The medical examination would certainly have helped in proving the case of physical torture but ,it seems ,in this case that due to belated medical examination no marks of physical violence are available. Having said that it can not be said that the your case will be thrown out.

If you can provide the details of each time the person was subjected to cruelty e.g.date, time, type of violence and overt act attributed to the individual accused there are chances that court will still believe you despite the absence of any medical evidence. IT will be even more beneficial if you can explain the delay in either lodging the report or of medical examination.

There are catena of SC decisions that reiterate the fact that the conduct/cruelty of the accused should be of nature so as to drive a reasonable/prudent individual to commit suicide or danger to life or limb, so you need to be very specific about the cruelty and the nature of the the same.

It is always advisable to seek experts advise (you can engage a private counsel to assist the prosecutor if you wish to take the matter to the court).

Regards

thanx parvez…

one more thing …if girl have many charges against her in laws like assault, torture,extra marital affair of hubby and threaten so should she mention all things or she should emphasis on any particularcrime…and every person who were involve or minimal persons …?????

As I have said in my earlier post that thrust should be on specific act by specific individual. The assault, torture should be of such a nature that it should be enough to compel a “reasonable person” to commit suicide or to cause danger to life or limb and if you think that you have enough evidence to prove so it is no harm in including all of it but dont be vague as it might boomerang back on you.

The test the courts apply will be by keeping a reasonable person in that situation. I mean it is not always necessary to that i will react in a same way as you would in a given situation, so other factors like social upbringing, any health issues might be taken into consideration to see as to how a women will react.

If the facts of the case are as serious as it sounds from what you have said it is advisable that you do mention about all of them.

A recent judgement from SC has analysed the scope of s498A in depth albeit the victim did not succeed (this judgement caused an uproar and in being referred to larger bench to be analysed). The relevant part that might help you in understanding the law is as follows;

Thus the essential ingredients of section 498A are:

1. A woman must be married.

2. She must be subjected to cruelty.

3. Cruelty must be of the nature of:

i) any wilful conduct as was likely to drive such woman:

a. to commit suicide;

b. cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either metnal or physical;

ii) harassment of such woman,

1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security;

2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand;

iii) woman was subjected to such cruelty by:

1) husband of that woman, or

2) any relative of the husband.

For the constitution of an offence under section 498A IPC, therefore, the ingredients thereof must be held to be existing.

…So keeping in view the above principle, if you can argue that facts does fall within the framework, I feel you might have good chances of success given the fact that courts are now a days getting sensitive towards such issues.

Great discussion here Swati and Parvez…

While you’re at it, Parvez – Is it possible for you to tell me the name of that recent SC case which discusses 498A at length?

Also, at the stage of evidence a lot of importance is attached to the time period within which the complaint is made under the section. Apparently all’s hunky dory in the courts if the woman files within the first seven years of her marriage as far as adducing evidence of cruelty is concerned.

Beyond those seven yrs, I think, the complete onus of proving cruelty befalls upon the aggrieved and the assumptions drawn in her favour by the courts get sort of sidelined.

I was wondering if my understanding is correct.

Hi there,

The limitation to presume cruelty is contemplated u/s 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act 1872. In the former presumptive section the presumtion may be raised having regard to all the circumstances of the case in which wife commits suicide as a result of cruelty as defined u/s 498A, clause (a) or (b) or both and the said cruelty is inflicted by the husband or any relative of the husband.

In the cases of suicide simplicitor, if commited by the wife after 7 years of marriage the presumption u/s 113A doesnt get attracted however the offence of the abetment to commit suicide by the wife can be proved if there is a systematic cruelty inflicted upon the deceased even if it spreads beyond 7 years from her marriage by resorting to the provisions of s.107 of the IPC.

So far as the presumtion u/s 113A and B is concerned the said presumption shall be invovked provided the deceased wife was subjected to mental or physical cruelty on account of the demand of dowry, in consideration of the marriage. However if the women commits suicide after 7 years of marriage and there are allegations of dowry death the said presumption u/s 113B is not applicable.

One important aspect that needs to be borne in mind is unless the wife dies under unnatural circumstances i.e. unnatural death e.g. poisoning, hanging.

However there is no presumtive statutory provision to the effect that offence u/s 498A can be registered and proved only within 7 years as there is nothing u/s 498A or in any other provision in the criminal law. Thus the offence u/s 498a can be committed by the husband or any of his relatives right from the marriage upto her death as there are reported cases wherein the wives are subjected to cruelty after 7 years of marriage.

The suffering of any bodily injury or proof thereof in the courts of law is not the requirement to attract s.498a.

So to sum it up, the legal position is that presumtive sections are not available individually for s.498a and is only available if s.306 or 304B is there additionally.

The citation of SC judgement i have discussed in my previous post is 2010 SCC (Cri) 383.

Regards