Daily bickering between husband and wife not cruelty under Section 498A IPC: Calcutta High Court

The Jalpaiguri bench of the Calcutta High Court recently held that the daily bickering between a husband and a wife would not come within the ambit of cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Ranjan Das vs State of West Bengal]..Single-judge Justice Sugato Majumdar, therefore, quashed the conviction under Section 498A of IPC of a man who was charged for subjecting his wife to mental and physical cruelty.It, however, upheld his conviction and sentence of ₹1,000 fine under Section 323 of the IPC."Cruelty contemplated in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is different from day to day bickering between the husband and wife. Sweeping and general allegations cannot be relied upon to conclude that offence under Section 498A has been perpetrated," the Court held.The trial court committed an error in coming to conclusion that the appellant husband is guilty of offence under section 498A, the Court further concluded."There are latches on the part of the Trial Court in appreciation of evidence. Therefore, conviction under Section 498-A is liable to be quashed," the bench held..As per the prosecution case, the appellant's wife lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against him and his mother on May 31, 2016 alleging demand of dowry, torture and attempt to murder.The wife alleged that her husband and in-laws demanded ₹50,000 as dowry from her and on her failure to bring the said amount from her parents, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. She alleged that once her husband even tried to kill her near a railway station and that she was saved by two persons.A sessions court in Cooch Behar's Tufangunj convicted the appellant under charges of cruelty under Section 498A and voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323. He was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment for cruelty under Section 498A and ₹1,000 fine for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323. .Justice Majumdar noted that the prosecution failed to point out any specific instance of torture, assault or harassment. The judge said that even the wife's elder brother, in his testimony, said that her husband used to assault her only after consuming liquor and did not mention that there was any demand of money on the part of the appellant. "Although the complainant wife stated that she was about to be killed, the two eye witnesses who rescued her did not corroborate her statement. The appellant was not at that spot, according to them. The wife was medically examined twice and both the medical reports show simple injuries like bite marks," the bench noted.Therefore, the bench quashed the conviction order to the extent the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498A. It, however, maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the IPC..Advocate Hillol Saha Podder appeared for the Appellant.Advocate Aditi Shankar Chakraborty and Saurav Ganguly represented the State..[Read Judgment]