Jayesh Kanna vs The Assistant Commissioner Law And Order (West)
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 615
Reportable
IN THE SURPEME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2382 - 2383 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 - 8582 of 2026)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
JAYESH KANNA …APPELLANT (s)
VERSUS
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
LAW AND ORDER (WEST) ETC. …RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
1)
2) Leave granted.
3) The instant appeals have been preferred,
being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
1
09.01.2023 passed by the Madras High Court
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ High Court ’)
confirming the judgment dated 29.11.2018 of the
2
Trial Court convicting the Appellant for the
Signature Not Verified
charge under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,
1 Crl.A.No.831 of 2018 and Crl.R.C. No. 1351 of 2019
2 IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore in
Session Case No.248 of 2015.
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.06.01
18:24:41 IST
Reason:
1
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) and
directing him to undergo the sentence of three
years Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred
to as ‘ RI ’) with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in
default, six months RI. The High Court, vide the
impugned order has also dismissed the criminal
3
revision filed by the Appellant challenging the
4
order of the Trial Court refusing to return his
passport (marked as M.O.12).
4) As per the case of prosecution, the deceased
Sangeetha committed suicide between 5.00-6.45 P.M.
on 31.01.2015 by hanging, while she was staying at
her parental home. The Appellant-accused is the
husband of the deceased. As alleged, at the time
of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Rs.3
lakhs, 20 sovereign gold jewels to her and 1
sovereign chain of 3 gm., dollar, 1/2 sovereign
ring, 3 gm kanganam and 2 kg of silver to the
Appellant. It was further alleged that Appellant
often asked the deceased to bring money from her
3
Crl.RC No. 1351 of 2019.
4
Order dated 18.10.2019 in C.M.P. No. 476 of 2019 in S.C. No. 248 of 2015.
2
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
parents while the remaining accused persons
consistently agitated the issue of demand for
additional dowry , subjecting the deceased to
persistent harassment. The allegation against the
brother-in-law is of scolding the deceased due to
her dark complexion. Additionally, the prosecution
alleges that the Appellant reprimanded the
deceased for visiting her parents against his
family’s wishes and refused to speak to her over
the phone. It is alleged that this non -
communication caused severe mental agony to the
deceased resulting in her being forced to commit
suicide on 31.01.2015. On such allegations, the
case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B
IPC by the Police, Coimbatore City, against the
Appellant and 4 co-accused persons viz., father-
in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law and
one of them was a juvenile. The trial was only
conducted against four accused persons, while no
trial was conducted against the juvenile.
3
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
5) It is not in dispute that the Appellant, at
the relevant point of time, was working at Muscat,
Oman as an Engineer and after marriage, the
deceased resided with and her in-laws and the
Appellant for some time; later, she shifted to her
parents’ house. As alleged, after the deceased
came to her parental house, the Appellant had told
her that he would not communicate with her over
the phone because she had gone there without
consulting her in-laws. Therefore, due to such
immense mental agony, the deceased committed
suicide. With the aforesaid allegations, FIR No.
45 of 2025 dated 31.02.2015 was registered with
the B8 Variety Hall Road Police Station initially
for the offence under Section 304B IPC. After
investigation and submission of the chargesheet,
the Trial Court framed charges against the
Appellant and the co-accused under Sections 498A
and 304B IPC vide the order dated 05.04.2016.
6) In the trial, all other accused persons (in-
laws) were acquitted by the Trial Court for the
4
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC since the
allegation of demand of dowry and harassment was
not proved against them bringing cogent evidence
to bring the charge home. However, the Appellant,
though acquitted for the charge under Section 304B
IPC, was convicted for the charge under Section
498A IPC, and was sentenced as described above.
Trail Court further directed that the passport of
the Appellant (being M.O. 12) shall be returned to
the Accused No. 3 (mother-in-law) after the expiry
of time for appeal or if any appeal is preferred,
after the disposal of the appeal.
7) Although the order itself is not on record,
but it appears from a perusal of the impugned
order that the Appellant sought return of his
passport by filing an application bearing C.M.P.
No. 476 of 2019 in S.C. No. 248 of 2015, which was
rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated
18.10.2019.
8) Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a
criminal appeal before the High Court challenging
5
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
his conviction along with a criminal revision
challenging the order of refusal of the
application for return of the passport. However,
by the common impugned judgment, the High Court
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court
maintaining the conviction and sentence for the
charge under Section 498A IPC and also dismissed
the criminal revision petition filed by the
Appellant. Assailing the common impugned judgment,
the instant appeals have been filed.
Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel
9)
appearing for the Appellant, has strenuously urged
that the facts of present case are quite glaring
wherein even the allegation under Section 498A IPC
cannot be made out against the Appellant. He
submits that the marriage took place on
02.11.2014, the deceased and the Appellant
remained in association only up till 29.11.2014,
i.e., date on which the Appellant left the country
for Muscat, Oman. The deceased stayed for about 1½
months with her in-laws and then shifted to her
6
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
parental house on 18.01.2015. While staying with
her parents, on 31.01.2015, she committed suicide.
