Supreme Court of India
MEERA versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI on 11 January 2022
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 223
MEERA
v.
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYURPOLICE STATION CHENNAI
(Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2022)
JANUARY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Death of married woman due toself-immolation – Allegation of dowry demand against in-laws –Conviction of mother-in-law and one year RI – Challenged – Held:Deceased was staying with her in-laws, while husband of deceasedwas staying abroad – It was established and proved that deceasedwas subjected to torture/cruelty by her mother-in-law (appellant)regarding jewellery – Conviction of appellant u/s.498-A was,therefore, justified – As regards the plea of lenient view in sentencing,incident having occurred in 2006 and appellant presently about 80years old, as a mitigating circumstance, her sentence reduced fromone year RI to 3 months RI – Crime against women.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It was established and proved that the deceasedwas subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant – mother-in-lawwith regard to jewels. PW-1 – mother of the victim in her evidenceclearly stated that her daughter was frequently subjected toharassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning jewels. Similarwas the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both thewitnesses were subjected to cross- examination. However, afterdetailed cross-examination, they stood by what they had stated.Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 fully supported the caseof the prosecution. There were concurrent findings of factsrecorded by both the Courts below on the harassment and/ortorture and/or cruelty by the appellant – accused No. 2 with regardto jewels. The findings recorded by both the Courts below wereon appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appellant was rightlyheld guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. [Para 7][227-D-F]
223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A2. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of one year R.I.for the offence under Section 498A. The incident is of the year2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed inconcluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court,is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose thesentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellantB– mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section498A of IPC. 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 bymeting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, itCbecomes a more serious offence. In the present case, even thehusband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was stayingall alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of theappellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care ofher daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/Dor meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels oron other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required tobe shown to the appellant in this case. However, considering thefact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present theappellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigatingEcircumstance, the sentence is reduced from one year R.I. to threemonths R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained.[Para 8][227-G-H; 228-A-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 31 of 2022.FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in Crl.A.No.748 of 2010.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, A. S. Vairawan, R.Sudhakaran, Mrs. Shalini Mishra, T. Hari H ara Sudhan, Vikash G. R.,GAdvs. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010 by which theHigh Court has dismissed the said appeal so far as the appellant – originalaccused No.2 is concerned, upholding the judgment and order passed bythe Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of theIndian Penal Code (IPC), the original accused No.2 – mother-in-law ofthe deceased has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a complaint was lodged byPW-1 Ramathilagam, mother of the victim therein alleging that all theaccused – her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-lawwere harassing the deceased and she was subjected to torture/crueltyfor want of jewels. It was alleged that due to which her daughter hadimmolated herself. She was taken to the hospital, however, shesuccumbed to the injuries. All the accused were charged for the offencesunder Sections 498A and 306 IPC. After investigation, the InvestigatingOfficer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offencesunder Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
2.1 The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which wasnumbered as Sessions Case No. 203 of 2008. The Trial Court framedthe charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accusedpleaded not guilty and, therefore, they claimed to be tried by the TrialCourt for the aforesaid offences.
2.2 To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecutionexamined in all 16 witnesses. The prosecution also brought on recorddocumentary evidence through the aforesaid witnesses. After completionof the evidences on the side of the prosecution, the statements of theaccused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused pleadedtotal denial and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted accused No. 4,however, it convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishableunder Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accusedto undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence underSection 498A IPC and three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for theoffence under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court also imposed defaultsentence in case of failure to pay the fine.
B
CD
E
F
G
H
A2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderof conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, accused No. 1,husband of the deceased, accused No.2, mother-in-law of the victimand accused No.3,sister-in-law of the victim preferred the appeal beforethe High Court. By impugned judgment and order, the High Court haspartly allowed the said appeal and has acquitted all the accused for theBoffence under Section 306 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order,the High Court has also set aside the conviction in respect of accusedNos.1 and3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.However, the HighCourt has maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of accusedNo.2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.C2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, dismissing the appeal of accusedNo.2 and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Trial Courtconvicting her for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the originalaccused No.2, mother-in-law of the victim has preferred the presentDappeal.
3. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellant – original accused No.2. Thoughserved, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent State.
4. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfEof the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, both, the Trial Court as well as the HighCourt have erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence underSection 498A of the IPC.
4.1 It is submitted that considering the fact that the injuriesFsustained by the deceased were deep and to the extent of 96%, shewould not have been in a position to make any statement. It is submittedthat the Hon’ble High Court when disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 toPW-3 while acquitting the other accused, the same yardstick ought tohave been applied in the case of the appellant also.
4.2 It is submitted that in fact the deceased did not want herGhusband -A1 to go back to Saudi Arabia and for that she quarreled withher husband and other family members, which was the root cause ofdispute/quarrel, which led to her committing suicide. It is submitted thatthe domestic quarrel on account of the insistence of the deceased thather husband -accused No.1 should not go back to Saudi Arabia wouldHnot amount to harassment in terms of Section 498A IPC.
4.3 In the alternative, it is prayed by Shri Nagamuthu, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – mother-in-lawof the victim that the appellant is an old lady, who is now 80 years oldand, therefore, if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction,in that case, a lenient view may be taken while imposing the sentence.
5. We have heard Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocateappearing for the appellant at length.
6. We have also gone through and considered the judgment andorder of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court holding the appellant –accused No.2 – mother in-law guilty for the offence under Section 498AIPC. We have also gone through the depositions of relevant witnessesnamely PW-1 to PW-3.
7. Having gone through the material on record and the findingsrecorded by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that it has beenestablished and proved that the deceased was subjected to torture/crueltyby the appellant – mother-in-law with regard to jewels. PW-1 – motherof the victim in her evidence has clearly stated that her daughter wasfrequently subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorningjewels. Similar is the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both theaforesaid witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. However, afterdetailed cross-examination, they have stood by what they havestated.Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 have fully supported thecase of the prosecution. There are concurrent findings of facts recordedby both the Courts below on the harassment and/or torture and/or crueltyby the appellant – accused No.2 with regard to jewels. The findingsrecorded by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence,therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been rightly heldguilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
8. Now, in sofar as the alternative submission made on behalf ofthe accused to take a lenient view looking to the age of the appellant isconcerned, it is required to be noted that as such the Trial Court hasimposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years R.I.At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was approximatelybetween 60-65 years. The incident is of the year 2006. Therefore, merelybecause long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding theappeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment A
BC
DE
F
G
H
A
BC
DE
F
G
H
Aand/or to impose the sentence already undergone. It is to be noted thatthe appellant – mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence underSection 498A of IPC. 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 crueltyto another woman, i.e.,the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more seriousBoffence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect anotherlady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. Inthe present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad.The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was theduty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to takeCcare of her daughter-in-law,rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on otherissues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to theappellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasonsstated hereinabove. However, considering the fact that the incident is ofthe year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximatelyD80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as amitigating circumstance, we propose to reduce the sentence from oneyear R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to bemaintained.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theEpresent appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant – originalaccused No.2 – mother-in-law is hereby confirmed/maintained.However,instead of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A IPC, theappellant is directed to undergo imprisonment of three months R.I. withfine and the default sentence as imposed by the Trial Court. As theFappellant is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled and the appellant shallnow surrender before the appropriate Court/jail authority to undergo thesentence as per the present order within a period of four weeks fromtoday. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pendingapplications, if any, also stand disposed.
G
Devika Gujral
Appeal partly allowed.
H