Section 498A cruelty requires continuous or proximate conduct; stale allegations failed, while the bigamy conviction stood.

Concurrent findings that the appellant had contracted a second marriage and was guilty under Section 494 IPC were not interfered with, as the issue turned on appreciation of evidence and no perversity or legal infirmity was shown. By contrast, the conviction under Section 498A IPC was set aside because cruelty must be proved by cogent evidence of a continuous or proximate course of conduct, and the record did not establish such statutory cruelty after the complainant left the matrimonial home years earlier. The Court therefore upheld the bigamy conviction but granted relief on the cruelty charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the finding that the appellant had contracted a second marriage and was guilty under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be interfered with; (ii) whether the evidence established cruelty within Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): whether the finding that the appellant had contracted a second marriage and was guilty under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The question turned on appreciation of evidence and the courts below had returned concurrent findings that the second marriage had been proved and was valid. In the absence of perversity or a legal infirmity, the Court declined to reappreciate evidence as a fourth court of fact.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the evidence established cruelty within Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Cruelty under Section 498A requires conduct amounting to cruelty as defined by the statute, and the Court emphasised that it must be shown by cogent evidence as a continuous or proximate course of conduct. The record showed that the complainant had left the matrimonial home in 1993, the complaint was lodged in 1997, and there was no convincing evidence of continuous mental or physical cruelty during the intervening period. The courts below had treated the allegations as sufficient, but the Court held that the facts proved did not bring home the statutory ingredients of Section 498A.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in relation to the cruelty conviction, while the finding of guilt for bigamy remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of statutory cruelty by evidence showing a continuous or proximate course of conduct; isolated or stale allegations, without such proof, are insufficient, while concurrent findings on a question of fact ordinarily are not interfered with absent perversity.

---