Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Ghosh, learned Sr. Counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. B. Sinha, learned PP, Assam.
2. This revision application is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 32/ 2000 affirming the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in GR Case No. 830/96. By the aforesaid Judgment and Order, the revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.12.1996 an FIR was lodged by PW 1 Shri Bhola Das, to the effect that his daughter, one Juni Das, was given in marriage to the accused petitioner in the year 1994. According to the first informant, while his daughter was living with the accused petitioner she was tortured by the accused petitioner who made repeated demands for dowry. According to the first informant, his daughter Juni Das was driven away from the matrimonial on 18.12.96. On the basis of the FIR filed, the Police registered a case and started investigation thereof on completion of which, charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioner under Section 498-A, IPC. In the learned Trial Court, charge was framed against the accused petitioner under the aforesaid section of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of the trial, as many as 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whereas one witness was examined by the defence. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. On completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner, as aforesaid. Aggrieved, the accused petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.6.2001, the present revision application has been filed.
4. Under Section 498-A, IPC, a husband or a relative of the husband of a woman has been made liable if such woman has been subjected to cruelty, 'Cruelty' has been defined by the Explanation to Section 498-A, IPC to mean any conduct of the husband or a relative of the husband which is of such a nature that is likely drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the concerned woman. 'Cruelty', by virtue of the Explanation also takes within its fold any act of the husband or a relative of the husband which causes harassment to the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or if such harassment is on account of the failure of the woman or any person related to her to meet such demand.
5. Having understood the requirements that the prosecution is obliged to establish to bring home the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, the Court may now proceed to examine the prosecution case against the accused petitioner as unfolded by the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
Of the five witnesses examined, PW 1 and PW 2 are the parents of Juni Das, whereas PW 3 and PW 4 are the brothers of Juni Das and PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. The evidences of PW 1 to PW 4 are to the effect that some time after the marriage of Juni Das and the accused petitioner, Juni Das suffered from Tuberculosis which required her hospitalization, first in the Civil Hospital at Morigaon and later on in the T.B Hospital, Guwahati. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses has established that while Juni Das was in Hospital suffering from such ailment, the accused petitioner did not care to visit her or arrange for her treatment. According to the above noted prosecution witnesses, Juni Das expired some time in December 1996 due to Tuberculosis. The said witnesses have also deposed that at no point of time during the subsistence of the marriage the accused petitioner had cared to visit the parental home of Juni Das. It is on the basis of the above evidence brought by the prosecution witnesses that the learned Courts below have thought it proper to convict the accused petitioner under Section 498-A, IPC and sentence him as already noticed.
6. Section 498-A, IPC deals with the offence of cruelty by a husband or a relative of a husband. 'Cruelty', within the meaning of the said expression, as appearing in Section 498-A, IPC, must be with reference to some act on the part of the husband or a relative of the husband which is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide and/or which has potential to cause injury to her life, limb or health. Alternatively, such act on the part of the husband or the relative of the husband must cause harassment to the wife in order to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand or on account of her failure to meet any such demand. In the present case though in the FIR it has been stated that the accused had ill-treated his wife, Juni Das, no evidence to the said effect is forthcoming. Neither any evidence has been laid to show that there was any demand on the part of the accused for payment of any dowry.
In fact, the entire of the evidence against the accused petitioner is that when Juni Das was lying in the Hospital suffering from Tuberculosis the accused petitioner did not care to visit her and later on Juni Das expired.
7. The expression 'Cruelty' under Section 498-A, IPC, though attempted to be explained, is in wide terms. What would amount to cruelty, particularly, under the first part of the explanation is not capable of any precise meaning. The conclusion that has to be reached will have to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the object behind introduction of Section 498-A, IPC by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. Care and caution must be exercised while determining the liability of an accused under the section to eschew all subjective notions of what is cruel and to base the eventual conclusion on an objective foundation. What is sought to be emphasized is that all individual notions of what is cruel may not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A, IPC though it must be admitted that such cruelty may take various subtle forms. In the present case, the conduct of the husband in not visiting his wife during her illness is certainly reprehensible. But, it is the considered view of the Court that such conduct of the husband, in the totality of the facts of the present case, would fall short of the requirements to bring home the offence under Section 498-A, IPC.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000 affirming the Judgment dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon is legally infirm. The conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the accused petitioner under Section 498-A, IPC is, therefore, set aside and the revision petition is allowed.