay High Court while treading the right path in the right direction at the right time in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1998 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AS:30887 that was pronounced as recently as on July 11, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has acquitted a husband while tilting the scale of justice in his favour mandating most explicitly that taunting his wife for her dark complexion does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). To put it differently, we thus see that the Bombay High Court deemed it fit to set aside the conviction of a husband who had been found guilty by a lower court of abetting his wife’s suicide and subjecting her to cruelty. It must be laid bare that this leading case stemmed initially from a conviction in 1995 in which the Trial Court had sentenced the husband to five years in prison under Sections 498A ( cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC.

At the very outset, this pragmatic, persuasive, progressive, peculiar and pertinent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SM Modak sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth succinctly in para 1 that, “Heard learned appointed Advocate Ms. Ayubi for the Appellant and learned APP Ms. Tendulkar for the Respondent-State.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case laying bare that, “The present Appellant and father-in-law of the deceased were prosecuted for harassing Prema, and they have abetted her suicide. Prema is the wife of Accused no. 1 and the daughter-in-law of Accused No. 2. The charges were under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 was acquitted, whereas Accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence is :-

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence is rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.”

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 3 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In all prosecution examined five witnesses. There are certain admitted documents. They are evidence and documents. With their assistance, I find that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. On record, though Prema was being taunted on account of her complexion, I do not think that it will fall within the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Even conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, because the prosecution could not prove the suicide being the outcome of the harassment. I will give reasons for my decision.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 revealing that, “Prema was married to accused no. 1 in the year 1993, whereas the incident took place in the month of January 1998. The expenses of the marriage were borne by both the sides. Prema and Accused No. 1 were illiterate. Accused No. 1 used to graze the she goats. She used to stay along with Accused No.1 at matrimonial house. He used to be away for a long time. The Prema used to come her mother’s house and she used to disclose about harassment. Finally, she has put an end to her life by jumping into well. She went missing from the home. Her dead body was found in well at village Degaon, Satara. The panchnama was prepared on 24.01.1995.”

Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 5 that, “The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of PW No.2. After completing of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Both the accused have denied the commission of the offence. According to them, it was accidental death.”

As we see, the Bench mentions in para 6 that, “PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the material witnesses. The deceased had met them and shared her matrimonial experiences. It is admitted fact that reason of the harassment is not a demand for dowry. As per the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, if there is a demand for dowry and consequent harassment, it falls under Explanation (b). This is not applicable. There can be harassment for other reason. It is covered under Explanation (b). It contemplates such harassment must be of such a degree so as to compel the woman to put an end to her life.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “So what the legislature contemplates is that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from the matrimonial life are not criminal offence. It will take colour of Criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life, because of the harassment. The reasons for the harassment is revealed from the evidence of the PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They are as follows:

(a) The accused no. 1 was taunting her by saying she is of black complexion and that he does not like her. Accused no. 1 was telling her he will perform a second marriage.

(b) The Accused no. 2 was complaining about capacity of the Prema to prepare food. She was not preparing food properly. This was told to the Mother-Parubai, when Prema had gone to her house.

(c) Chaturabai is the Mother-in-law of the sister of the deceased Prema. Both of them met at village at Chinchner. At that time, deceased has expressed her feelings by weeping. The accused were ill-treating and beating her.

(d) PW No. 4-Bhimrao is brother of the PW No. 1-Parubai. He had met Prema at her matrimonial house. Even during the festivals of Diwali and Panchami, both of them have met each other. The deceased informed him about the harassment by her husband and father-in-law. The reasons were she was dark complexion and not preparing food properly.”

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 8 holding that, “If we consider all these reasons, they can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel Prema to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.”

Notably, the Bench points out in para 9 observing rightly that, “I have read the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court is fully aware about the Explanation-(a) to Section 498-A:- The willful conduct must be of a high degree; however, when the evidence of the three witnesses are considered by the trial Court, there is no finding that the harassment is of high degree. There cannot be such a finding simply for the reason that even if the reasons for harassment are admitted, no case will fall under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The findings need to be set aside.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench then specifies in para 10 holding that, “The trial Court has discussed about the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Suicide itself is not an offence, if someone abets it, then only it becomes a punishable offence. So, abetment and suicide both need to be proved. In this case, though the accused took a defence about accident by falling into the well, the learned Judge rightly observed that it cannot be accepted because no articles were found in or around the well. There is other reason to believe that it was suicide, but the prosecution could not prove the connection in between the harassment and the act of suicide. There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion. The judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The learned Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections.”