In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that pledging a wife’s gold ornaments without her consent constitutes a criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on October 17, 2024, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1006 of 2024, came after Surendra Kumar, the accused, sought relief from his conviction by the lower courts. The High Court’s ruling underscores the legal significance of stridhana (property gifted to a woman during her marriage) and reaffirms that its unauthorized use by a husband is punishable under the IPC.
Background of the Case:
The dispute traces back to a complaint filed by Surendra Kumar’s estranged wife (referred to as PW1), who alleged that her husband misused 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to her by her mother at the time of their marriage in 2009. According to the complaint, Surendra Kumar had promised to keep the gold safely in a bank locker. However, contrary to this commitment, he allegedly pledged the gold at Muthoot Fincorp without PW1’s knowledge or consent, thereby violating the trust.
The initial complaint led to an investigation by the Kasaragod police, who filed charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged documents as genuine), and 420 (cheating) of the IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, tried the case in 2014, and in September 2019, convicted Surendra Kumar under Section 406 IPC. He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment. The trial court, however, acquitted him of other charges due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Subsequently, Surendra Kumar appealed against this conviction in the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod. His wife also filed a separate appeal seeking conviction for the other charges. In November 2023, the appellate court upheld the conviction under Section 406 IPC but modified the sentence, ordering the accused to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to the complainant, failing which an additional six months’ imprisonment would be imposed.
Legal Issues:
1. Establishing Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 406 IPC):
The core legal question was whether the act of pledging the gold constituted a breach of trust, considering the conditions of entrustment. For an offense under Section 406 to be proven, the following criteria must be established:
– The existence of entrustment of the property.
– The accused must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the entrusted property to his use, breaching the terms of trust.
The prosecution argued that the gold ornaments were stridhana, meaning they were the sole property of PW1 and could not be pledged without her explicit consent. The court emphasized that stridhana remains the exclusive property of the woman and any unauthorized use constitutes a breach of trust.
2. Sentencing and Compensation:
Surendra Kumar’s defense contended that the six-month imprisonment along with a ₹5 lakh compensation was excessive. They argued that pledging the gold was done under financial distress, not with malicious intent, and requested a reduction in the sentence. The defense also emphasized that the pledged gold was not permanently lost but could be reclaimed.
3. Role of Stridhana in Matrimonial Law:
The court also addressed the broader legal implications concerning stridhana and the rights of married women. It reinforced that stridhana includes all assets given to a woman during her marriage, and she retains full control over them. The court cited Supreme Court rulings like Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada and Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v. State of Bihar, which affirm that misuse of stridhana by a husband constitutes a criminal breach of trust under the IPC.
Key Observations of the High Court:
Justice Badharudeen, in his judgment, reiterated the significance of the fiduciary duty within marriage, noting:
“Entrustment of property, especially stridhana, imposes a duty of utmost good faith. Any act of misappropriation without consent, particularly by a spouse, amounts to a grave violation of trust and is punishable under Section 406 IPC.”
Further addressing the defense’s argument about financial distress, the court held:
“Financial distress does not justify the breach of trust, especially when it involves stridhana, which holds not just economic but sentimental value for the wife. Unauthorized pledging amounts to a clear criminal act as defined under the IPC.”
After a comprehensive re-examination of the evidence, the High Court concluded that the conviction for criminal breach of trust was warranted. It dismissed Surendra Kumar’s revision petition, confirming the original sentence of six months’ imprisonment and the compensation order of ₹5 lakh.
