Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Husband U/s. 406 IPC For Pledging Gold Ornaments Of Wife Without Her Consent
The Kerala High Court has re-iterated that when the husband or any other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates stridhana or converts it to his own use, he is guilty for criminal breach of trust.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by one husband against his conviction and sentencing under Section-406 IPC (Section-316 of BNS) in a case filed by the wife alleging misappropriation of her streedhan.
The single bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held, "In the decision in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, [(1997) 2 SCC 397: 197 SCC (Cri) 415] the Apex Court considered the question of entrustment of stridhana property with the dominion of that property to the husband and held that when the husband or any other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates stridhana or converts it to his own use, he is guilty for criminal breach of trust. Thus it appears that the trial court rightly found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC."
The appellant was represented by Advocate P.K. Subhash while the respondent- State of Kerala was represented by the Public Prosecutor Renjit George.
The allegation against the appellant who is the husband of the second witness, was that he obtained 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted to his wife by her mother during marriage with promise to keep the same in a bank locker. However, in violation of the entrustment, he had pledged the same in Muthoot Fincorp, Kasaragod, without the consent of the second witness and thereby committed the offence of breach of trust. The other allegation was that he also created forged document for the said purpose and used the same as genuine and thereby cheated his wife.
The Trial Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the commission of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC by the accused while acquitting him for the other offences. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. Both the husband and wife challenged the said judgement. The Sessions Court while considering both the appeals together found that the conviction imposed against the accused/revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC as sustainable and also found his acquittal for the other offences as sustainable as well.
It thus dismissed the appeal at the instance of the husband. However, the court partly allowed the appeal at the instance of the wife and modified the judgement to the effect that fine of ₹50,000/- to be paid by the husband was also added. The appellant was thus aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and its subsequent modification by the appellate court.
The Court examined the evidence on record and found that the appellant did admit to pledging the gold ornaments and the same was proved by evidence of the manager of Muthoot Fincorp also on production of the gold ornaments before the court after preparation of search list during investigation regarding the same.
The Court referenced to Supreme Court decision in Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v. State of Bihar and also in S.W.Palanitkar v. State of Bihar in which the ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust were taken to consideration to assert that mere breach of contract doesn’t constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC and the ingredients are to be satisfied to hold that the accused had committed offence under Section 406 of IPC.
"The accused instead of keeping the gold ornaments in a bank locker, dishonestly misappropriated and converted that property for his own use by pledging the same in Muthoot Fincorp and thereby violated the trust and thereby PW1 suffered loss out of the same. Thus, in the instant case, the ingredients to attract offence under Section 406 of IPC is fully made out. In such a case, there is no reason to disbelieve that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC," the court observed.
It then referenced to another Supreme Court decision in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada to reiterate the legal position on misappropriation of stridhana by husband or his family members.
"Going by the punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the same is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. In the instant case, nothing available to see that the misappropriated gold ornaments pledged by the accused were returned to PW1. This is the context in which the learned appellate Judge confirmed 6 months imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner and also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh. Having considered the factual matrix of the case, there is no reason to find that the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is on higher side on the facts of the given case, where PW1, in fact, sustained loss of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments," the court observed.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Surendra Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2024:KER:76979)
Appearances:
For Appellant: Advocates P.K. Subhash and Danic Antony
For Respondent: Public Prosecutor Renjit George
