In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the prevalent issue of over-implication in domestic cruelty cases, expressing concern about the tendency to overstate allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the importance of preventing unnecessary suffering for those accused without sufficient evidence.
A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar underscored that judicial caution is essential in identifying and averting unjust charges that might lead to undue distress and social stigma. This observation arose during a hearing involving a brother-in-law of a deceased woman, who had been convicted under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC in a dowry harassment case. Although the High Court had modified his sentence to time already served, the appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that no credible evidence implicated him in the alleged cruelty.
In their judgment, the court found merit in the appellant’s arguments, noting that the case lacked specific accusations or credible testimony linking him to any misconduct. The bench remarked, “Despite the generalized allegations, no witness provided substantive evidence against the appellant, nor was there any prior complaint against him before this FIR.”
The Supreme Court’s verdict not only annulled the appellant’s conviction but also emphasized the need for legislative reassessment of Section 498A, referring to past judgments like Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana. These cases previously underscored the potential for exaggeration in complaints and prompted calls for legal reform to balance the protection of victims with the prevention of misuse.
