.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reduced the sentence for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code from one year to three months rigorous imprisonment for a woman appellant reported to be almost 80 years of age.
The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna disposed of an appeal filed by the mother-in-law of the victim (accused no. 2) challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 30, 2019 by which the High Court upheld the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
As per prosecution, a complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim therein alleging that the accused – her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-law – were harassing the deceased and she was subjected to torture/cruelty for want of jewels. It was alleged that due to this, her daughter had immolated herself and succumbed to the injuries in hospital. All the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they claimed to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences. To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence through the aforesaid witnesses. After completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused pleaded total denial and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted the father-in-law, however, it convicted the son-in-law, his mother, her daughter for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence under Section 498A IPC and three years RI with a fine of Rs 2,000 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court also imposed default sentences in case of failure to pay the fine.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal in the High Court. By impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and has acquitted all the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also set aside the conviction in respect of the accused son-in-law and her daughter for the offence under Section 498A IPC. However, the High Court has maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of mother-in-law for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, she approached the Supreme Court.
Having gone through the material on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the Apex Court opined that it has been established and proved that the deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant – mother-in-law with regard to jewels. “There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on the harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty by the appellant – accused No. 2 with regard to jewels. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence, therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC,” the Bench observed.
In so far as the submission made on behalf of the accused to take a lenient view looking at the age of the appellant is concerned, the Court noted that as such the Trial Court has imposed the sentence of one year RI for the offence under Section 498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years RI. At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was between 60-65. The incident is of 2006.
“Therefore, merely because a long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellant mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section 498A of IPC,” the Court held.
Therefore, the Court observed that being a woman, 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 cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a woman, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another woman, the other, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable.
“In the present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care 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 other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasons stated hereinabove,” said the Court.
However, considering the fact that the incident is of 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately 80, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating circumstance, the Court proposes to reduce the sentence from one year RI to three months RI with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained.
“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant – original accused No.2 – mother-in-law is hereby confirmed/maintained. However, instead of one year RI for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment of three months RI with fine and the default sentence as imposed by the Trial Court,” the order reads.