Supreme Court of India
K.V. PRAKASH BABUversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1051
- Decided
- 22 November 2016
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
An extra‑marital relationship or mere suspicion thereof does not, per se, amount to the mental cruelty contemplated in Section 498‑A IPC, nor does it satisfy the requirement of abetment under Section 306 IPC, and thus the convictions under those sections must be set aside.
Summary
The appellant, K.V. Prakash Babu, was convicted under Sections 498‑A and 306 of the IPC for the suicide of his wife, who allegedly suspected him of an extra‑marital affair. The prosecution alleged that the husband's alleged relationship and the resulting suspicion constituted mental cruelty that drove the wife to kill herself, and that this amounted to abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court examined whether an extra‑marital relationship or mere suspicion thereof satisfies the definition of "cruelty" under Explanation (a) to Section 498‑A and whether it can be treated as abetment under Section 306. The Court held that such conduct, without concrete evidence of actual mental cruelty, harassment, or dowry demand, does not meet the statutory threshold and the presumption under Section 113‑A cannot be invoked. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 498‑A and 306 were set aside and the appellant was released.
Issues considered
- Whether an extra‑marital relationship, by itself, constitutes "cruelty" under Explanation (a) to Section 498‑A IPC.
- Whether suspicion of an extra‑marital affair can be deemed mental cruelty sufficient to drive a woman to commit suicide under Section 498‑A.
- Whether the alleged conduct amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether the presumption under Section 113‑A of the Evidence Act applies in the absence of direct proof of cruelty.
- Whether a dowry demand is required to attract the provisions of Section 498‑A.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113-A
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 306, s. 498-A
Subjects
mental crueltyextra-marital relationshipSection 498-ASection 306suicideabetmentdowry prohibitionpresumptionEvidence Act 113-A
Judgment
[2016] 11S.C.R.509
K.V. PRAKASH BABU A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of2016)
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 B
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 498-A and 306 - Cruelty - Mental cruelty - Extra-marital
relationship if 'cruelty', amounting to abetment leading to the act c
of suicide -Appellant's wife on suspicion of husband's extra-marital
affair committed suicide - Trial court convicted appellant u/s.498-A -
High Court upheld conviction uls.498-A and also found appellant
guilty uls.306 - Held: Under s.498-A, the emphasis is on any wilful
conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive a woman to D
commit suicide - It is associated with mental cruelty that can drive
a woman to commit suicide - Mental cruelty varies from person to
person depending upon the intensity an.d the degree of
endurance - Solely because the husband is involved in an extra-
marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife,
that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty - An extra-marital E
relationship, per se would not come within the ambit of s.,;/98-A -
On facts, no kind of cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband being
meted out to the wife has been proved - The wife was guided by the
rumour that aggravate'd her suspicion which has no boundary -
Such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt F
of the accused-appellant uls. 306 - Prosecution failed to prove the
charge u/s. 498A and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife
to commit suicide -Appellant~· conviction u/ss. 306 and 498-A set
aside - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.3.
s.498-A, Explanation (a) - 'Cruelty' - Mental cruelty-Ambit G
of - Held: Mental cruelty engraved in the first lin.1b of s.4<J8~A-has
nothing to do with the demand of dowry and has to be of such
nature as to drive a woman to commit ·suicide.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.113-A - Presumption under - Held:
H
509
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 11 S.C.R.
A Said provision enables the Court to draw presumption in a particular
fact situation 1i1hen necessary ingredients in order to attract the
provision are established.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
B HELD: 1.1 On a studied scrutiny of the evidence, it is
demonstrable that the father of the deceased in his deposition
had not stated anything with regard to any kind of cruelty meted
out to the deceased except stating that she quite often complained
to the parents about the suspicion against her husband that he
was going to have a second marriage. The other witnesses
c including. the investigating officer deposed that there was
discussion in the locality about the illicit connection of the
appellant with one lady. Barring the aforesaid, there was no
whisper with regard to any kind of ill-treatment or cruel behaviour
by the husband. [Para 9] [514-F-G] ·
D Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra
(2002) 5 SCC 17T: 2002 (3) SCR 376; Gurnaib Singh
v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108 : 2013 (3)
SCR 563 - referred to.
