Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man whose illicit relationship and extra marital affair had allegedly abetted his wife’s suicide. His wife Kavita was only married for four months and within that period was subject to harassment for dowry and cruelty, as has been held by the prosecution. It has been further said that it was the accused, Siddaling's extra marital affair that led her to take this drastic step. The fact that Siddaling executed an agreement before the Panchayat admitting to his illicit relationship was also relied and put forth by the prosecution.
The trial court , taking the sensitivity of the matter into account convicted the accused under section 498-A of IPC, 304-B of IPC read with section 34, section 306 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The high court maintained sections 498-A and 306.
The apex court’s bench headed by Justice R Bhanumati, Justice Vineet Saran, did not interfere with the concurrent convictions. The counsel for the accused argued while relying on previous apex court judgements and said that absent is a process of mental instigation. The Supreme Court too, held that the illicit relationship that the accused had with another woman has undoubtedly caused psychological stress to the victim and has provoked her mentally to take such a grave step. The Supreme court looking at the fact of such an early suicide in the marriage, that is within four months, refused to reduce the sentence served on the accused. The Court said that showing any leniency would be a misplaced one.
Previous judgmental of Supreme Court however had a different stance. In a 2015 judgement, the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said that mere evidence of illicit relationship, even if proved does not amount to cruelty unless there is other evidence to show that the conduct of the accused has led to the suicide. To arrive at the conclusion, the bench relied on the Judgment in case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, in which Justice KS Radhakrishnan observed that illegal intimacy or illicit relationship in which the husband fails to discharge his obligations as such would not amount to cruelty. But to bring it under article 498 A of IPC the relationship must be of such a nature so as to drive the spouse to commit suicide. Harrassment definitely is not the physical form alone but involves a mental element. On another Judgment in 2016, in the case of KV Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that extramarital relationship alone will not constitute an offence under article 498 a, unless other elements are brought to it. It further said, “To explicate, solely because Ethernet husband is involved in an extra marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of the wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of section 306 of IPC”.
86540
103860
630
114
59824