In a recent case [XYZ v ABC], the Patna High Court clarified that derogatory terms such as “Bhoot” (ghost) and “Pisach” (flesh-eating demon) used by a husband towards his wife do not automatically constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri emphasized that while abusive language in failed marriages is regrettable, it does not always meet the legal threshold for cruelty.
The Court noted the argument presented by the opposing counsel, asserting that such verbal abuse amounted to cruelty. However, it reasoned that in the context of failed matrimonial relationships, exchanges of unpleasant language between spouses are not uncommon. Not all such instances, the Court held, can be categorized as acts of cruelty.
Consequently, the Court overturned the conviction of a man and his father under Section 498A of the IPC.
High Court Quashes Conviction in Dowry Harassment Case, Calls Allegations a Product of Personal Grudge
In a significant ruling, the High Court reviewed a revision petition challenging the conviction of a man and his father under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case stemmed from allegations of dowry demands, including a Maruti car, and subsequent harassment against the man’s wife.
The complaint, filed by the wife’s father, alleged that the accused demanded a car as dowry and subjected the wife to assault when the demand was not met. The prosecution relied on letters as evidence of the allegations.
However, the High Court noted that the complainants failed to produce these crucial letters during the trial. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that derogatory terms used by the accused towards the wife, such as “Bhoot” and “Pisach,” did not constitute cruelty per se.
The Court observed a lack of specific allegations and evidence supporting the dowry demands and subsequent cruelty. It highlighted the absence of medical treatment for the alleged assault and questioned the credibility of witnesses, many of whom were family members or neighbors of the complainant.
Concluding that the case appeared to be driven by personal animosity rather than substantiated claims, the Court allowed the revision petition and overturned the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
This ruling underscores the importance of evidence and specific allegations in cases of dowry harassment and affirms the Court’s authority to address injustice through inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