L2 Under s.498-A of the IPC, the emphasis is on any wilful
E conduct which is of such a nature that is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the
first limb of Section 498-A of the IPC has nothing to d() with the
demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can
drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct
F of the person concerned. [Para 13] [516-D-E]
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013)
10 SCC 48 : 2013 (10) SCR 306; Ghusabhai
Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat (2015) 11
SCC 753 : 2015 (2) SCR 594 - relied on.
G 1.3 The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu
and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely
has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's
endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly
it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-piarital
H n~lationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit
. .
·K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATA,K,\ 511
of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but A
other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would
constitute a criminal offence. There is no deniai of the fact that
the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal
behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case.
It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely
B
because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship
and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be
regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty
for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. [Para 16] (518-
E-G)
1.4 In the instant case, as the eyidence would limpidly show,
c
the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was
involved.in an extra-marital relationship. It had come on record
through various witnesses that people talked in the locality with
regard to the appellant's extra marital relationship. It is manifest
that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her D
suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted
in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not
constitute the offence or estabHsh the guilt of the accused-
appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. Thus, it is clear that.the
prosecution hairfailed to establish the charge under Section 498A
E
and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit
suicide. [Para 18) (519-E-F)
Case Law Reference
2002 (3) SCR 376 referred to Para 11
F .
2013 (3) SCR563 referred to Para 12
2013 (10) SCR 306 relied on Para 14
2015 (2) SCR 594 relied on Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDIC]'ION : Criminal Appeal G
Nos. 1138-1139of2016 · ·
From the Judgment ai:id Order dated 13.04.2016 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos. !"26 and 655 of
2012. . .,
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Anurag Thomas, B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar,
H. R. Naik, Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv., for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Courfwas delivered by
B DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals reveal a factual score that has the potentiality
to shock a sensitive mind and a sincere heart, for the materials brought
on record show how "suspicion" can corrode the ratiOnal perception of
value oflife and c1oud the thought of"a wife to such an exte.nt, that would
C persuade her to commit suicide which entail more deaths, that is, of the
alleged paramour, her mother and brother who being not able to
• ·- emotionally cope up with the social humiliation, extinguish their life-spark;
and ultimately the situation ropes in the husband to face the charge for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian
D Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961('1961 Act' for short).As the facts would unveil, the husband gets
~. acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted in respect
of other two charges by the trial court. In appeal, his conviction under ~
Section 3 ·of the 1961 Act is annulled but success does not come in his
way as regards the offence under Section 498-A IPC. And the misery
E does not end there since in the appeal preferred by the State, he is found '
guilty of the offence under- Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer
four years ri~oro~simprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.50,000/- to be
given to the father of the victim with a default c!ause.
3. In the course ofour adumbration and analysis of facts, it will be
F uncurtained how the seed of suspicion grows enormously and the rumours
can bring social dishonor and constrain not-so-thick skinned people who
c· have bound themselves to limitless sorrow by thinking.' it j_s best gift of
God to man" and choose to walk on the path of deliberate death. A sad
incldent, and a shocking narrative, but we must say; eveh at the beginning,
G the appellant-husband has to be acquitted regard being had· to the evidence
brought on record and the exposition of law in the field. -
4. The singular issue, as.the aforesaid passage would show, that
arises for co_nsideration in these appeals, by special leave, that assails
the judgment and order dated 13.04.2016 passed by the High Court of
H
K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 513
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Kamataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 655 of2012 whereby A
tho High Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the State which had
cal\od in question the legal ~coeptability of the juclgment and order passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, District
Kolar, Kamataka, who vide judgment dated 5.1.2012 had found the
appellant guilty of the offences punjshable..under Section 498-A of the
B
IPC and Section 3 of the 1961 Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of one year and two years respectively with the default
clause. It is apt to note here that the appellant had also preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 126 of 2012 wherein the High Court while passing the
common judgment has opined that the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish the conviction under the 1961 Act. However, as stated earlier, c
it found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 !PC and
the resu It of such conviction was imposition of four years rigorous
imprisonment and fine ofRs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with
the further stipulation that Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only)
be paid to the father of the deceased.
