Courts Should Be Cautious About 'Tendency Of Over Implication' In Cases U/S 498A IPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that the tendency of over implication is reflected in a large number of cases filed alleging offence under Section 498A IPC and asked the Courts to be cautious about the same.
The Court acquitted a man accused under Section 498A IPC while noting that only because he is the husband of guilty sister in law cannot be a ground to hold him guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal against the decision of the High Court which partly allowed appellant’s appeal whereunder his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was confirmed.
The bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “Being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the aforesaid offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record….the finding of guilt against the appellant by the courts below for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC, is absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner.”
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the daughter of the second respondent, was married to the accused no. 1. Accused no. 1 and his relatives allegedly demanded dowry and subjected her to physical and mental abuse. One day father of the deceased was informed by the present appellant, who is the husband of the sister in law of deceased that she had been admitted to the hospital; however, by the time her family reached the hospital, she had passed away. Her father noticed abrasions on her forehead and ligature marks on her neck which led him to suspect foul play. He lodged a complaint, resulting in an FIR and trial, during which the Appellant also was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC.
The Court mentioned the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand where according to the Court it was observed, “it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.”
The Court further said, “the Courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal.