Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2004

Undavali Narayana Rao …. Appellant

Versus

State of A.P. …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1. This  appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

22.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in  

Criminal  Appeal  Nos.1692  of  2001  and  711  of  2002  whereby  the  High  

Court  has  affirmed  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  Sessions  Judge,  East  

Godavari District at Rajahmundry dated 31.10.2001 in S.C. No.1 of 2000  

whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section  

498A Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for  

two years.  

2. The  facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  appeal  are  that  a  

private complaint was filed by Undavilli Veerayamma, PW.1/ complainant  

against the appellant Undavalli Narayan Rao - the husband, and Undavalli  

Veerayamma @ Vijjamma  -  the  mother-in-law  of  the  deceased,  Malathi  

Devi.   Both of them are alleged to have harassed the deceased for more  

dowry  and  due  to  the  strained  relationship  between  the  deceased  and  

appellant,  an  agreement  (Khararunama)  was  executed,  restraining  the  

appellant  from dealing with or  alienating the properties  mentioned in the  

said “Khararunama”.  Subsequent to the execution of said “Khararunama”  

the  deceased  restored  marital  relations  with  the  appellant  and they  lived  

together  for  nine  years.   During  this  period  the  deceased  persistently  

complained  about  the  behaviour  of  the  appellant  and  his  mother,  to  her  

mother  Smt.  Undavilli  Veerayamma  PW.1  and  other  relatives  and  the  

continuation of harassment at the hands of the appellant and his mother.  

3. It is alleged that the appellant killed his wife on 5.6.1999 and stage  

managed a hanging to show that the deceased committed suicide.  Her dead  

body  was  hurriedly  cremated  with  the  assistance  of  co-accused  Manyan  

Narayan  Rao,  Valluri  Gangadhar  Rao  and  Chillikuri  Rajasekhara  Rao  

2

without informing the parents of the deceased who were away at Hyderabad  

and it was also alleged that the close relatives of the deceased objected to the  

cremation but despite their objections, the deceased was cremated.   

4. After arrival of the parents of the deceased, a dispute arose and when  

the mother of the deceased Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1 was about to  

file  a  criminal  case  against  the  accused  persons,  a  mediator  attempted  

conciliation between the parties, as a result whereof some land was parted  

with through a registered document by the appellant in favour of the minor  

child  of  the  deceased  as  a  consideration  for  not  filing  a  criminal  case.  

However, subsequently the appellant refused to allow the minor child to be  

with her maternal grand parents.   Thereafter Smt. Undavilli  Veerayamma  

PW.1 approached the Police Station for registering an FIR and since there  

was abnormal delay,  the police refused to register the case as a result  of  

which  she  filed  a  private  complaint,  on  the  basis  of  which  P.R.C.27/99  

before the Additional J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram came to the Court for  

trial.  

5. After committal, the case was proceeded with.  Charges under Section  

302  read  with  34  IPC  against  the  appellant  and  his  mother,  and  under  

3

Section  201 IPC against  all  the  five  accused  were  framed,  to  which the  

accused  pleaded  not  guilty.   During  the  course  of  the  trial,  the  Public  

Prosecutor prayed for framing of an additional charge under Section 498A  

IPC, which was accordingly framed against the appellant and his mother.    

6. To prove the prosecution case against the accused, 11 witnesses were  

examined.  Upon a full scale trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that  

the  charges  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  IPC  against  the  

appellant,  his  mother  or  any  other  co-accused  were  not  made  out.   The  

appellant alone was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section  

498A IPC, and was awarded a sentence of R.I. for two years vide judgment  

and order dated 31.10.2001.  The trial against co-accused Manyan Narayan  

Rao abated due to his death during the pendency of the case.   

7. Aggrieved by the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court for the  

offence under Section 498A IPC, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal  

No.1612  of  2001.  The  State  preferred  Criminal  Appeal  No.711  of  2002  

against the acquittal in respect of all the other charges levelled against the  

appellant  and others.   The High Court vide its  judgment and order dated  

22.10.2003 affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the  

trial court i.e. dismissed both the appeals.  The State has not challenged the  

4

judgment and order of the High Court passed in its appeal.  It is only the  

appellant who has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence as  

affirmed by the High Court limited to the charge under Section 498A IPC.  

8. Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  appellant  has  submitted  that  the  prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to  

prove the charge under Section 498A IPC against the appellant. The courts  

below  have  erred  in  disbelieving  Chy  Undavalli  Nanda  Anuradha  Sai  

Krishna DW.1 the daughter of the appellant, and also the other witnesses on  

the  issue  that  appellant’s  wife  died  of  a  natural  death  resulting  from  a  

stomach ache. After execution of an agreement dated 14.3.1990 there was no  

complaint either of harassment or cruelty; no demand had ever been made  

for dowry.  There was inordinate delay in lodging the criminal case by the  

family of the deceased.  Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.   

9. On  the  contrary,  Shri  D.  Rama  Krishna  Reddy,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the  

learned senior counsel for the appellant and contended that both the courts  

below rightly disbelieved the daughter of the appellant who was merely a  

child of 8½ years labeling her  as a “tutored witness”.   From the date of  

5

marriage  till  her  death,  the  wife  had  been  continuously  harassed  and  

subjected to mental and physical torture by the appellant.  The appellant was  

a  habitual  drunkard  and  misbehaved  with  his  wife,  which  forced  her  to  

commit  suicide.   Therefore,  the  appeal  has  no  merit  and is  liable  to  be  

dismissed.  

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel  

for the parties and perused the record.  

11. The provisions of Section 498A  IPC read as under :

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her   to cruelty. – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a   woman,  subjects  such  woman  to  cruelty  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be   liable to fine.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section ‘cruelty’ means –  

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the  woman to commit suicide or to cause grave  injury or danger to life,   limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

(b) harassment  of  the  woman where  such  harassment  is  with  a  view to   coercing her to any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand  for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her   or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

Cruelty  has  been  defined  by  the  explanation  added  to  the  Section  

itself.   The  basic  ingredients  of  Section  498A  I.P.C.  are  cruelty  and  

6

harassment.  The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned, have  

been classified as follows:

(i)  any ‘wilful’  conduct  which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the   woman to commit suicide; or

(ii) any ‘wilful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii)  any ‘wilful’  act  which is  likely  to  cause danger to life,  limb or health,   

whether physical or mental of the woman.

For the purpose of clause (b) the essential ingredients are as under:

(I) The harassment of a married woman

(II) With a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet   the  unlawful  demand of  dowry or for  any property  or valuable  security  or  on  account  of  her  failure  or  failure  of  any  person   related to her to meet such a demand.

Therefore,  it  is  evident  that  the  charge  under  Section  498A  can  be  

brought home if the essential ingredients either in clause (a) or (b) or both  

are found duly established.   

12. In  S.  Hanumantha Rao v.  S.  Ramani,  AIR  1999 SC 1318,  this  

Court considered the meaning of  cruelty in the context of the provisions  

under Section13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed that :

“mental  cruelty  broadly  means,  when either  party  causes  mental   pain,  agony  or  suffering  of  such  a  magnitude  that  it  severs   the  bond   between  the  wife  and  husband  and  as  a  result  of  which  it  becomes   impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party.  In  other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with  the other party.”

7

13. In  V. Bhagat v.  Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, this court, while  

dealing with the issue of cruelty in the context of Section 13 of the Hindu  

Marriage Act, observed as under :

“17. …….It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such  as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.  While arriving at such   conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the   parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties   ever  living  together  in  case  they  are  already  living  apart  and all  other   relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable   to set  out exhaustively.   What is  cruelty  in one case may not amount to   cruelty in another case.  It is a matter to be determined in each case having  regard  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  that  case.   If  it  is  a  case  of   accusations  and  allegations,  regard  must  also  be  had  to  the  context  in   which they were made……….. The context and the set up in which the word   ‘cruelty’  has  been used in  the  section seems to us,  that  intention is  not   necessary  element  in  cruelty.   That  word  has  to  be  understood  in  the  ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs.  If the intention to harm,   harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act   complained  of,  cruelty  could  be  easily  established.   But  the  absence  of   intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in  human  affairs,  the  act  complained  of  could  otherwise  be  regarded  as   cruelty.”

