Whether Seeking Financial Help from Wife amount to Cruelty?
Insofar as the allegations of illtreatment are
concerned, from the evidence it appears that the prosecution
witnesses have not described any specific instance or specific
nature of illtreatment. P.W.1 has merely stated that the
Appellant used to harass Kavita because she was unable to cook
properly and that he used to give abuses to her. This conduct by
itself will not fall within the meaning of explanation (A) u/s
498A, where the term “Cruelty” is explained. In the fact of this
case, it cannot be said that this conduct of the Appellant was of
such a nature that it was likely to drive Kavita to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The
allegations fall much short of the requirements of explanation
(a) to section 498A.
22. Insofar as the demand of Rs.1,000/ is concerned, as
mentioned earlier, there are no allegations that on that count
specifically Kavita was harassed. Therefore even explanation (b)
where “Cruelty” is explained u/s 498A is not attracted in the
present case. Even as per the prosecution case, the Appellant
was seeking financial help to secure a room on rent. Considering
the Appellant's poor financial condition, such request for help
cannot be termed as 'unlawful demand.' There is no evidence to
show that the deceased was illtreated because the amount of
Rs.1,000/ was not paid.
23. Ms.Kaushik submitted that since the deceased Kavita
had committed suicide within six month of marriage, section
113A of the Indian Evidence Act, is attracted. The Court was
required to raise the presumption against the accused. The
burden shifted on the Appellant to prove his defence. In this
context it is necessary to consider section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, which reads thus;
“113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman
When the question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative
of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the
Court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband.”
24. In this case it is true that the deceased Kavita had
committed suicide within six months of marriage. But the crucial
question remains as to whether the prosecution has been able to
discharge its initial burden of showing that her husband had
subjected her to cruelty. For the purpose of this section again
reference is made to the explanation to section 498A of IPC
where 'cruelty' is explained. As discussed hereinabove, I have
already reached the conclusion that the prosecution has not
been able to prove that the Appellant had treated the deceased
with cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of IPC. In my
opinion, therefore section 113A is not attracted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2002
Ananta Laxman Pansare Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 07th MAY, 2018.
