MEERAversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI

                          [2022] 1 S.C.R. 223                               223


                                MEERA                                       A
                                   v.
 STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR
             POLICE STATION CHENNAI
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2022)                         B
                         JANUARY 11, 2022
         [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Death of married woman due to
self-immolation – Allegation of dowry demand against in-laws –
                                                                            C
Conviction of mother-in-law and one year RI – Challenged – Held:
Deceased was staying with her in-laws, while husband of deceased
was staying abroad – It was established and proved that deceased
was subjected to torture/cruelty by her mother-in-law (appellant)
regarding jewellery – Conviction of appellant u/s.498-A was,
therefore, justified – As regards the plea of lenient view in sentencing,   D
incident having occurred in 2006 and appellant presently about 80
years old, as a mitigating circumstance, her sentence reduced from
one year RI to 3 months RI – Crime against women.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. It was established and proved that the deceased              E
was subjected to torture/cruelty by the appellant – mother-in-law
with regard to jewels. PW-1 – mother of the victim in her evidence
clearly stated that her daughter was frequently subjected to
harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning jewels. Similar
was the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both the                 F
witnesses were subjected to cross- examination. However, after
detailed cross-examination, they stood by what they had stated.
Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 fully supported the case
of the prosecution. There were concurrent findings of facts
recorded by both the Courts below on the harassment and/or
torture and/or cruelty by the appellant – accused No. 2 with regard         G
to jewels. The findings recorded by both the Courts below were
on appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appellant was rightly
held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. [Para 7]
[227-D-F]
                                                                            H
                                  223
224            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           2. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of one year R.I.
      for the offence under Section 498A. The incident is of the year
      2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed in
      concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court,
      is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the
      sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that the appellant
B
      – mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section
      498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-
      law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-
      in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by
      meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it
C     becomes a more serious offence. In the present case, even the
      husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying
      all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the
      appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of
      her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/
D     or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or
      on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to
      be shown to the appellant in this case. However, considering the
      fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the
      appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the
      peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating
E     circumstance, the sentence is reduced from one year R.I. to three
      months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained.
      [Para 8][227-G-H; 228-A-D]
            CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No. 31 of 2022.
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A.No.748 of 2010.
            S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, A. S. Vairawan, R.
      Sudhakaran, Mrs. Shalini Mishra, T. Hari H ara Sudhan, Vikash G. R.,
G     Advs. for the Appellant.




H
         MEERA v. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                            225
          THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated
30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010 by which the
High Court has dismissed the said appeal so far as the appellant – original   B
accused No.2 is concerned, upholding the judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court convicting her for the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), the original accused No.2 – mother-in-law of
the deceased has preferred the present appeal.
      2. As per the case of the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by        C
PW-1 Ramathilagam, mother of the victim therein alleging that all the
accused – her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-law
were harassing the deceased and she was subjected to torture/cruelty
for want of jewels. It was alleged that due to which her daughter had
immolated herself. She was taken to the hospital, however, she
                                                                              D
succumbed to the injuries. All the accused were charged for the offences
under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences
under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
      2.1 The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was
numbered as Sessions Case No. 203 of 2008. The Trial Court framed             E
the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused
pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they claimed to be tried by the Trial
Court for the aforesaid offences.
       2.2 To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution
examined in all 16 witnesses. The prosecution also brought on record          F
documentary evidence through the aforesaid witnesses. After completion
of the evidences on the side of the prosecution, the statements of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused pleaded
total denial and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.
The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted accused No. 4,
                                                                              G
however, it convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused
to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under
Section 498A IPC and three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court also imposed default
sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.                                  H
226            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, accused No. 1,
      husband of the deceased, accused No.2, mother-in-law of the victim
      and accused No.3,sister-in-law of the victim preferred the appeal before
      the High Court. By impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
      partly allowed the said appeal and has acquitted all the accused for the
B
      offence under Section 306 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order,
      the High Court has also set aside the conviction in respect of accused
      Nos.1 and3 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.However, the High
      Court has maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of accused
      No.2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
C           2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court, dismissing the appeal of accused
      No.2 and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court
      convicting her for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the original
      accused No.2, mother-in-law of the victim has preferred the present
D     appeal.
            3. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of the appellant – original accused No.2. Though
      served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent State.
            4. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
E     of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, both, the Trial Court as well as the High
      Court have erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under
      Section 498A of the IPC.
             4.1 It is submitted that considering the fact that the injuries
F     sustained by the deceased were deep and to the extent of 96%, she
      would not have been in a position to make any statement. It is submitted
      that the Hon’ble High Court when disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 to
      PW-3 while acquitting the other accused, the same yardstick ought to
      have been applied in the case of the appellant also.
            4.2 It is submitted that in fact the deceased did not want her
G
      husband -A1 to go back to Saudi Arabia and for that she quarreled with
      her husband and other family members, which was the root cause of
      dispute/quarrel, which led to her committing suicide. It is submitted that
      the domestic quarrel on account of the insistence of the deceased that
      her husband -accused No.1 should not go back to Saudi Arabia would
H     not amount to harassment in terms of Section 498A IPC.
       MEERA v. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                                  227
  THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4.3 In the alternative, it is prayed by Shri Nagamuthu, learned            A
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – mother-in-law
of the victim that the appellant is an old lady, who is now 80 years old
and, therefore, if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction,
in that case, a lenient view may be taken while imposing the sentence.
      5. We have heard Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate                    B
appearing for the appellant at length.
      6. We have also gone through and considered the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court holding the appellant –
accused No.2 – mother in-law guilty for the offence under Section 498A            C
IPC. We have also gone through the depositions of relevant witnesses
namely PW-1 to PW-3.
       7. Having gone through the material on record and the findings
recorded by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that it has been
established and proved that the deceased was subjected to torture/cruelty         D
by the appellant – mother-in-law with regard to jewels. PW-1 – mother
of the victim in her evidence has clearly stated that her daughter was
frequently subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law for not adorning
jewels. Similar is the deposition of PW-2 – father of the victim. Both the
aforesaid witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. However, after
detailed cross-examination, they have stood by what they have                     E
stated.Therefore, both of them and even PW-3 have fully supported the
case of the prosecution. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded
by both the Courts below on the harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty
by the appellant – accused No.2 with regard to jewels. The findings
recorded by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence,                F
therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been rightly held
guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
       8. Now, in sofar as the alternative submission made on behalf of
the accused to take a lenient view looking to the age of the appellant is
concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the Trial Court has            G
imposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section
498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years R.I.
At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was approximately
between 60-65 years. The incident is of the year 2006. Therefore, merely
because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the
appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment               H
228              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     and/or to impose the sentence already undergone. It is to be noted that
      the appellant – mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under
      Section 498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-
      in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law.
      When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty
      to another woman, i.e.,the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious
B
      offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another
      lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. In
      the present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad.
      The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the
      duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take
C     care of her daughter-in-law,rather than harassing and/or torturing and/
      or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other
      issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the
      appellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasons
      stated hereinabove. However, considering the fact that the incident is of
      the year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately
D
      80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a
      mitigating circumstance, we propose to reduce the sentence from one
      year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be
      maintained.
             9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
E     present appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant – original
      accused No.2 – mother-in-law is hereby confirmed/maintained.However,
      instead of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the
      appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment of three months R.I. with
      fine and the default sentence as imposed by the Trial Court. As the
F     appellant is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled and the appellant shall
      now surrender before the appropriate Court/jail authority to undergo the
      sentence as per the present order within a period of four weeks from
      today. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending
      applications, if any, also stand disposed.
G

      Devika Gujral                                           Appeal partly allowed.




H