The Jharkhand High Court in the case Ram Kripal Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and others along with connected revision petitions observed and has held that not providing proper medical aid to one’s wife for enforcing the demand of dowry would come within the definition of cruelty as enunciated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The bench headed by Justice Ambuj Nath in the case observed and has upheld that the conviction of accused Sanjay Kumar Rai finding him guilty of committing cruelty as it is defined under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against his wife.
The court in the case observed that the general and omnibus statements regarding torture had been made against the opposite parties or in-laws of the victim, i.e., the Sulochana Devi, Manju Devi and Anju Devi.
It has also been noted by the said court that the informant did not sustain any injury at the hands of these opposite parties and hence, the prosecution in the case failed to show by means of any cogent evidence as to when and how the informant was tortured. Thus, the acquittal of them by the magistrate court was accordingly upheld by the High Court.
The court observed with regards to the judgement of the acquittal of Bhageshwar Roy passed by the Appellate Court was concerned that general and the vague allegation were being made against him regarding the torture and the said court upheld the acquittal of him as well.
Further, it has also been noted by the said court that as far as the allegation of not providing medical aid to the victim/informant by her husband (Sanjay Kumar Rai) was concerned, thus, the court in the case concluded that the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, were right in concluding his guilt under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for subjecting his wife Neelam Devi to cruelty to enforce the demand of dowry.
Accordingly, the court upheld that conviction of him and has dismissed the revision plea.
