Kerala High Court upholds Section 498A IPC conviction of man in "irregular" interfaith marriage

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction of a Muslim man under Section 498A of the the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for subjecting his Hindu wife to cruelty and harassment over the non-fulfilment of a dowry demand, although the Court noted that the marriage was considered "irregular" under Muslim personal law..Justice Johnson John rejected the man's contention that Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC was not attracted against him in the absence of a valid marriage between him and the victim.The Court noted that the couple had lived together as husband and wife and besides registering the marriage agreement at the Sub Registrar Office, they had also exchanged garlands.It agreed with the trial court's finding that marriage of a Muslim man with a Hindu woman is not void, but only irregular according to Sunni Law."I find no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court in this regard," the Court said..It also relied upon the Supreme Court's observations that a person who enters into marital arrangement cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the smokescreen of contention that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise."Therefore, I find that the contention of the appellant that an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC will not lie against him for want of a proper legal marriage, is not sustainable," Justice John said..In the present case, the interfaith couple had married in October 2000. According to the prosecution, the woman was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry. She later consumed acid and subsequently died in May 2002. Following her death, the victim's stepfather registered a complaint with the Police. The case was investigated under Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC and a chargesheet was filed against the husband. However, the trial court after questioning the accused and considering the evidence on record found that the accused may have also committed the offences under Section 498A and Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the IPC. Following the trial, the man was acquitted of the charges for dowry death and abetment to suicide. However, he was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the trial court verdict, the accused husband argued that there was an unexplained delay in registering the first information report (FIR) and that the prosecution had not presented any evidence to prove a valid marriage between the accused and the victim..Having analysed the evidence in detail, the Court rejected the argument on delay in the registration of FIR.The evidence of the victim's stepfather and the mother shows that there was nobody else to help them while the victim was undergoing treatment in the hospital, the Court noted while examining the reasons for any delay in the registering the case."The evidence of PW11 [mother] shows that the deceased was treated continuously in the hospital under the supervision of different medical officers and that she had to remain at the veranda of the hospital and she could not find any time to make a complaint to the police. I find no reason to disagree with the observation of the trial court that considering the weak social and economic background of PWs 1 and 11 and the facts and circumstances, their explanation regarding the delay is to be accepted," it said..On the plea concerning lack of evidence, the Court said the statements of the victim's mother and stepfather make it clear that the accused had demanded 5 cents of property and ₹25,000 as dowry and that the victim was severely beaten and driven out of the house for a failure to meet the demand."Even though there is no evidence to show that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, it is in evidence that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment," it observed.In conclusion, the Court said that the trial court had rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC. "In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S. C. No. 1282 of 2006," it ordered..Advocate Biju Hariharan represented the husband. Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]