D
5. The occurrence that led to launching of prosecution is that the
marriage between the appellant and the deceased, Anjanamma, was
solemenised on 12.10.1997. The appellant, as alleged, got involved with
one Deepa, daughter of one Ashwathamma inasmuch as his visit to the
house of Ashwathamma was quite frequent. As the prosecution story
proceeds, the deceased felt extremely hurt and eventually being unable .. E
to withstand the conduct of the husband who was allegedly involved in
an extra-marital affair, put an end to her life on 20'h August, 2004. An
FIR was lodged at the concerned police station by the father of the
deceased, which set the criminal law'in motion and the investigating
officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the IPC F
and after completing the investigation, placed the charge sheet under
Sections 201, 302 and 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 of the 1961 Act
before the concerned Magistrate who, inturn, committed the matter to
the Court of Session. The accused abjured his guilt and expressed his
intention to face trial, advancing the plea of denial and false implication.
G
In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses
in all. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. The main witnesses
are futher of the deceased, PW-I and the neighbours who have deposed
about the extra-marital affair of the husband and the death of the
deceased.
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20l6l l l S.C.R.
A 6. As we have already stated about the conviction and the
punishment, the same need not be stated in detail. There is no dispute
that the learned trial judge as well as the High Court has not found the
. appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
The High Court has also arrived at the conclusion after detailed deliberation
that the prosecution has not been able to establish the offence under
B
Section 3 of the 1961 Act. However, it has found the appellant guilty of
the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
7. It is submitted by Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel that
the High Court has completely erred in appreciating the_ evidence to
sustain the conviction under Section 498-A inasmuch as there is no
c material whatsoever with regard to demand of dowry or any kind of
torture. According to Mr. Singh, the High Court has applied the second·
limb of Section 498-A JPC on the foundation that the involvement of the
husband in extra-marital affair established cruelty under the said provis_ion
and, therefore, it would be an offence under Section 306 of the JPC
D which is.contrary to the pronouncements of this Court.
8. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the State
had supported the judgment and order passed by the High Court by
placing reliance on the analysis of the various facets and the scrutiny
and scanning of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including that
E of the father, the neighbours and the investigating officer.
9. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we have
bestowed our anxious consideration and carefully examined the decision
rendered by the trial court and that of the High Court. On a studied
scrutiny of the evidence, it is demonstrable that the father of the deceased
F in his deposition has not stated anything with regard to any kind of cruelty
meted out to the deceased except stating that she quite often complained
to the parents about the visit of the appellant to the house of
Ashwathamma and that she had suspicion against her husband that he
was going to have a second marriage. The other witnesses including the
G
investigating officer have deposed that there was discussion in the locality
about the illicit connection of the appellant with one lady at Chelur Village.
Barring the aforesaid, there is no whisper with regard to any kind of ill-
treatment or cruel behaviour by the husband.
10. In view of the aforesai<;I evidence, the question that emerges
H for consideration is whether the conviction under Section 498A and 306
K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 515
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
TPC is legally justiciable in this context. We think it appropriate to refer A
to Sectiol) 498A of the IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-
"498-A. HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A
WOMAN SUBJECTING HER TO CRUELTY:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a B
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and.
shall also be 1iable to fine. ·
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to c
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman;
or
D
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand"
E
11. The said provision came up for consideration in Giridhar
Sliankar Tawade vs. State ofMahamshtra 1, where the Court dwelling
upon the scope and purport of Section 498-A IPC has held thus:-
"The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty'
which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning F
attached thereto as noticed herein before. Two specific instances
have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the
word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the legislatures : Whereas
explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive
the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii)
danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus G
involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there~
absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to
include only coercive harassment which obviously as the
1
(2002) s sec 1n H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A legislative intent expressed i:; equally heinous to match the physical
injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is"latent but equally
serious in terms ofth.C"_provisions of the statute since the same
would also embrance the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of Section
498-A."
B remphasis addedl
I 2. In Gurmtib Singh I'. State of Punjab 1 , while dwelling upon
the concep'. of 'cruelty' enshrined under Section 498-A the Court has
opined thus:-
c "Clausc (a) of the Explanation to the aforesaid provision defines
''cruelty" to mean "any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to.commit suicide". Clause (b) of
the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand. Clause {a) can
takl' in its ambit mental cruelty."
D 13. The aforesaid analysis of the provision clearly spells how
coercive harassment can have the attributes of cruelty that would meet
t)le criterion as conceived ofunder Section 498-A of the IPC. Thus, the
emphasis is on any wilful conduct which is of such a nature that is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide. The mental cruelty which is
engraved in the first limb of Section 498-A of the IPC has nothing to do
E with the demand of dowry. It is associated with mental cruelty that can
drive a woman to commit suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the
p.::rson concerned.
