List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Conviction Under Section 498 - A of IPC

23-Oct-2023

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, held that a conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be upheld despite acquittal under section 304-B of IPC as the former has a broader scope.

What was the Background of Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka Case?

Akkamahadevi , the third daughter of the complainant was married to the accused on 16^th May 2010.
The complaint filed by her father of the deceased alleged that a dowry of Rs. 31,000 and 1.5 tolas of gold were given at the time of the marriage.
Subsequently, an additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 and gold was demanded two months after the marriage.
It was further alleged that the accused and his parents subjected Akkamahadevi to physical and mental torture.
Unable to bear the suffering, she committed suicide by self-immolation, pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire.
A dying declaration was recorded on 20^th December 2010 and Akkamahadevi died on 24^th December 2010 due to burn injuries.
The learned Trial Judge by relying upon the dying declaration convicted the accused under Section 304-B of IPC, Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP), Act, 1961.
Thereafter, an appeal was filed in the High Court of Karnataka, which was later dismissed, and the HC affirmed the judgment and order of sentence convicting the accused passed by the Trial Judge.
Aggrieved by the Judgement of the Karnataka HC, an appeal was filed before the SC.
The SC acquitted the accused of the charges punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The SC bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar observed that the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC could not be sustained, due to lack of a direct connection between the dowry demand and the death. The demand for dowry did not appear to have triggered the deceased to commit suicide or force her to self-immolate. But at the same time, a conviction under Section 498-A can be upheld as it has a broader scope.
The Court held that the accused person is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC though charge was not framed.
The Court further observed that the dying declaration in the instant case which came to be accepted by the courts below cannot be found fault with, particularly, in the backdrop of the evidence tendered by the person who recorded the same and he having stood to his ground in the cross-examination and having spoken about her mental capability to make such statement and that too consciously. There is no prescribed format for recording the dying declaration. The perusal of the dying declaration in the instant case clearly suggests the same to be genuine and the maker has stated the true story.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Section 304-B:
- This Section deals with dowry death. It states that -
  - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
  - Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  - (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
- In the case of Bansilal v. State of Haryana (2011), the SC held that, to attract the provision of Section 304B of the IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.
Section 498-A:
- Introduced in the year 1983, this section contains provisions in relation to the situations when the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty. It states that -
  - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
  - Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, cruelty means
  - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  - (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
- In the case of Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), the SC held that Section 498-A of IPC has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property.
Section 306:
- This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- The basic ingredients of an offence under Section 306 are suicidal death and its abetment.
- To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide would be necessary.
Section 34:
- This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Section 3:
- This section deals with Penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that-
  1. If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
    Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
  2. Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to, -
    (a) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made on that behalf).
    Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
    (b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made on that behalf).
    Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.
Section 4:
- This Section deals with the penalty for demanding dowry.
- It states that if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
- Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

Family Law

Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree

23-Oct-2023

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in the case of XYZ And ABC, held that the wife's failure to comply with restitution of conjugal rights decree is a ground for divorce.

What was the Background of XYZ and ABC case?

The appellant got married to the respondent on 12^th June 2009 and a male child Aditya was born on 10^th August 2011 who is presently in the custody of respondent/mother.
The respondent had deserted the appellant and has been living separately from the year 2013.
The appellant/husband issued legal notice on 3^rd August 2016 calling upon the respondent/wife to join him and since she did not do so, the appellant instituted a petition before the Trial Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
A decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court directing the respondent to join the appellant.
Despite the aforesaid judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favor of the appellant, the respondent did not join him.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court, seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion.
The impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court of Karnataka and the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree for divorce.

What were the Court’s Observations?

A bench of Justices S R Krishna Kumar and G Basavaraja observed that the respondent has not joined the appellant and there has not been any restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for more than a period of one year after the decree was passed.
The Court further held that under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition without appreciating the above aspects as well as the un-impeached, un-controverted and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the appellant which constitute sufficient grounds to grant decree for divorce.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in It?

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.
Its objective is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage.
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. It states that -
- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
- Explanation —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society.
In the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.

Divorce

Divorce means the dissolution of marriage by a competent court.
Section 13 of the HMA Act deals with the provisions of divorce.
According to Section 13(1) of the Act, any marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may be dissolved by a decree of divorce upon presentation of a petition by either the husband or the wife on the following grounds:
- Adultery
- Cruelty
- Desertion
- Conversion
- Mental disorder
- Virulent and incurable leprosy
- Renunciation of the world
- Presumption of death
Section 13B provides for divorce by mutual consent.