Supreme Court of India
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 448
- Decided
- 1 April 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband under Section 498A, reduced his sentence to the period already served, and set aside the convictions of the co‑accused due to insufficient evidence.
Summary
The wife, Santosh Kumari, alleged that her husband Satish Kumar Batra and his relatives subjected her to dowry demands and cruelty, leading to physical assaults and attempts to force her to commit suicide. An FIR was filed under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and the trial court convicted all accused, sentencing them to two years' imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction of the husband but acquitted two co‑accused, noting inconsistencies in the evidence against them. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the definition of "cruelty" under s.498A, the object of the provision, and the possibility of legislative abuse, concluding that the evidence of the complainant, her mother and brother was clear and cogent against the husband. Consequently, the Court upheld the husband's conviction, reducing his sentence to the time already served, and set aside the convictions of the two co‑accused for lack of proof.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC against the husband.
- The sufficiency of evidence to uphold convictions of the co‑accused under Section 498A.
- The interpretation of "cruelty" in the Explanation to Section 498A and its relation to Section 304B IPC.
- Whether the possibility of misuse of Section 498A renders the provision unconstitutional.
- The applicability of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act in dowry‑related cases.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 306, s. 406, s. 498A
Subjects
dowrycrueltySection 498AIndian Penal Codepresumptionevidenceconvictionappealdowry deathmarital cruelty
Judgment
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 451
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001)
APRIL 1, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s. 498A - Wife subjected to cruelty on account of dowry
demand - Conviction of husband and his relatives uls. 498A
by courts below - Justification of - Held: Evidence of
complainant-wife, mother and brother, clear and cogent and
~ + establishes accusations as regard the husband - Conviction
0
of husband upheld and sentence reduced to the period
already undergone - However, lot of improvements in the
evidence of complainant-wife, mother and brother as regard
appellant no. 2 and 3 - Pr:Jsecution unable to establish their
accusations, thus, conviction of appellant no. 2 and 3 set
aside. E
s. 498A - Object of enactment - To combat menace of
dowry death and cruelty.
The question which arose for consideration was F
whether High Court was justified in upholding the
conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under
s. 498A IPC.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD:1.1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely
to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or
physical of the woman are required to be established in
~tJ1 H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC.
Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the
purpose of Section 498-A. Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC
cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions
deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a
8 common essential to both the sections and that has to
be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the
meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304-B there is no su.ch
explanation about the meaning of "cruelty". But having
regard to common background to these offences it has
C to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment"
is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section
498-A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an
offence. [Para 11) [459-E-H; 460-A]
1.2. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was
D introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects
and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The increase in the number
of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The
extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint.
E Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the
husband and the relatives of the husband which
culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman
concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such
F cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry
deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the
husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to
G combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. [Para 12]
[460-8-D]
1.3. The basic difference between the two sections
i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention.
Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his
H
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 453
... relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide,
while under the former provision suicide is abetted and
intended. (Para 13) (460-E)
A
2.1. In the first information report the thrust of
-<::. allegations was primarily directed against the acquitted
4 B
accused persons. They have been acquitted by the High
Court. So far as the evidence of PW 1-complainant, PW
5-mother and PW 6-brother, the High Court noticed that
there were lots of improvements. But the High Court
found that even if these improvements are kept out of
consideration, the evidence was sufficient to hold the
c
present appellants guilty. It is to be noted that these
improvements primarily related to appellant nos. 2 and 3,
therefore acquittal as directed qua the co-accused
persons should have also been done in the case of
• appellant nos. 2 and 3. However, the evidence is clear and D
- cogent so far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned. (Para
5) (457-G-H; 458-A-B]
2.2. The evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 clearly establish
the accusations as regard appellant no.1, thus there is E
nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in
upholding the conviction of accused appellant. The
sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he
has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has
.-, been released on bail. Therefore, while upholding the F
conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone. So far as the appellant nos.2 and 3 are
concerned, the prosecution has not been able to
establish the accusations so far as they are concerned.
Their appeal is accepted and the conviction is set aside. G
[Para 20) [462-C-E)
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatichalam Potti
1955 (2) SCR 1196; Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar 1955
(1) SCR 1045; Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1997
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A (5) SCC 536; Collector of Customs v. Nathe/la Sampathu
Chetty 1962 (3) SCR 786; State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
1977 (3) SCC 592; Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005; Maulavi
Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat 2004 (6)
<.:-
B SCC 672;. Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P.
Financial Corpn. 2003 (2) SCC 455; Padma Sundara Rao
v. State of T.N. 2002 (3) SCC 533 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
c 1955 (2) SCR 1196 Referred to. Para 14
1955 (1) SCR 1045 Referred to. Para 15
1997 (5) sec 536 Referred to. Para 17
1962 (3) SCR 786 Referred to. Para 17
D
1977 (3) sec 592 Referred to. Para 18
1954 SCR 1005 Referred to. Para 18 ''
2004 (6) sec 672 Referred to. Para 19
E
2003 (2) sec 455 Referred to. Para 19
2002 (3) sec 533 Referred to. Para 19
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 976 of 2001.