14. In· this regard, Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the
authority in Pi11aki11 M(l/iip(ltrc~v R(IW(lf v. State of Guj(lral. In the
F said case, the Court was dealing with as to whether relationship between
the appellant and the second accused therein was extra-marital leading
to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and whether that
would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning
ofSection 306 IPC. Dealing with the extra-marital relationship, the Court
G has opined that marital relationship means the legally protected marital
intcre5C of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to
another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation
and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their ui:;-bringing,
services in the home, support, affection, love, liking an<l so on, but extra-
2 (2013): sec 108
H '(2013) 10 sec 48
K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 517
[DlPAK MISRA, J.]
marital relationship as such is 11ot defined in the IPC. The Court analyzing A
further in the context of Section 498A observed that the mere fact that
the husband has developed some intimacy with another woman, during
the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations,
as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such a nature as
is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation
B
to Section 498A IPC. The Court further elucidated that harassment need
,not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment-also
would come within the purview of Section 498A IPC. Mental cruelty, of
course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and
. the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others
suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may c
think of ending one's life. The Court ruled that in the facts of the said
case the alleged extra-marital relationship was not of such a nature as to
drive the wife to commit suicide. The two-Judge Bench further opined
that:-
"Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide which says that if any D. .
person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
tr;ay extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action
for commi_tting suicide is also on account of mental disturbance
caused by mental and physical cru~lty. To constitute an offence
E.
u.1der Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person
has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted bf the
accused. The Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused
abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra
marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, F
nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the
accused-had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit
suicide."
[emphasis added]
G
15. Slightly recently in Ghusltbfwi Rllisllngblwi C/wrasiyll v.
Stllte o/Gujltrat', t!1e Court perusing the material on record opined that
e_ven if the illicit 1elationship is proven, unless some other acceptable
evidci;ce is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental
'(2015) 11 sec 753 l-I
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] II S.C.R.
A cruelty the explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the IPC which includes
cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.
The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below:-
"True it is, there is some evidence aboutthe illicit relationship
and even ifthe same is proven, we are of the considered opinion
B that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A
IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the
mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife
to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved,
· · would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character
c ifthe prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that
the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to
commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been
involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the
absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can
D establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to
Section 498-A whiCh includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit
suicide, would not be attracted."
16. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and
the str~ta from which the persons come from and definitely has an
E individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and
. sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated
in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per .se, or as
such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A JPC. It would
be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home ·
so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the
F
fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal
· behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will
depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the
husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some
suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty ·
G which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section
. 306 IPC. ·-
17. We are absolutely conscious about the presumption engrafted
under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The said provision enables
the Court to draw presumption in a particular fact situation when
H
K.V. PRAKASH BABU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 519
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
necessary ingredients in order to attract the provision are established. A
In this regard, we may reproduce a passage from Pinakin
Maltipatray Rawat (supra):-
"Criminal law amendment and the rule of procedure was
necessitated so as to meet the social challenge of saving the
married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide B
by the husband or his relatives, demanding dowry. Legislative
mandate.ofthe section is that when a woman commits suicide
within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her
husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to
. '
cruelty as per the terms defined in Section 498-A !PC, the court
may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the
c
case that such suicide has been abetted by the husband or such
person. Though a presumption could be drawn, the burden of
proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by
the accused under Section 498-A !PC is on the prosecution."
D
We have reproduced the aforesaid passage only to highlight that
the Court can take aid of the principles of the statutory presumption.
18. In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the
wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the
house of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got involved with E
Deepa, the daughter of Ashwathamma. It has come on record through
various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the
involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs to be noted that Deepa,
being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The mother
·and the brother ·of Deepa paved the same path. In such a situation, it is
extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge F
under Section 498A and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to
commit suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour
that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of
suspicion planted in mind brought the eventw;1l tragedy. But such an
event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the accused-
G
appellant under Section 306 of the !PC. '
19. Having said that we intend to make it clear that ifthe husband
gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances
invite conviction under Section 306 of the !PC but definitely that can be
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
A a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other
.enactments. And we so clarify.
20. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The conviction under
Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC is set aside. The appellant be set at
liberty unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
B
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "mental cruelty"Sign in to search