The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a mere demand by a husband for financial assistance from his wife to repay debts does not, in itself, constitute harassment or cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upholding a trial court’s decision, the Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife challenging her husband’s acquittal, citing a lack of corroborative evidence to support the allegations of harassment.
The judgment was delivered by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao in Criminal Revision Case No. 954/2010. The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was based on “omnibus, and generalized allegations” and failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The petitioner (PW.1) married the accused on April 28, 1990. According to the prosecution, after the marriage, the husband became addicted to alcohol and gambling, squandering the wife’s earnings. The wife, a pharmacist, alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment.
The prosecution’s case stated that the husband forcibly took her money, misused funds from her GPF account, and threatened her. The situation escalated when, about ten days before the incident, he allegedly forced her at knifepoint to sign three blank cheques. The final incident occurred on August 13, 2008, when the husband allegedly went to her parents’ house, demanded ₹25 lakhs, assaulted her, issued death threats, and kidnapped their children.
Following a report by the wife, a case was registered under Section 498-A of the IPC. However, the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, in its judgment dated March 22, 2010, acquitted the husband. Aggrieved by this decision, the wife filed the present criminal revision case before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was contended that the testimony of the wife (PW.1), corroborated by other witnesses (PWs.2, 4, and 5), clearly established a pattern of harassment. The petitioner emphasized the specific incidents of the demand for ₹25 lakhs and being forced to sign blank cheques at knifepoint as clear evidence of cruelty.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, after a careful perusal of the trial court records and evidence, found no grounds to interfere with the acquittal. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was critically undermined by a lack of evidence and inconsistencies.
The High Court noted several key deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:
- Lack of Corroboration: The testimony of the wife (PW.1) was not supported by her mother (PW.2). The judgment stated, “The Trial Court observed that PW.2 did not make any allegations against the accused regarding harassment, either physical or mental, towards PW.1.”
- Unsubstantiated Allegations: Regarding the allegation of being forced to sign blank cheques, the Court pointed out the failure of the investigation. It observed, “no investigation was carried out with respect to the alleged issuance of cheques in favour of the accused. The counterfoils of the cheques were not produced… there is no evidence on record indicating when the amounts were withdrawn or how much was withdrawn from the bank.”
- Vague Testimonies: The testimonies regarding the demand for money were found to be vague. The Court noted, “The Trial Court rightly observed that the testimony of PW.4 does not specify the date and time of the alleged incident.”
- No Documentary Evidence: Despite claims that the wife had purchased properties and given money to the husband, the prosecution failed to produce any documentary proof. The judgment reads, “PW.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the said properties were purchased in her name using her own funds.”
The Court made a crucial legal observation, stating, “a mere demand by the husband to provide funds for repayment of debts, in itself, does not amount to harassment under the law.”
The judgment further emphasized the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. “Mere assertions cannot substitute the foundational legal requirement of admissible evidence, particularly in a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the Court stated. It concluded that the prosecution’s case rested on “vague statements and uncorroborated depositions” and that guilt could not be inferred from suspicion alone.
The Court also referred to Supreme Court precedents, including Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, to reiterate that a High Court’s revisional power to interfere with an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases involving “manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice,” which was not the situation in this case.
Decision of the Court
Finding the trial court’s judgment to be “judicious and well-reasoned,” the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC.
“After evaluating the evidence, this Court finds no evidence upon which the Trial Court can hold the accused guilty of harassing the complainant,” Justice Rao concluded.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the acquittal of the husband was confirmed.