F r·
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.03.2001 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr. Revision No.
620 of 2000.
G H.B. Sinha, Kawaljit Kochar and Kusum Chaudhary for the
Appellants.
T.V. George and Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 455
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is A
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition
. filed by the present appellants. Challenge in the Revision
Petition was to the judgment of learned Additional Sessions
---7
.)
Judge, Sonepat, finding each of the present appellants guilty B
of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sonepat, had found the accused persons guilty and
had convicted them as aforenoted. In appeal learned Additional
Sessions Judge confirmed the same. Six persons were arrayed c
as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by
Santosh Kumari.
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
~ ~ Marriage between Santosh Kumari and Satish Kumar D
(Appellant No.1) was solemnization on 21.10.1985. According
to FIR No. 695 dated 20.6.1992 that was registered in Police
--- Station City Sonepat at the behest of Santosh Kumari, at the
time of her engagement, her parents had given sufficient
articles valued at Rs.20,000/- to her husband and other E
members of his family. At the time of her marriage, various
articles listed in the complaint were handed over to the accused
and in all about Rs.1,50,000/- were spent thereon. Despite this,
the persons mentioned in the complaint were not satisfied with
the articles of dowry handed over to them, with the result that F
J.> 'I
her husband Satish Kumar, mother-in-law Satya, brother-in-law
Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Ram Lal, his sister lshwar Devi and
-
Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Ram Lal had been pressing her
to bring more dowry. Satish Kumar husband had demanded
Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop
G
which amount was given to him. In spite of that, the petitioners
were not satisfied and had been beating her on several
..,
occasions. After the birth of the children, the petitioners turned
her out of the matrimonial home, so that her parents' could be
forced to spend money on the upbringing of the children. On
H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A the birth of each of her children, her parents had spent
Rs.20,000/-. But this had not satisfied her in-laws. Om Prakash,
the brother-in-law of her father-in-law used other methods to
torture her and she bore the atrocities attributing them to her
wedlock. On 01.12.1991 the appellants had tried to kill her by
B pouring kerosene oil on her, but she was able to save herself <
by running away. The neighbours had pacified her and assured
that her in laws would behave properly in future. Despite this
assurance, there was no change in their attitude and on
03.03.1992 her husband gave her severe beating and asked
c her to bring Rs.45,000/- for the purpose of taking agency and
thf:'.Y could give only Rs.25:000/-. On account of the beating, she
started bleeding and was about to leave for Delhi Police
Station, but was dissuaded by the members of the locality from
doing so. The attitude of the in-laws did not change and on
D 21.05.1992 she was turned out from the house after being told
that she should not return to the matrimonial home, otherwise
she and her children would be done to death. She was also
told that if she wanted to settle with Salish Kumar then her
parents should purchase a separate house for her. The Stridhan
E was kept by them. On the basis of this complaint, formal FIR
under Sections 406 and 498-A read with section 120-B IPC
was registered.
During investigation list of articles Ex.PB and letters
alleged to have been written by Santosh Kumari Ex.PD, Ex.PE,
F Ex.PF, Ex.PG and Ex.PH were taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PS. On completion of the investigation
challan was put in Court under sections 406, 498-A IPC. On
-
going through the challan, the learned trial Court framed
charges under sections 406 and 498-A IPC and when the
G accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, called upon the
prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. After
completion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the
appellants of the offence under Section 406 IPC but convicted
them under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo
H R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 457
} [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. for one month. A
Before trial was completed, Ram Lal, the father of Santosh
Kumar died and the other five persons faced trial. Each one of
them was convicted as in the case of the present appellants.
They also filed appeals along with the present appellants and
• their appeals were dismissed. However, the High Court by
B
order in a separate Criminal Revision Petition (Criminal
Revision No. 607 of 2000) directed their acquittal. Conviction
under Section 498A IPC was upheld by the High Court so far
as the present appellants are concerned. Primarily the
prosecution relied upon the version of the complainant (PW 1),
c
mother (PW 5), and the brother (PW 6). The stand of the
appellants all through was that the evidence of these witnesses
does not inspire confidence. The High Court noted that there
were lots of improvements and false implication of two other
~ -'\
persons. The trial court, the First appellate court and the High D
Court did not accept this plea. However, finding that the
evidence was inadequate, the High Court directed acquittal of
the co-accused persons.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant E
submitted that the courts below did not notice the inherent
improbabilities in the evidence of PWs 1, 5 & 6. Though the
High Court noted that there were lots of inconsistencies and
improvements, yet chose to direct acquittal only of two persons
•> ; while upholding the conviction on the self-serve evidence qua F
the appellants. It is submitted that appellant No.1 has already
suffered custody for more than 13 months.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
1
supported the judgment of the courts below including the High
Court. G
~
"" 5. It is to be noted that in the first information report the
thrust of allegations was primarily directed against the acquitted
accused persons i.e Om Prakash and lshwar Devi. They have
been acquitted by the High Court. So far as the evidence of H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.
