Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors Vs State of Gujarat

Author- Sai Swethaa R., Chettinad School of Law

KEYWORDS 

cruelty, illegal affair, suicide, abetment of suicide, divorce

CASE DETAILS:

       i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors Vs State of Gujarat

     ii)            Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2009

   iii)            Judgement Date

18th February, 2015

    iv)            Court

The Supreme Court of India

      v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench

Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra

    vi)            Author / Name of Judges

Dipak Misra

  vii)            Citation

2015 AIR SCW 3950

viii)            Legal Provisions Involved

 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita – Section 85, 54, 108, 238.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In India, cruelty between husband and wife is a major ground for divorce and separation. It is defined as any conduct that causes physical or mental agony. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita explains cruelty in sections 85 & 86. An individual found guilty of cruelty is often sent to prison for a term extending to 3 years and is liable to a fine.  

  1. Cruelty

“(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; or

 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is intending to coerce her or 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.”[1]

In Shri bodhisattva Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty, the Supreme Court held that cruelty can be both physical and mental. Both are equally damaging to one’s health and are valid grounds for divorce.

Elements

  1. Physical harassment
  2. Mental cruelty
  • Demand for dowry etc.

The courts have interpreted cruelty broadly and it results in various forms like physical violence, abuse, and coercive demands.

  1. Extra-marital affair

As mentioned in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was introduced to mention adultery committed by a man having sexual intercourse with a married woman without her husband’s consent. However, it is now decriminalized as it only punished the man with a sentence of up to 5 years or a fine or both.

It is decriminalized as it is centred only on one gender, the man, and not on the women

.The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court is Joseph Shine VS Union of India[2] where The petitioner argued by filing a Public interest Litigation that the statute’s provision is of the vision that women are the property of the husband and punishing only the man will violate Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)

However, adultery can also be a cause for mental cruelty and also be considered a valid point for divorce.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

  • The mother of the deceased reported to the police station on 17th of March, 2004
  • The investigation agency proceeded with the case and recorded 25 witnesses
  • After this chargesheet was filed under sections 85, 108, 238, and 54 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 before the competent court.
  • The Learned Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of Session.
  • The Learned trial judge based on the documentary and other evidence came to hold 4 accused namely:
  • Father-in-law as A1
  • Husband as A2
  • Mother-in-law as A3 and
  • The woman with whom the husband was having an affair is A4. The brother-in-law and his wife were acquitted as there was no sufficient evidence.

Factual Background of the Case

  • The deceased (Biniben) and Rakesh, husband of the deceased solemnized their marriage 8 years before the occurrence of the incident 04.03.2004, where the deceased committed suicide on the terrace of the accused’s house.
  • The husband of the deceased is said to have an illicit relationship with Jasuben, a divorcee even though 2 children were born out of the wedlock between the deceased and the husband.
  • Her husband kicked out the deceased and she came to her maternal house and stayed there.
  • After the interference of the elders and their advice, she went to her in-law’s house, which led to more quarrels and turned out for the worse.
  • The in-laws took her earnings and she was compelled to stay on the terrace where she committed suicide with a suicide note.
  • The deceased body was cremated without informing the parents of the deceased and they came to know about the death only on 17th March o004.
  • The learned additional sessions judge found the appellants guilty of cruelty and other charges mentioned. The appellants then moved to the High Court.
  • The High Court of Gujarat sentenced
  • Ghusabhai Raisinghbhai Chorasia, A1 to suffer 5 years imprisonment
  • Rakesh Ghusabhai Chorasia, A2 the husband to suffer 7 years imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and
  • A3&4 to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.250/-

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether there was cruelty by the husband and his relations that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide.
  2. Whether the extramarital affair by the husband amounts to cruelty.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submit their statements under section 89 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita which is causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent and has pleaded that the deceased and the A2 were divorced and she was staying on the terrace.
  2. It is submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the suicide committed by the deceased by consuming poison was not known by the appellants.
  • The appellants have submitted exhibits 65-67 containing documents that there was a divorce.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted statements of principal witnesses which were relied on are

  1. Dakshaben Shantilal Shah, PW9 a social worker at Vikas Vidhyalay
  2. Mirabai Devsinhbhai, PW 21 sister of the deceased
  3. Champaben Devsinhbhai, PW 18 mother of the deceased
  4. Kanaiyabhau Devsinhbhai, PW 19, brother of the deceased
  5. Natunhai Hirabhai, PW 17, sarpanch of the village, RajsitapurThe respondents submit that the in-laws allegedly took all the deceased’s earnings. The sister of the deceased voluntarily said in a telephone conversation with the deceased days before the death that she was separated and was living alone on the terrace and would come to her maternal home after Hol I. It is also said that the woman who had an affair with the deceased’s husband threatened the deceased that soon she would be divorced.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

“Section 85 – 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 a fine.

Section 54 – Abettor present when the offence is committed

Whenever any absent person would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.

Section 108 – Abetment of suicide

 If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to a fine.

Section 238- causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false shall,— (a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.”[3]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

  1. The court held that a mere allegation that one had an extramarital affair would not result in the abetment of suicide of the spouse. Even though extramarital relationships are illegal and immoral they would not directly result in the abetment of suicide as said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal’s[4] case.
  2. There is a lack of evidence on record that there was a conduct of the husband, A2 to drive the deceased to commit suicide and there was mental cruelty by him and other appellants.
  3. On the question of whether the husband and his family members committed any act of cruelty which resulted in the suicide of the deceased, it is that they were divorced according to exhibits 65 to 67 and the sister of the deceased voluntarily stated that they were divorced in her statement.

GUIDELINES

Girdhar Shankar Tawade V State of Maharashtra gives out 3 situations to point out cruelty. “They are

  • drive the women out to commit suicide
  • to cause injury or
  • danger to life, limb, or health both mental and physical
  1. Injury is absent but the legislative is fit to think that there is coercive harassment which is equal to physical harassment.” [5]

OBITER DICTA
The court held that failure to meet marital obligations would not amount to cruelty but should induce the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the ambit of section 85.

The judgment also stressed that the situations surrounding the relationship between the husband and the deceased are also important as well as with the actions of the accused.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The court held that the allegations against the appellants were sketchy and manipulated and there was no evidence as to physical torture. It is difficult to entertain the charge against the appellants under sections 85, 54, 108, 238. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside.  Discharge of bail bond shall be made.  

In my opinion, it is correctly stated that an illegal affair would not constitute an abetment to suicide. Additionally, the respondents also mentioned the divorce voluntarily which ultimately proves that indeed there was a divorce between them.

The respondents could not produce any other evidence supporting the allegation of cruelty therefore it is just and necessary to set aside the sentence.

[1] Section 86, The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

[2] AIR 2018 SC 4898

[3] The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

[4] 2013 AIR SCW 5219

[5] AIR 2002 SC 2078

[6] Crl A No. 1472- SB of 2001

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture