LAWS(APH)-1987-5-1

P SATYANARAYANA Vs. P SOUNDARYAVALLI

Decided On May 26, 1987
POLAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA ALIAS NARAYANA Appellant
V/S
POLAVARAPU SOUNDARYAVALLI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent-wife kid complaint against the appellant-husband in C.C.No. 21 of 1986 before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (Act LV of 1860), for short, "the Code", as amended by Act XIV of 1983, for short "the Amendment Act", which ignited the appellant to hit her back by knocking off its bottom by assailing the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act on the anvil of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The material facts in nut-shell are that the first respondent was married to the appellant on February 23, 1984 as per Hindu custom's and rites. They lived together as wife and husband. The appellant and his mother made unconscionable demand for dowry and payment of a sum of Rs. 30,000/-was made by sale of the property of her mother. The first respondent also was given certain articles. The list thereof has been appended to the complaint. Yet, the satiety of the appellant and his mother remained unquenched. They had been constantly mentally harassing, ill-treating and physically torturing and subjecting her to untold mental cruelty during her stay with the appellant to bring further amounts. She bore with the same but became unbearable. She apprehends danger to her life and property at the hands of the appellant. Therefore she accuses that the appellant and his mother have committed cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the Code. Her private complaint laid under Section 200 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 was referred to the police who investigated into it and laid a charge-sheet against the appellant alone under Section 498-A of the Code which is numbered as C.C.No 15/87. Thereon, the appellant was served with summons and on receipt thereof, he filed W.P. No. 2258 of 1987 assailing the constitutional validity of Section 498-A of the Code and Sec. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as amended under the Amendment Act. By judgment dated February 27, 1987, our learned brother, S S.M. Quadri, J. dismissed the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appellant's learned counsel, Sri Veerabhadra Rao contends that the definition of the word 'Cruelty' under Section 498-A of the Code should be explicit, specific and definite, but it is delightfully vague and wide of its mark. Therefore, it is arbitrary. It is further contended that husband and relatives of husband cannot be singled out for the purpose of legislation under the Amendment Act. There is no reasonable relation, not any nexus to single them out from the general body of offenders. Accordingly, it is obnoxious to Art; 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the procedure prescribed lugging the husband or relatives of husband for the offence of cruelty is violative of Arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution offending right to life. Even otherwise, on a reading of the complaint and the charge-sheet, no offence has been made out. Therefore, the Court below cannot take cognisance of the, crime. It is further contended that S. 113-A of the Evidence Act placing burden oh the accused is in negation of the criminal jurisprudence and the settled notion of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the burden is always on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the crime committed by the offender. Therefore, raising the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) We find no substance in any of the contentions. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed, that the Parliament is competent to make law in respect of all matters included in the Indian Penal Code by operation of entry 1 of the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and marriages under entry 5 and evidence under entry 12 thereof. Therefore, the Parliament is competent to make the impugned law of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the husband in relation to a woman and evidence in respect thereof. The question is whether the word 'cruelty' is vague? Before considering that question, it is necessary to extract Section 498-A which is brought on statute under Chapter XXA of the Code as amended by Sec. 2 of the Amendment Act, which reads thus.