Long time in concluding trial, is no ground for leniency : Supreme Court

IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2022 ...Appellant(s State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai ...Respondent(s JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH J 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 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 the original accused No.2 mother in law of the deceased has preferred the present appeal. As per the case of the prosecution a complaint was lodged by 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 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. 2008. The Trial Court framed 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 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 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. 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 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 and 3 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. 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 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 Shri Nagamuthu learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf 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. It is submitted that considering the fact that the injuries 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. It is submitted that in fact the deceased did not want her 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 not amount to harassment in terms of Section 498A IPC. In the alternative it is prayed by Shri Nagamuthu learned 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 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 IPC. We have also gone through the depositions of relevant witnesses namely PW 1 to PW 3. 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 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 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 therefore we are of the opinion that the appellant has been rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Now in so far 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 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 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 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 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 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 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the 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 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. [M.R. SHAH NEW DELHI JANUARY 11 2022 ….J [B.V. NAGARATHNA

Summary:  The Supreme Court while partly allowing the present appeal stated that just because long time has been taken by the trial court does not mean that leniency can be shown in punishment imposed. The appellant was acquitted under Section 498A of IPC. However, considering the present age of the appellant which is 80 years, the court reduced the period of imprisonment from one year to three months. The appeal was brought before a supreme court bench comprising Justice Mr. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna in the matters between Meera v State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2022 decided on January 11th, 2022.  The appellant filed an appeal after being unsatisfied by the decision of High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 30.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2010.The appellant was booked under Section 498A of IPC for torturing her deceased daughter-in-law for jewels due to which immolated herself. It was submitted by the appellant that the deceased did not want her husband to move to Saudi Arabia which led to her quarrel with the husband and other members of the family and was the root cause of the suicide. The appellant’s counsel pleaded that her(appellant’s) act did not amount to harassment under Section 498A of IPC and alternatively pleaded a lenient view while imposing the sentence since she is 80 years old. The court observed that after going through the records of the trial court and the High court and the evidences submitted by PW1 &amp; PW2 (mother &amp; father of the deceased)  it was stated that their daughter was constantly subjected to harassment for jewels. With regard to all the observations, the court said that the appellant is guilty under Section 498A. With regard to the pleading on leniency, the court stated that 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. When an offence is committed by a woman to another woman, it becomes more serious. Since, the deceased was alone due to her husband being abroad, she needed support from her mother-in-law instead of harassment for jewels. The cruelty made her more vulnerable which led to her suicide. Therefore, the court rejected leniency in this matter. However, keeping the age of the appellant in consideration, the court proposed to reduce the sentence to three months R.I. from one year. The appeal was partly allowed and the appellants bail bond was cancelled, and she was charged under Section 498A IPC. Click here to view the judgement