‘Cruelty Need Not Stem from Dowry Alone’: Madras High Court Upholds 498A Conviction for Forced Abortion Attempt, Directs Execution of Sentence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench, of Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the concurrent convictions of two individuals under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court confirmed the judgments rendered earlier by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, directing the execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioners.
The bench stated that the conduct described by the de facto complainant, particularly the alleged attempt to force her into an abortion, constituted "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. It recorded that the evidence provided by the complainant and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses justified the conviction.
The criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, Ramasamy and Selvi, seeking to set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. That appeal had confirmed the earlier judgment delivered in C.C.No.50 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.
According to the case records, the de facto complainant was married to the first accused, Ramasamy, on 14 July 2008 at Orambu Perumal Temple. Following the marriage, she began residing with Ramasamy and his parents, Selvi and the third accused. Selvi is described as the stepmother of Ramasamy and the second wife of the third accused.
It was alleged that Selvi harboured animosity against the complainant and instigated Ramasamy to expel her from the matrimonial home. On 3 December 2008, when the complainant became pregnant, Ramasamy and Selvi allegedly forced pills into her mouth with the intention to abort the foetus. The complainant vomited and avoided the consequences.
Towards the end of January 2009, the complainant was reportedly driven out of the home. Upon resistance, Ramasamy is said to have threatened her with a machete. Later, after delivering a child, the complainant attempted to return to the house but was not allowed entry. It was further alleged that her child was snatched and thrown to the ground, and all three accused drove her away.
The complaint led to registration of Crime No.5 of 2010 under Sections 498A and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Following an investigation, a final report was filed, and cognizance was taken in C.C. No. 50 of 2011.
During the trial, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused under Section 506(ii) IPC but convicted Ramasamy and Selvi under Section 498A IPC. Both were sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and fined Rs.1,000 each. The third accused was acquitted.
Appeals were filed, and Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2017 was dismissed on 26 November 2018 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, upholding the trial court's judgment. A further revision petition was filed before the Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court examined the contentions of the petitioners, which included reliance on Ex. P-5—a report by the Social Welfare Officer stating that no dowry harassment had occurred. It was also argued that the complaint (Ex. P-1) was a typed version and the scribe was not examined, casting doubts on its authenticity.
The court observed: "Section 498-A only specifies cruelty meted out to the wife by the Husband. As per the evidence available before the trial Court, P.W-1 was forcibly administered some medicine into her mouth by Accused-1 and Accused-2 to abort the child in the womb."
It further noted that the absence of mention of dowry in Ex. P-5 was irrelevant: "Even if there is no dowry harassment, the atrocities and cruelties meted out to P.W-1 had been clearly spoken to by her in her evidence."
Addressing the petitioners' claim about the complainant's alleged relationship with another individual, the court referred to the lower court's observation that if such a claim were true, a DNA test petition should have been filed. The court concluded that "the defence of the Accused had been merely raised without any proof and it was rightly rejected by the Courts below."
Regarding the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, the court stated: "When the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had on proper application of law and on proper application of provisions of Indian Evidence Act assessed the evidence, the Revision Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence."
Accordingly, it was directed that "in the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed." The Court held that "the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram in C.C.No.50 of 2011, dated 30.05.2017 and confirmed in Appeal by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2017 dated 26.11.2018 are confirmed."
Further, the Court directed that "the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram is directed to issue warrant in continuation of the judgment of conviction recorded in C.C.No.50 of 2011 dated 30.05.2017 so that the Accused 1 and 2 shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment as per the judgment recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and confirmed in Appeal by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal."
The Court also issued a direction that "the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram is directed to execute the warrant and produce the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram to sentence them to undergo the period of imprisonment as ordered."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: R. Sankara Subbu
For the Respondent: V. Meganathan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Case Title: Ramasamy and Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No.504 of 2019
Bench: Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
[Read/Download order]
