Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that written undertakings executed by a husband promising not to torture his wife serve as strong corroboration of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das made this observation while upholding the conviction of a man for subjecting his wife to cruelty and dowry-related harassment. The court, however, modified the sentence, directing that he be released on probation instead of serving jail time.
The judge noted that two undertakings signed by the husband during the marriage, in which he assured that he would not torture his wife and would live peacefully with her, “manifest the previous incident of torture upon the de-facto complainant.” These undertakings, the court said, were sufficient to substantiate the wife’s allegations of cruelty. The defence’s claim that the documents were signed under threat was rejected as unproven.
According to the case records, the woman alleged that she was harassed for dowry and assaulted several times after marriage. On one occasion, she was allegedly beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home with her two children.
Her brother testified that he found her lying injured at the scene and witnessed the assault. Medical evidence from a local doctor also supported her claims of physical abuse.
Both the trial court and the appellate court had convicted the husband under Section 498A and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court affirmed the conviction, observing that the lower courts had rightly relied on the undertakings, the victim’s testimony, and corroborating medical evidence.
While maintaining the conviction, Justice Das noted that the incident occurred long ago and that the revisional case had been pending for nearly two decades. Considering the prolonged pendency and the nature of the offence, the court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing that the man be released on probation for two years upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs 5,000 each.
The court directed the District Probation Officer to supervise compliance and said failure to furnish the bond within two months would lead to custody.