A PWs 1, 5 & 6 is concerned, it is true as noticed by the High
Court, that there were lots of improvements. But the High Court
found that even if these improvements are kept out of
consideration, the evidence was sufficient to hold the present
appellants guilty. It is to be noted that these improvements
B primarily related to appellant Nos.2 & 3. Therefore, in our A
considered opinion the acquittal as directed qua the co-
accused persons should have also been done in the case of
appellant Nos.2 & 3. However, the evidence is clear and cogent
so far as the appellant No.1 is concerned.
c 6. Section 498-A appears in Chapter XX-A IPC.
7. Substantive Section 498-A IPC and presumptive
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the
Evidence Act") have been inserted in the respective statutes
D by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 and by
the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986, respectively.
.-
8. Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of
operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years,
E
presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within
a period of seven years from the date of marriage.
9. Section 498-A reads as follows:
F "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 woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
G liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,
'cruelty' means-
.
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
H likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 459
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental A
or physical) of the woman; or
(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 8
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
10. Section 113-8 reads as follows:
"113-8. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the c
question is whether a person has committed the dowry
death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by such person to
_,_. cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such D
person had caused the dowry death.
Exp/anation.-For the purpose of this section,
'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section
304-8 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
E
11. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman
are required to be established in order to bring home the
)- >/
application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in F
the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498-A. It is to be
noted that Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC cannot be held to
be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct
offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both
the sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to G
Section 498-A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 304-
'T
B there is no such explanation about the meaning of "cruelty".
But having regard to common background to these offences it .
has to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment"
is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence.
12. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was
introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the
8
increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious
concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by
the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the
husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in
C suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned,
constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore,
it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") and the Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths
D but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-
laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace
·-
of dowry death and cruelty.
13. One other provision which is relevant to be noted is
E Section 306 IPC. The basic difference between the two
sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention.
Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his
relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, while
under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended.
F 14. It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a
provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. It must
be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that administration
and application of a particular law would be done "not with an
evil eye and unequal hand". (See A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar
G v. M. Venkatichalam Potti (1955 (2) SCR 1196))
15. In Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar (1955 (1) SCR
1045) a contention was raised that a provision of law may not
be discriminatory but it may lend itself to abuse bringing about
H discrimination between the persons similarly situated. This
SATISH KUMAR BATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 461
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)
Court repelled the contention holding that on the possibility of A
abuse of a provision by the authority, the legislation may not
be held arbitrary or discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
16. From the decided cases in India as well as in the United B
)
States of America, the principle appears to be well settled that
if a statutory provision is otherwise intra vires, constitutional and
valid, mere possibility of abuse of power in a given case would
not make it objectionable, ultra vires or unconstitutional. In such
cases, "action" and not the "section" may be vulnerable. If it is
so, the court by upholding the provision of law, may still set aside
c
the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the
person aggrieved.
17. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (5)
- .:..
SCC 536) a Bench of nine Judges observed that rriere D
possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of
administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision
procedurally or substantively unreasonable. In Collector of
Customs v. Nathe/la Sampathu Chetty (1962 (3) SCR 786),
this Court observed: (SCR p. 825) E
"The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid
does not impart to it any element of invalidity."
18. It was said in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
i> 'I' (1977 (3) SCC 592): (SCC p. 658, para 147) F
"It must be remembered that merely because power
may sometime be abused, it is no ground for denying the
existence of power. The wisdom of man has not yet been
able to conceive of a Government with power sufficient to G
answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time
incapable of mischief."
.,
(Also see Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005).
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A 19. As observed in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham
Umarji v. State of Gujarat ((2004 (6) SCC 672), Unique Butyle
Tube Industries (PJ Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corpn. (2003 (2)
SCC 455) and Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. ((2002
(3) SCC 533), while interpreting a provision, the Court only
B interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is
misused and subjected to the abuse of the process of law, it
is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed
necessary.
20. In the instant case the evidence of PWs 1, 5 & 6 clearly
C establish the accusations so far as the accused appellant No.1
i.e. Satish Kumar is concerned and therefore we find nothing
infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the
conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence
imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone
D sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on
bail pursuant to order dated 9. 7.2001. Therefore, while
upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone. So far as the appellant nos.2 & 3 i.e. Sunil
Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not
E been able to establish the accusations so far as they are
concerned. Their appeal is accepted and the conviction is set
aside. The bail bonds executed by them for giving effect to the
order dated 9.7.2001 shall stand discharged.
F 22. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
N.J. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dowry"Sign in to search