Justice Bibek Chaudhuri stressed that in failed marriages, filthy language does not always come within the ambit of cruelty.
A husband abusing his wife by calling her “Bhoot” (ghost) and “Pisach” (flesh eating demon) will not by itself amount to ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A (cruelty towards wife by husband or his relatives) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Patna High Court recently said [XYZ v ABC].
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri stressed that in failed marriages, filthy language does not always come within the ambit of cruelty.
“The learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 seriously urged that abusing a person saying “Bhoot” and “Pisach” itself is an act of cruelty. This Court is not in a position to accept such argument. In matrimonial relation, especially in failed matrimonial relations there are incidents where both the husband and wife abused each other saying filthy language. However, all such accusations do not come within the veil of “cruelty,”” the Court said.
It, therefore, set aside the conviction of a man and his father under Section 498A of IPC.
The Court was hearing a revision petition by the man and his father against their conviction under Section 498A and Section 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry (Prohibition) Act.
The complaint against the two was filed by the father-in-law of the man, who alleged that they demanded a Maruti car as dowry from his daughter, the accused-man’s wife. The complainant further stated that his daughter was assaulted due to her inability to provide the car.
According to the complaint, all these incidents were communicated to the woman’s father through a series of letters.
Subsequently, a trial court convicted and sentenced the father-son duo to one year of rigorous imprisonment under section 498A IPC and six months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This order was upheld by a court of appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioners moved the High Court.
The petitioners argued that their conviction was based on an omnibus allegation and that the trial court did not visualize specific allegations against the petitioners.
They added that despite allegations of torture, the complainant’s daughter was never medically treated.
Further, the petitioners contended that the trial court and the court of appeal did not consider that all prosecution witnesses were either family members or lived in the same village as the informant.
The complainants, on the other hand, told the Court that the petitioners used to call the woman “Bhooth” and “Pisach”. This, they contended, was an act of immense cruelty.
They further argued that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to sit over concurrent findings of facts and added that all that witnesses corroborated the evidence of the complainant during trial.
The Court firstly stated that there was no bar on it to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash a criminal case in case of injustice.