SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 451

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Case summary

SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 5 S. C. R. 451 SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001) APRIL 1, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ. ] Penal Code, 1860: s. 498A - Wife subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand - Conviction of husband and his relatives uls. 498A by courts below - Justification of - Held: Evidence of complainant-wife, mother and brother, clear and cogent and ~ + establishes accusations as regard the husband - Conviction 0 of husband upheld and sentence reduced to the period already undergone - However, lot of improvements in the evidence of complainant-wife, mother and brother as regard appellant no. 2 and 3 - Pr:Jsecution unable to establish their accusations, thus, conviction of appellant no. 2 and 3 set aside. s. 498A - Object of enactment - To combat menace of dowry death and cruelty.

The question which arose for consideration was whether High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under s. 498A IPC. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD:1. 1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in ~tJ1 order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498-A. Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to 8 be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304-B there is no su. ch explanation about the meaning of "cruelty".

But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence. [Para 11) [459-E-H; 460-A] 1. 2. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint. Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty.

Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. [Para 12] [460-8-D] 1. 3. The basic difference between the two sections i. e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, ... while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended. (Para 13) (460-E) 2. 1. In the first information report the thrust of - 'I her husband Satish Kumar, mother-in-law Satya, brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Lal, his sister lshwar Devi and Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Ram Lal had been pressing her to bring more dowry. Satish Kumar husband had demanded - Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.

10,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop which amount was given to him. In spite of that, the petitioners were not satisfied and had been beating her on several .. , occasions. After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned ' her out of the matrimonial home, so that her parents could be forced to spend money on the upbringing of the children. On the birth of each of her children, her parents had spent Rs. 20,000/-. But this had not satisfied her in-laws. Om Prakash, the brother-in-law of her father-in-law used other methods to torture her and she bore the atrocities attributing them to her wedlock. On 01. 12. 1991 the appellants had tried to kill her by ; the appellants. It is submitted that appellant No. 1 has already suffered custody for more than 13 months. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the courts below including the High 1 ~ Court. 5.

It is to be noted that in the first information report the "" thrust of allegations was primarily directed against the acquitted accused persons i. e Om Prakash and lshwar Devi. They have been acquitted by the High Court. So far as the evidence of PWs 1, 5 & 6 is concerned, it is true as noticed by the High Court, that there were lots of improvements. But the High Court found that even if these improvements are kept out of consideration, the evidence was sufficient to hold the present appellants guilty. It is to be noted that these improvements primarily related to appellant Nos. 2 & 3. Therefore, in our A considered opinion the acquittal as directed qua the coaccused persons should have also been done in the case of appellant Nos. 2 & 3. However, the evidence is clear and cogent so far as the appellant No. 1 is concerned. 6. Section 498-A appears in Chapter XX-A IPC. 7.

Substantive Section 498-A IPC and presumptive Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") have been inserted in the respective statutes by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 and by . the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986, respectively. 8. Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within period of seven years from the date of marriage. 9. Section 498-A reads as follows: "498-A. Husband or relative ofhusband ofa woman " / application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498-A. It is to be noted that Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences.

It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304- 'T B there is no such explanation about the meaning of "cruelty". But having regard to common background to these offences it . has to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498- A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence. 12. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the 8 increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in- ·laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. 13. One other provision which is relevant to be noted is Section 306 IPC. The basic difference between the two sections i. e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended. 14.

It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. It must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that administration and application of a particular law would be done "not with an evil eye and unequal hand". (See A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatichalam Potti (1955 (2) SCR 1196)) 15. In Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar (1955 (1) SCR 1045) a contention was raised that a provision of law may not be discriminatory but it may lend itself to abuse bringing about discrimination between the persons similarly situated. This [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ] ) Court repelled the contention holding that on the possibility of abuse of a provision by the authority, the legislation may not be held arbitrary or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 16.

From the decided cases in India as well as in the United ) States of America, the principle appears to be well settled that if a statutory provision is otherwise intra vires, constitutional and valid, mere possibility of abuse of power in a given case would not make it objectionable, ultra vires or unconstitutional. In such cases, "action" and not the "section" may be vulnerable. If it is so, the court by upholding the provision of law, may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the person aggrieved. 17. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (5) SCC 536) a Bench of nine Judges observed that rriere - . :.. possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable. In Collector of Customs v. Nathe/la Sampathu Chetty (1962 (3) SCR 786), this Court observed: (SCR p.

825) "The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity. " 18. It was said in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977 (3) SCC 592): (SCC p. 658, para 147) i> 'I' "It must be remembered that merely because power may sometime be abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of power. The wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a Government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of mischief. " . , (Also see Commr. , H. R. E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005). [2009] 5 S. C. R. 19. As observed in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat ((2004 (6) SCC 672), Unique Butyle Tube Industries (PJ Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corpn. (2003 (2) SCC 455) and Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T. N. ((2002 (3) SCC 533), while interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it.

If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of the process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. 20. In the instant case the evidence of PWs 1, 5 & 6 clearly establish the accusations so far as the accused appellant No. 1 i. e. Satish Kumar is concerned and therefore we find nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on bail pursuant to order dated 9. 7. 2001. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the appellant nos. 2 & 3 i. e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned. Their appeal is accepted and the conviction is set aside.

The bail bonds executed by them for giving effect to the order dated 9. 7. 2001 shall stand discharged. 22. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N. J. Appeal disposed of.