Section 498A IPC| Not Providing Proper Medical Aid To Wife To Enforce The Demand Of Dowry Is Cruelty: Jharkhand HC
|The Jharkhand High Court held that depriving the wife of proper medical aid to enforce the dowry demand from her father constitutes cruelty under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition of the Husband, who was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Court held that the statements of the prosecution were consistent regarding the fact that the Husband had not provided his wife with proper cancer treatment to enforce his dowry demand.
Justice Ambuj Nath noted, “Non-providing of proper medical aid to ones wife to enforce the demand of dowry will come within the definition of cruelty as enunciated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner (husband)”.
The Court observed, “I have already come to the finding that the prosecution has been able to prove to its case against the petitioner… for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly held him guilty”.
Advocates Sanjay Kumar and Atanu Banerjee appeared for the Petitioners, Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Prakash, with Additional Public Prosecutors Fahad Allam and Arup Kr. Dey appeared for the State, and Advocate Atanu Banerjee appeared for the Second Respondent.
Per the written report, A woman named Neelam Devi (informant) had filed a complaint alleging that she was tortured by her husband and his family for dowry. In her testimony, Informant had stated that after the marriage, she moved in with her in-laws, who tortured her in her Husband's absence. When she complained to her Husband, he demanded a car. She was eventually driven away from her matrimonial home. The informant had also testified that on one occasion, her Husband and Brother-in-law came to her father's house and forced her to sign blank papers. The prosecution witnesses corroborated Informant's testimony on the material points. The Trial Court convicted the Husband and brother-in-law under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and acquitted the other in-laws. The Husband and Brother-in-law appealed the conviction, and the Sessions Court acquitted the Brother-in-law but upheld the Husband's conviction.
The Husband has approached the High Court by way of Criminal Revision Petition against the order of Sessions Court, affirming the conviction order of the Trial Court. The Father of the deceased Petitioner (Second Petitioner) also approached the High Court by way of a set of Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the acquittal order of the Brother-in-law.
The Court affirmed the acquittal of the in-laws of Neelam Devi, who had been accused of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court held that the Prosecution's evidence against the in-laws was general and vague and that the informant had not sustained any injuries at their hands.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petitions.
Cause Title: Ram Kripal Singh v The State of Jharkhand