It is mainly alleged that during her stay at
parent’s house, the Appellant did not speak with
deceased on telephone causing mental cruelty to
her; and therefore, he has been convicted for the
said offence.
10) Per Contra , learned counsel for the
Respondent, Mr. Balaji Subramanian submits that
this is a case in which the conduct of the
Appellant of not communicating with the Deceased,
caused serious mental cruelty to the her, driving
her to commit suicide on 31.01.2015. As such, the
Appellant’s conviction under Section 498A and
sentence as directed, warrants no interference by
this Court.
11) After hearing learned counsel for parties at
length, we have perused the provisions of Section
498A IPC which are reproduced for ready reference
as thus:
7
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
“Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband
of a woman subjecting her to cruelty :-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman subjects such woman to
cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section,
Cruelty means:-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
On perusal thereof, it is clear, if the
12)
husband or the relatives of the husband subject
the woman with cruelty, they shall be punished
under the said section. In the explanation
appended to Section 498A IPC, the word ‘cruelty’
has been defined which primarily includes any
willful conduct of a nature which may drive a
8
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health.
13) This Court in the case of Mohd. Hoshan v.
5
State of A.P. while adjudicating a matter
involving the tragic suicide of an eighteen-year-
old bride within eleven months of her marriage,
held that the determination of mental cruelty is
essentially a question of fact, the evaluation of
which must entirely depend upon the distinct
circumstances of each case. For easy reference
relevant portion of the said judgement is
reproduced hereunder:
“ 6. Whether one spouse has been guilty
of cruelty to the other is essentially a
question of fact. The impact of
complaints, accusations or taunts on a
person amounting to cruelty depends on
various factors like the sensitivity of
the individual victim concerned, the
social background, the environment,
education etc. Further, mental cruelty
varies from person to person depending
on the intensity of sensitivity and the
degree of courage or endurance to
withstand such mental cruelty. In other
words, each case has to be decided on
its own facts to decide whether the
mental cruelty was established or not. ”
5
(2002) 7 SCC 414
9
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
14) While considering a criminal appeal preferred
by the husband against his conviction under
Section 498A and 494 of IPC, this Court in case of
6
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam observed as
under
“ 21. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A
IPC is to be established in the context of
Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from
other statutory provisions. It is to be
determined/inferred by considering the conduct
of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness
of his acts and to find out as to whether it is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide,
etc. It is to be established that the woman has
been subjected to cruelty
continuously/persistently or at least in close
proximity of time of lodging the complaint.
Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to
attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC.
Causing mental torture to the extent that it
becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
15) In view of the above, it is quite clear that
the question of mental cruelty must be determined
in the context of the facts and circumstances of
each case. Whether an act amounts to cruelty or
not varies from person to person, their
sensitivity, their mental fortitude and faculties
all come into the picture. An innocent quarrel may
6
(2009) 13 SCC 330
10
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
affect a person more than others depending upon
their mental state of being. As such, there cannot
be a thumb rule with respect to determination of
mental cruelty which can be applied uniformly to
all cases.
16) In addition, it is also required to be
determined whether the gravity or seriousness of
the act is of such a nature that it is likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or cause injury or
danger to her mental health. In this regard,
persistent harassment within a close proximity of
time of lodging the complaint may be a relevant
factor. It is, further, clarified that a petty
quarrel cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the
charge under Section 498A. It is incumbent upon
Courts, therefore, to analyze the facts and
circumstances, the act on the part of the accused
and gauge its impact.
17) The substance of the allegation against the
Appellant which has resulted in his conviction
under Section 498A IPC is that his refusal to
11
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
communicate with the deceased over the phone and
his displeasure over the deceased going to her
parental home without informing the in-laws, hurt
the deceased who was forced to commit suicide as a
result.
18) In the instant case, in the evidence of PW-1
Mother of deceased, PW-2 Father of deceased and
PW-3 Sister of deceased, various allegations of
demand of dowry and harassment have been brought
against the Appellant as well as other accused
persons, while making several improvements from
the allegations made in the FIR. The Trial Court
recorded the finding that those allegations are
not proved. The allegation of dowry death has also
not been proved against the Appellant as well as
against the in-laws. The Trial Court went on to
observe that the prosecution has not established
that the Appellant has instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or engaged himself in a conspiracy
with others for the commission of suicide, or has
intentionally aided by act or omission in the
12
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
commission of suicide, hence the allegation for
abetment of suicide was not proved. Thereafter,
the Trial Court acquitted other co-accused of the
allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty and
harassment including father-in-law, mother-in-law
and brother-in-law. It is only against the
Appellant a finding has been recorded by the Trail
Court that the compelling behavior of the
Appellant against the deceased who came to her
parental house without permission of her in-laws
and his act of deciding not to talk to the
deceased on the said pretext between 18.01.2015
and 31.01.2015, may fall within the purview of
cruelty since such willful conduct was of such
nature which may likely drive the woman to commit
suicide. Otherwise, all other allegations have not
been proved.