14. In  Mohd. Hoshan v.  State of A.P.;  (2002) 7 SCC 414, this Court  

while  dealing  with  the  similar  issue  held  that  mental  or  physical  torture  

should be “continuously” practiced by the accused on the wife.  The Court  

further observed as under :

“Whether  one  spouse  has  been  guilty  of  cruelty  to  the  other  is   essentially  a question of fact.   The impart  of  complaints,  accusations or   taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the   sensitivity  of the individual  victim concerned, the social  background, the   environment, education etc.  Further, mental cruelty varies from person to   

8

person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage   or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty.  In  other words, each case   has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was   established or not.”

15. In  Smt. Raj Rani v.  State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000 SC  

3559, this Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context  

to  the  provisions  of  Section  498A  I.P.C.,  the  court  must  examine  that  

allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved  

beyond reasonable doubt.

16.     In Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100,  

this Court explained the distinction of cruelty as provided under Section 306  

and 498A IPC observing that under Section 498A cruelty committed by the  

husband or  his  relation drive  woman to  commit  suicide etc.  while  under  

Section 306 IPC, suicide is abated and intended.  Therefore, there is a basic  

difference of the intention in application of the said provisions.

17. In  Girdhar Shankar Tawade v.  State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002  

SC  2078;  this  Court  held  that  “cruelty”  has  to  be  understood  having  a  

specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A I.P.C.  and there should  

be a case of  continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.  In  

explanation “b”, there is absence of physical injury but it includes coercive  

9

harassment for demand of dowry etc. therefore the aforesaid provisions deal  

with patent and latent acts of the husband or his family members. But both  

are equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute.  

18. Provisions of Section 498A IPC were introduced by an amendment to  

curb the harassment of a woman by her husband and/or his family members,  

for demand of dowry etc.  under the garb of fulfillment  of the customary  

obligations.  

19. The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the settled  

legal propositions.  The appellant was married to Malathi Devi (Deceased)  

on 14.6.1987.  It is evident from the evidence on record that a dowry passed  

on to the appellant consisting of Rs.50,000/- cash, Ac.3.00 of wet land and  

Ac.6-00 of mango tope along with 50 tolas of gold and 2 kgs. of silver.  It is  

also revealed in the evidence on record, that after about two years of the  

marriage, the deceased was being harassed by the appellant as well as by his  

mother.   There was a demand that the property in her name be sold and  

deceased should bring more money from her parents.   The deceased was  

beaten by the appellant  and was forced out  of  the  house.   The deceased  

Malathi Devi complained to her mother and other family members that the  

10

appellant  was  always  drunk  and  ill-treated  her.   However,  by  the  

intervention  of  the  elder  members  of  the  community,  the  matter  was  

resolved and an agreement dated 14.3.1990 was executed to the effect that  

the  immovable  properties  owned  by  the  husband  and  wife  would  be  

preserved for their children and none of them would alienate any part of any  

property in their  names.   However,  they would have a right  to enjoy its  

usufruct.  After sometime, the appellant and his mother started pressurising  

the deceased to alienate the land in contravention of the said agreement and  

she  should  bring  money  from her  parents.   The  appellant’s  mother  also  

threatened the deceased that in case she did not agree for the said transfer of  

land, she would remarry her son with another girl.  The deceased left her  

matrimonial  home on  25.5.1999.   However,  she  was  taken  back  by  her  

family members on 26.5.1999 and in consultation with the family members  

of the appellant and by intervention of certain other persons, the dispute was  

pacified.   It  was  resolved  that  there  would  be  no  quarrel  in  future.  

Subsequently,  when  the  family  members  of  the  deceased  had  gone  to  

Hyderabad, Malathi was found dead on 5th June, 1999.  She was cremated on  

6th June, 1999 hurriedly without being subjected to any post mortem autopsy  

and without any information to the family members of the deceased.  When  

the family members of the deceased came and met the appellant, his mother  

11

and other family members attempted to resolve the dispute, and not to report  

the  matter  to the  police  and for  that  consideration,  the  appellant  and his  

mother  agreed to transfer the immovable  property of the appellant in the  

name of the only child of the deceased.  As a consequence Ex.P.2 dated 15th  

June, 1999 was executed and registered purporting to be a partition deed  

between  the  appellant  and  his  minor  daughter  Chy  Undavilli   Nanda  

Anuradha Sai Krishna DW.1.  According to the said partition deed about  

Ac.11.69 cents land was given to the daughter.  After sometime, it came to  

the knowledge of the family members of the deceased that the child was not  

being treated properly, therefore, they approached the appellant’s family and  

made an attempt to take the child in their custody but the appellant did not  

agree for it.  Thus, the mother of the deceased filed the criminal complaint  

and  in  exercise  of  the  power  under  Section  156(3)  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure, the court directed for investigation.  

