Case title:
Meera vs State by The Inspector of Police
Date of Order:
11 January, 2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shah, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Parties:
Appellants: Meera
Respondents: State by The Inspector of Police
SUBJECT
This appeal is filed by the appellant in order to challenge the orders of conviction of the appellant passed by the High Court under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 498A
- Section 306
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 313
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case it was claimed that, the appellant and other family members harassed and mistreated the deceased because they did not provide jewellery, according to the case's circumstances. Furthermore, it was said that as a result, the dead committed suicide by immolation. The appellant and the other accused were found guilty by the Trial Court of violating Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC and were given jail time and fines as punishment.
- On appeal, the High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 498A IPC but cleared the accused of the crime under Section 306 IPC. The appellant, who was aggrieved by this decision, brought the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the orders of acquittal of the accused passed by the High Court for the offence under Section 306 IPC but, conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of IPC is valid or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant vehemently mentioned that, the deceased's injuries were severe (96% burns), which would have prevented her from speaking in any way. As a result, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 through PW-3) should not be taken seriously.
- It was also argued that, the deceased's suicide was caused by her arguments with her husband and other family members, particularly over her husband's return to Saudi Arabia. The defense argues that these household disagreements do not qualify as harassment under Section 498A IPC.
- Alternately, a lenient stance should be adopted towards the appellant's age if the court sustains the conviction. She was referred to as an elderly woman who was close to 80 years old, and a sentence reduction was asked.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent, represented by the state did not appear and present in the arguments.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Trial Court's conclusions were supported by the Supreme Court after it considered all the documentation, including witness statements. The accusation under Section 498A IPC was supported by the Court's finding that the appellant had cruelly and harassed the deceased over jewellery. The Court stated that the appellant had a responsibility to safeguard her daughter-in-law and ought to have been more considerate of her.
- However, the Supreme Court chose to lessen the sentence issued by the Trial Court considering the appellant's senior age (about 80 years old) and the fact that the incident happened in 2006. The appellant was ordered to serve three months of rigorous imprisonment as opposed to a year. The Trial Court's penalty and default sentence were upheld.
- The appellant must report to the proper court or jail authorities within four weeks to begin serving her sentence reduction, according to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal was partially granted.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. The appellant was the deceased person’s mother-in-law. The appellant had cruelly and harassed the deceased over the matter of jewellery, the court found. However, the Court lowered the sentence from one year to three months of harsh imprisonment due to the appellant's elderly age and the fact that the occurrence happened in 2006. The Court emphasized the significance of safeguarding those who are vulnerable and decided that no leniency was appropriate in this case. The appellant was instructed to turn herself up within four weeks to complete her sentence reduction.