The said finding has been confirmed by the
19)
High Court in toto . In view of the contents of
Section 498A, defining cruelty, and the findings
recorded by the Court below in the light of the
13
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
precedent referred above, it is required to be
determined whether the act of the Appellant of not
talking to the deceased would amount to cruelty in
the facts of the case.
20) Indeed, it is true that the testimonies of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were ocular on the point of
demand of dowry, looking to the inconsistencies
and improvements made, the Trial Court and the
High Court were of the opinion that the said
statements of demand of dowry and cruelty have not
been proved against all other co-accused. As such,
only the instance of not speaking over the phone
during a particular period by the Appellant and
his displeasure against the deceased for returning
to her parental house without permission of in-
laws has been taken against the Appellant to
convict him for the charge under Section 498A of
the IPC.
21) It is trite law that the prosecution has to
establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt
to bring home the charge as alleged against the
14
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
accused. It is not the accused who has to dispel
such burden, especially when the charge under
Section 498A IPC is involved. Looking to the
testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on the point of
displeasure of the Appellant since the deceased
came to her parental home and his decision to not
communicate over phone calls, the evidence is only
oral. The prosecution was duty bound to prove such
allegation of lack of communication between the
Appellant and the deceased with the call details
of the deceased, accused and the parents of the
deceased, who deposed against the Appellant. In
defense, the Appellant stated that he made an
attempt to communicate with the deceased, however
it could not be materialized because the mobile
phone of the deceased was not in order, therefore,
he called the father of the deceased. In such
circumstances, merely oral testimony to say that
because of non-communication on the part of the
Appellant, the deceased was compelled to commit
suicide was not sufficient to bring the charge
15
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
within the purview of cruelty. It is the duty of
the prosecution to produce evidence in the form of
call details, supporting oral testimony. The said
duty has not been discharged.
22) The prosecution has placed reliance upon
WhatsApp chats showing that no messages were sent
by the Appellant to the deceased in order to prove
that there was no conversation, however, in our
opinion not sending messages over WhatsApp is also
not sufficient since the conversation may have
been made through normal phone call also.
Moreover, in order to establish cruelty, the
willful conduct of the accused must be of such
compelling nature which may drive the deceased to
commit suicide. In this regard, as per the
findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High
Court, it appears that the deceased could not have
travelled to Muscat along with the Appellant due
to pending formalities in her passport due to
which the visa could not be issued. It is not a
case where any allegation of harassment and
16
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
cruelty has been proved during stay of the
deceased with the Appellant from the date of
marriage till the Appellant from India to Muscat.
23) Therefore, in absence of any material, mere
non-communication with the deceased for thirteen
days, without substantiating the same with cogent
evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the
imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in
the facts of this case. Differences in marital
life are a part and parcel of it and such
differences may result in non-communication, but
it is not even a case where there was some quarrel
between the Appellant and the deceased, due to
which, the Appellant has been convicted by the
Trial Court.
24) Once the allegation of cruelty is not proved
against the Appellant or the co-accused, merely
not talking to the deceased by the Appellant for
some days, proof whereof is also not available,
would not suffice to construe an act of cruelty by
the Appellant. The judgment of the High Court is
17
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
without due appreciation of evidence and in our
view, there is insufficient evidence to prove the
allegation of cruelty.
25) In view of the foregoing discussion, it can
safely be concluded that the prosecution has
utterly failed to establish the ingredients to
prove the charge under Section 498A IPC. As such,
findings of conviction on proof of cruelty and
harassment are without any cogent evidence and in
consequence, the sentence as directed is also not
justified. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and
judgment of the Trial Court deserve to be set
aside and the present appeals stand allowed.
26) Exemption from surrendering was granted by
this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024, and during
the trial also, the Appellant was on bail. On
account of setting aside the conviction and
sentence, bail bond(s), if any, executed by him,
shall also stand discharged.
18
Crl.A. Nos. 2382 – 2383/ 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8581 – 8582/ 2026)
(@Diary No. 19684 of 2023)
27) The Appellant has also assailed the judgment
dismissing the Crl.R.C. No.1351 of 2019
questioning the order dated 18.10.2019 in C.M.P.
No.476 of 2019 in S.C. No.248 of 2015 whereby
return of his passport was denied. The reason for
refusal to return passport was his conviction
under Section 498A. Since, the appeals against
such conviction and sentence are allowed by this
order, in consequence, it is directed that the
passport of the Appellant, if seized by the Trial
Court, shall be returned to him. Accordingly, the
appeals stand allowed.
28) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
……………………………………………………J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
New Delhi;
May 07, 2026.
19