Prosecution

The learned counsel vehemently contended that the accused persons continuously make demand
for 50,000 as dowry and on various occasions they harass her by making statement like your
father has not fulfilled the promise as he told to us, bringing the remain amount and then you will
be given the food to eat, They also give life threats to her, Thus the accused person should be
convicted under section 498A of the IPC, For this the learned counsel relied on the case of Moti
lal v. State of M.P 1where the apex court held guilty the accused husband for harassing his wife
for not bringing sufficient dowry and also threatened and beat her.

The learned counsel relied upon the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Hrayna 2where the apex
court interpreted the cruelty and observed that taunting, maltreatment, mental torture and mental
agony to the victim includes under the definition of cruelty, the learned counsel further
contended that many a times the mother in law of victim wouldn’t give food to her and she was
forced to do household work even when she was ill. Thus causing great mental torture and agony
to the victim. The learned counsel further submitted that many a time the accused come drunk
and used to beat her for not giving the money, and drinking and late coming habits of husband
coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been taken to amount of cruelty within the
meaning of section 498A.3

The learned counsel make submission that the accused husband has an illegal affair with other
women, and when the victim asked about this illicit relation, the accused slapped her and further
harass her for not giving the money which he demand. The learned counsel further submitted the
record of log section of accused in which the accused called that woman many times and the
duration of call was beyond 30 minutes.

1
Moti lal v. State of M.P, A.I.R. 2004 S.C
2
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 S.C 958
3
Jagdish Chandra v. State of Haryana, 1998 CrLJ 1048 (P&H)
 Respondent

The counsel appearing on the behalf of respondent relied on the case of Rosamma Kurian v.
State of Kerela 4where the court held that usual and common domestic discord in any
matrimonial home cannot amount to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of IPC, and
further make submission that what happened to the accused is usual domestic discord and hence
do not fall within the ambit of present section.

The learned counsel further submitted that the demand of money was for meeting financial
strigency hence it not a dowry demand, the counsel relied upon the case of Appasaheb & Anr v.
State of Maharastra 5where the apex court held that the a demand of money on account of some
financial strigency or for meeting some urgent domestic expense or for purchasing manure
cannot be termed as demand of dowry as the said word is normally understood.

The learned counsel contended that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would
attract section 498A. The complainant has conclusively established that the beating and
harassment in question was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill the illegal
demand of dowry. 6In the present case no such severe cruelty has been caused to the victim.

The learned counsel further contended that this section was introduced with the avowed object of
combating the menace of dowry deaths and harassment of a woman at the hands of her in-laws.
But the provision should not be allowed to be used as a device for achieving oblique motives. 7
As in the present case no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused.

The learned counsel further submitted that there were no illicit relation of the accused, and the
woman is only his good friend and regular customer of his shop. There is no illegal affair
between them and the accused convey the same to the victim.

4
Rosamma Kurain v. State of Kerela, 2014 CrLJ 2666 (Ker) :2014 (2) KHC 64.
5
Appasaheb & Anr. V. State of Maharasthra, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 763
6
Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 CrLJ 407 (Bom).
7
Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2008) 2 SCC 561: 2008 CrLJ 1391
 Judegement

In the case of B.S Joshi v State of Haryana 8the apex court observed that section 498A of the IPC
was enacted to prevent torture to a woman by her husband and relatives in connections with
demand of dowry. This section was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives
who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. Cruelty means harassment of the women where such harassment is with the view to
coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or on account of a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 9Here
in the present case also there was unlawful demand of dowry and in pursuant of it the victim was
tortured by the husband.

The demeand which was made by accused couldnot be said to be for meeting financial
stringency but rather it is a dowry demand as on several occasion victim was taunted for not
bringing suffienct dowry. The deamnd was for expansion of business we couldnot called such
demand as fiancial strigency or it is for meeting some urgent domestic exapanse. Mere demand
of dowry before marriage, at time of marriage or any time after marriage is an offense 10 and
dowry covers all demand made at the time, before or any time of maaiage, provided the same
were in connection with the marriage. 11

However the guilt of the other accused under section 498A is not established beyond reasonable
doubt. The apex court in the case of Kanaraj v. State of Punjab 12observed that the “for fault of
the husband, the in-laws or the other relatives cannot be held to be involved, the acts attributed to
such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the cannot be held responsible by

8
B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 Cri. L.J. 2028 (S.C).
9
Rajammal v. State, 1993 Cr. L.J. 3029 (Mad) (DB)
10
Bachhi Devi v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1048 : (2011)4 S.C.C. 427.
11
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, A.I.R.2010 S.C. 2839 : 2010 Cri. L.J. 4402
12
Kanaraj v. State of Punjab, 2000 Cri L.J. 2993: AIR 2000 S.C. 2324
mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relations of the husband, as accused
to be curbed.

13
The apex court in the case of Laxman Ram Mane v. State of Maharashtra observed that the
illicit relationship of a married man with another woman would clearly amount to cruelty within
the meaning of section 498A. In the instant also the accused has extra martial affair with another
woman hence clearly amounts to cruelty.

A newly married woman would disclose her sufferings to her father, mother, brother and her
friend and not to outsiders, the evidence of such persons with regard to cruelty cannot be said to
be interested. 14In the instant case also we cannot say that the evidence of parents and friends are
interested, also the neighbors’ were also aware of ongoing fight in the house.

13
Laxman Ram Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (13) SCC 125: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 782
14
Vasanta v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cr. L.J. 901 (Bom.).