20. The Trial Court was fully satisfied with the explanation for delay in  

launching the criminal prosecution.  Admittedly there was a delay of about 2  

months but it was fully explained by the witnesses particularly, Undavilli  

Veerayamma (PW1), Undavilli Vara Prasada Ramachandra Murthy (PW2),  

Goli Ammanna Chowdary (PW3) and Kakara Krishnamurthy (PW8) that the  

12

appellant  had transferred the land in the name of the minor child and as  

agreed  upon,  no  criminal  case  was  to  be  filed.  Subsequently,  when  the  

appellant  and  his  mother  did  not  take  care  of  the  child  properly,  the  

complaint was filed.  There is evidence on record that legal proceedings had  

also been initiated by the family members of the deceased seeking custody  

of  the  child.   A  civil  suit  was  also  filed  to  restrain  the  appellant  from  

transferring the immovable property in favour of any other person by any  

means.

21. The Trial  Court came to the conclusion that  Chy Undavalli  Nanda  

Anuradha  Sai  Krishna  DW.1,  born  on  1.1.1991,  the  only  child  of  the  

appellant and deceased, deposed falsely to save her father and other family  

members  and  she  was  merely  a  “tutored  witness”.   There  were  other  

circumstances that the child was in bed with her grand mother, and not with  

her  mother,  when the  deceased  was  allegedly  complaining of  a  stomach  

ache.  No medical evidence was led to establish that the deceased was ailing  

so seriously from before.   

22. The independent witnesses deposed that when they came to know that  

Malathi Devi had died, they reached the place of occurrence and witnessed  

that the room in which her dead body was found, had been opened by lifting  

13

the lever from inside.  The body of the deceased was in a sitting posture on a  

double cot on her knees, and hanging from a fan tied with a sari.  It was,  

therefore, inferred that it was a case of suicide as otherwise, there was no  

occasion to bolt the room from inside.

23. Taking into  consideration various  other  circumstances,  particularly,  

the agreement dated 14.3.1990, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that  

the relations between the husband and the wife were not cordial, and that she  

had  been  harassed  to  meet  the  unlawful  demand  of  the  appellant  as  he  

wanted to dispose of the immovable property and compel the deceased to  

fetch  more  money  from  her  parents.   The  execution  of  the  deed  dated  

15.6.1999 (Ex.P.1) was enough to show that it had been executed in order to  

restrain the family members of the deceased to launch criminal prosecution  

against the appellant.  The Court also took other circumstances into account,  

that the death of the deceased was in the house of the appellant; neither the  

appellant nor his mother made any attempt to inform the family members of  

the deceased about the death; her dead body had been cremated hurriedly  

without  any  autopsy  having  been  conducted;  there  were  independent  

witnesses like Sunkara Nagaraju (PW5)  etc. and came to the conclusion that  

she had been harassed/coerced to the extent that Malathi committed suicide.  

14

The court rightly found the charge under Section 498-A fully proved against  

the appellant.  

24. The High Court after appreciating the entire evidence concurred with  

the findings recorded by the Trial Court.  We do not see any cogent reason  

to take a view contrary to the one taken by the courts below.  The appeal is  

devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.  Appellant is on bail. His  

bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled.  He shall be taken into custody to  

serve out the remaining sentence.

……………………………….J           (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

        ………………………… ……...J

                   (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi; July  24, 2009.

15

  Digital Proforma   

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2004

2. Date of decision : 24.7.2009

3. Cause Title : Undavali Narayana Rao vs.

Stae of A.P.

4. Coram : Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 28.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by :

7. Nature of judgment: Reportable  Whether reportable

16