9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected to run concurrently. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, a Government servant, got married with Smt. Minati Das (Kalita), the complainant on 5.2.1992 as per Hindu rites. Smt. Minati Das (Kalita) gave birth to a male child on 10.3.1993. However, the relationship between the husband and wife were not cordial as it was alleged by the wife that she was being tortured mentally and physically by the Appellant. She left the matrimonial home and started living with her father and was residing therein since 1993. In 1997, she came to know that the appellant got married with one Ranju Sarma on 2.2.1997 at Tukeswari Temple. Thus, she filed an FIR against the appellant. 3. The appellant was charged under Sections 498A/494 IPC by CJM, Guwahati. The appellant defended himself before the Trial Court denying all the charges. However, considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court found both the charges proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and after convicting him, for the said offences, awarded the sentences as mentioned here-in- above, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.1999. (Annexure P-12) 4. Being aggrieved, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from the facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure. (Vide Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. [1951]2SCR277 ; Tulsi Das Khimji v. The Workmen (1962)ILLJ435SC ; and Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Ors. AIR2005SC4362 ). 11. Where the court below considered the material facts and did not take into consideration any inadmissible evidence etc., the interference is not required by court on third instance. (vide Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10 SCC 553.) 12. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or (ii) any `wilful' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii) any `wilful' act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman. 16. In S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani [1999]2SCR296 , this Court considered the meaning of cruelty in the context of the provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed that: mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party. 17. In V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat AIR1994SC710 , this Court, while dealing with the issue of cruelty in the context of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, observed as under: 17. ...It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 306 and 498A IPC observing that under Section 498A cruelty committed by the husband or his relation drive woman to commit suicide etc. while under Section 306 IPC, suicide is abated and intended. Therefore, there is a basic difference of the intention in application of the said provisions. 21. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra 2002CriLJ2814 ; this Court held that "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another. 22. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of Section 498A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferedby considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The offence under Section 498A IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto three years only and as such the prosecution is barred under Section 468, Cr.P.C. In view of the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, the law is well settled that offence of cruelty to wife is a continuing offence. Hence the fact that the wife was not living with the husband since 1993 is immaterial and mental and other cruelty may be committed even after the parties living separately. The High Court further held that during the subsistence of the marriage, the appellant contracted second marriage and started living with the another woman that itself was a cruelty and therefore he was liable for the punishment under Section 498A. 28. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the Trial Court itself had been of the view that there was no evidence of cruelty on the part of the appellant with a view to drive the complainant to commit suicide. The appellate Forum reached the conclusion that mental torture was of the magnitude that the complainant had to leave her matrimonial home during her pregnancy. The Revisional court did not find that the complainant had been subjected to cruelty continuously. 29. Thus, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
