9437209559,9853309559.
> 📱 Whatsapp's <
🌅 India Rising
The Kerala High Court has acquitted a
man and his family who were convicted
under Section 498A IPC for cruelty
against a deceased woman on the
finding that the parties were living
together as husband and wife, based on
a marriage agreement and their
marriage was not solemnized.
The deceased and 1st revision petitioner
eloped and they were living together as
husband and wife based on a marriage
agreement. Due to alleged il-treatment
from the man's family, the deceased
attempted suicide by self-immolation
using kerosene and succumbed to her
burn injuries. The Trial Court convicted
the man and family under Sections
498A, 306 IPC and the conviction was
upheld by the Appellate Court. The
revision petitioners thus approached the
High Court.
The Court on examining the validity of
the conviction found that no evidence
was brought on record to show that the
marriage between the 1st revision
petitioner and deceased were
solemnized under any form of marriage
either religious or customary. The Court
found that they were living together as
husband and wife based on a marriage
agreement which has no legal sanctity.
The Court found that even if the
marriage agreement was registered, it
cannot be replaced for a legally valid
marriage. Thus, the Court found that
they were living together as husband
and wife without a valid marriage
document. The Court found that a
woman can seek legal recourse under
Section 498A IPC only when there was a
legally valid marriage between the
parties.
The Court relied upon Reema Aggarwal
vs. Anupam and others (2004) to state
that the expression 'husband' under
Section 498A IPC would only covera
person who enters into a marital
relationship. It also relied upon
Shivcharan Lal Verma and another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) to state
that there must be a valid marital
relationship between the accused and
the victim for attracting an offence
under Section 498 A IPC. The Court held
that only a legally wedded wife can
prosecute her husband for cruelty under
Section 498A IPC. The Court also relied
upon Unnikrishnan vs. State of Kerala
(2017) and Suprabha vs. State of Kerala
(2013) to state that valid marriage was
essential for prosecuting under Section
498A IPC and live in relationship was
not sufficient to attract an offence of
cruelty.
The Court found that the dying
declaration of the deceased stated that
the 1s revision petitioner was a loving
husband and it was the family members
who ill-treated her. The Court also noted
that there were no specific allegations
made against the family, except general
allegations of mistreatment. It also
found that the conviction under Section
306 IPC for abetment of suicide was not
sustainable because there was nothing
to show that the 1st and 4th revision
petitioner did any positive act for
abetting her suicide. It found that the
allegations were mostly against the
parents, 2nd and 3d revision petitioners,
who were no more.
The Court relied upon M.Mohan vs.
State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (2011) and
Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2019) to
state that conviction cannot be made
under Section 306 IPC without a positive
action of harassment on the part of the
under Section 306 IPC without a positive
action of harassment on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide.
The Court found that the prosecution
was unsuccessful in proving the
offences of cruelty or abetment to
suicide against the revision petitioners
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the
Court allowed the criminal revision
petition and set aside the conviction of
the 1st and 4th revision petitioner and
ordered their release from the prison.
JaiHind.. JaiBharat..
コメント