Woman allegedly set herself on fire after mother-in-law’s scolding; HC says one-time scolding isn’t cruelty

NEW DELHI: The Jharkhand high court has set aside the conviction of a mother-in-law under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that one instance of scolding or abusing a daughter-in-law over a household dispute does not amount to cruelty.A single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava allowed the appeal and acquitted the woman more than two decades later.What was the dispute aboutA mother-in-law had brought a pot of treacle (jaggery syrup) from the market and kept it on some place of height of the wall. Her daughter-in-law removed the pot from there and placed it on the ground, which led the mother-in-law to scold her.Getting upset by her scolding, the daughter-in-law allegedly pulled out fire from a mud stove in the courtyard and set herself on fire.

She was then admitted to Sadar Hospital and died during treatment on 13 February 2001, more than three weeks later, as per the court order.The couple had been married for about seven years and had a two and half year old daughter. The woman's dying declaration alleged that her mother-in-law had been abusing her since the start of her marriage. Based on this, the police registered a case under Section 498A, and after her death, a charge of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC was also added.

The trial court, in its judgment on 31 May 2005, acquitted the mother-in-law of abetment to suicide but convicted her under Section 498A, sentencing her to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine."The stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law in the Indian society crude and uncultured behaviour by the in-laws is a normal occurrence in traditional joint Hindu family," the trial court observed.The court held that this would not amount to abetment unless the conduct was grave enough to drive someone to suicide but it still found the abusive language enough to convict the mother-in-law for cruelty.What did the court sayThe high court disagreed with the trial court findings and said that most prosecution witnesses — including neighbours and the woman's own husband and father-in-law — turned hostile or said they had no knowledge of any harassment.The doctor who conducted the post-mortem also found 80 per cent deep burns but no smell of kerosene or petrol, and no burnt clothing on the body which states that the death was due to self-immolation.Examining the evidence of Section 498A, the court explained that cruelty under the law means either wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or grave injury, or harassment linked to unlawful demands for property or dowry.

It found that neither ingredient was made out here: no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the dowry-related clause existed, and there was no proof of repeated harassment beyond the single incident."The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of I.P.C. require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim, which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health," the high court noted.The court explained that under Section 498A, cruelty means one of two things, first, if the conduct that could push a woman to suicide or cause her serious harm, or harassment aimed at forcing her or her family to meet an illegal demand for money or property. It found that neither applied in this case. As there were no dowry demand or proof of repeated harassment.The court also pointed out a contradiction in the trial court's reasoning.

The trial court had already said the mother-in-law's words were not enough to count as pushing the woman to suicide — so it made no sense to then convict her for cruelty based on that same one incident. As the judgment noted, "except the single act of abusing her on the date of occurrence," nothing else was proved against her."Therefore, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC against the appellant.

The learned trial court has committed serious error of law, while appreciating the evidence led by prosecution and the conviction of appellant in absence of cogent and reliable evidence for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC does not appear to be justified under law and suffers from serious illegality," the court further added.The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and allowed the appeal. With that, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the mother-in-law, who was out on bail, was released from her bail bond.