The Supreme Court recently expressed concern about the growing trend of over-implicating individuals and exaggerating claims in domestic cruelty cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court, the division bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, in their judgement, upheld that the courts need to be vigilant in identifying the instances of over-implications. 

The bench reviewed the case involving the appellant, the deceased brother-in-law, who was charged alongside the deceased's husband and sister-in-law for alleged dowry-related harassment and torture. Later on, the appellant's sentence was adjusted by the High Court to the time the appellant had already served in prison.

The appellant raised several arguments challenging the High Court's judgement, which confirmed his conviction under Section 498-A IPC. Although the High Court modified his sentence to the time already served, the appellant was still aggrieved, as his conviction led to his dismissal from the position of Laboratory Attendant at Balbheem College, Beed, on November 23, 2015.

The prosecution alleged that since January 2010, the first accused and his relatives had demanded dowry and tortured the deceased to obtain Rs. 5 lakhs for purchasing a house under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) scheme. However, the appellant's marriage to the second accused, occurred only on October 26, 2010, a mere five and a half months before the incident. The appellant's counsel argued that these facts showed the appellant had no opportunity to interact with the deceased, let alone harass or torture her. The absence of specific accusations and lack of evidence against the appellant suggested his implication was due to an over-implicating attitude, which the Court had previously condemned. Additionally, the acquittal of the appellant's wife (the deceased's sister-in-law) and another relative strengthened the claim of over-implication.

In essence, the appellant contended that during the alleged period of dowry-related cruelty, he was not a relative of the first accused's family and should not fall under the term 'relative' as used in Section 498-A IPC. Furthermore, there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime; he was implicated solely because of his marriage to the second accused. The appellant also argued that, given the lack of evidence, he should have been acquitted, similar to accused Nos. 4 and 5, who were also acquitted under Section 498-A IPC.

The Court observed that the conviction of the appellant's wife, who is the deceased's sister-in-law, cannot serve as sufficient grounds to convict the appellant under the same offence without specific evidence. The court viewed that there is no shred of evidence implicating in the offence under Section 498-A IPC, even in conjunction with Section 34, IPC. The fact that he is married to the second accused, who was found guilty, does not suffice to convict him without concrete evidence against him.

The Court highlighted concerns in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) about exaggerated claims in Section 498A complaints and urged the legislature to consider amendments reflecting practical relations and public opinion.

Thus, after all the considerations the court held, ”We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”

Hence, the appeal was granted, and the Appellant’s conviction was overturned.

Case Title: Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl. Appeal / 004278 / 2024

Advocates For Petitioner(s) AOR Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Apurva, Adv. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Adarsh Kumar Pandey & Ors.

Advocates For Respondent(s)  AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Adv. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Sourav Singh& Ors.