Section 498A conviction cannot stand without specific, reliable evidence of cruelty attributable to the accused.

The appellant, Karmi Devi, was the mother-in-law of the informant/victim.

The victim alleged that, after her marriage to Rabindra Saha, her matrimonial family demanded an additional ₹20,000 after ₹30,000 had allegedly been paid against an agreed dowry amount of ₹50,000.

She further alleged that she was beaten, harassed, and ultimately expelled from her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of the demand.

An FIR was registered under Sections 498A/34 and 376 IPC against the appellant, her husband, the victim’s husband, and two brothers-in-law.

The trial court acquitted the victim’s husband of the charge under Section 498A IPC and acquitted Chandradeep Saha of the charge under Section 376 IPC, but convicted Karmi Devi and Deenanath Saha under Sections 498A/34 IPC and sentenced each to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

During the appeal, Deenanath Saha died and the appeal abated as against him; the appeal proceeded against Karmi Devi alone.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the victim and her parents.

The victim’s father admitted that he had not personally witnessed the alleged cruelty, while several independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.

The evidence also disclosed that the victim’s husband had instituted a divorce suit before the criminal case was filed, and that there were conflicting accounts regarding the victim’s alleged marriage with Chandradeep Saha and the duration of her stay in the matrimonial home.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Karmi Devi subjected the victim to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC by demanding ₹20,000 or harassing her for non-fulfilment of that demand?

Whether the evidence against the appellant was sufficiently specific, consistent, and reliable to sustain her conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC despite the acquittal of the victim’s husband and brother-in-law and the material contradictions in the prosecution case?

The Court applied Section 498A IPC, under which the prosecution must establish that the husband or relative of the husband subjected the woman to “cruelty.”

Under Explanation (a), cruelty includes wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health; under Explanation (b), it includes harassment intended to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or harassment arising from failure to meet such demand.

The Court also applied the principle that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law in India, but the evidence must nevertheless be carefully sifted and specific allegations against the accused independently assessed.

It further relied on Abhishek v. State of M.P., (2023) 16 SCC 666, which holds that wholly insufficient, far-fetched, and inherently improbable allegations cannot sustain criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC.

The Court held that the victim’s testimony did not attribute any specific act of beating, harassment, or cruelty directly to Karmi Devi.

Although the victim alleged a collective demand for ₹20,000, the evidence did not establish a clear and reliable overt act by the appellant satisfying either limb of the statutory definition of cruelty.

The victim’s father had no personal knowledge of the alleged acts, the mother’s evidence was general, and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.

One witness stated that the family members lived separately and that the victim had not been harassed for dowry.

The Court also found material inconsistencies regarding the duration of the victim’s stay in the matrimonial home: the victim stated that she stayed there for one week during her first visit and three to four months during the second, whereas her father stated that she remained there for approximately one year and five months.

The prior institution of the divorce suit by the victim’s husband, followed by the criminal complaint, and the contradictory evidence concerning the alleged marriage or sexual relationship with Chandradeep Saha further weakened the reliability of the prosecution version.

In these circumstances, the allegations against the appellant were not sufficiently cogent or consistent to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charge under Section 498A IPC.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2017 were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and, as the appellant was already on bail, she was discharged from the liability of her bail bonds.