Bombay HC Quashes 20-Year-Old Conviction, Says 'Every Harassment Does Not Amount To Cruelty'

Every harassment does not amount to cruelty and there can be no straight jacket definition for the term cruelty as it is a relative term, observed the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while quashing a two decade old conviction of a man and his family on charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide. 

The court noted that the allegations that taunting the deceased, not allowing her to watch TV, making her sleep on carpet and making her fetch water at 1-1.30am, would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as the allegations pertained to the domestic affairs of the house of the accused. 

The HC was hearing an appeal filed by the woman’s husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law challenging their conviction by the sessions court at Jalgaon. The father-in-law passed away pending appeal, hence the case against him abated. On April 15, 2004, the sessions judge had convicted them on charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide. They were out on bail, pending hearing in the appeal. 

The couple married on December 24, 2002. The woman had complained to her parents about the alleged ill treatment by her husband and in-laws when she visited them during Holi in March 2003. She died by suicide on May 1, 2003. 

Justice Abhay Waghwase noted that the allegations were general and related to household affairs. He remarked that actions like making someone sleep on a carpet or taunting them for the meals they prepared do not constitute severe cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The judge further said that the allegation of fetching water at 1-1:30 a.m. was not unusual, given that the village of Varangaon had a late-night water supply. Witnesses, including the deceased’s mother and uncle, admitted that the entire village fetched water during those hours, which the court deemed a communal practice rather than cruelty.

Justice Waghwase emphasised that the allegations were not specific and lacked severity. He observed: “Merely sleeping on a carpet also would not amount to cruelty… preventing her to mix with neighbours also cannot be termed as harassment.” He added that while the deceased’s family claimed she was subjected to cruelty, there was no evidence of any consistent ill-treatment or incidents directly leading up to her suicide.

“Every harassment does not amount to ‘cruelty’... Admittedly, cruelty can be either mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a definition because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person,” the judge underlined. 

The court found no evidence of “incessant or consistent” behavior from the accused that could be linked to abetment of suicide, noting a significant two-month gap since the deceased last communicated any grievances to her family before her death. The trial court’s earlier conviction was criticised for relying on generalised allegations without substantial evidence of cruelty or abetment.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court acquitted the man, his mother, and his brother, stating that “every harassment does not amount to ‘cruelty’” and that the essential ingredients for Section 306 were not met, thereby setting aside the 2004 trial court judgment.