Whether a person can be convicted for offence U/S 498A of IPC if there are vague allegation of cruelty against him?
It can be seen from record that the
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in cross examination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra,
VERSUS
Sk. Mohsin s/o Sk. Rashid,
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1865
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in cross examination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra,
VERSUS
Sk. Mohsin s/o Sk. Rashid,
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1865
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/02/whether-person-can-be-convicted-for.html
