Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order (West) 2026 INSC 615

The Appellant, Jayesh Kanna, married Sangeetha on November 2, 2014. Shortly after, on November 29, 2014, the Appellant left for Muscat, Oman, where he worked as an engineer.

Following the marriage, Sangeetha lived with her in-laws for approximately one and a half months before moving to her parental home on January 18, 2015. On January 31, 2015, while staying at her parents’ house, Sangeetha committed suicide by hanging.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant and his family made demands for additional dowry and subjected the deceased to persistent harassment. Specifically, it was alleged that the Appellant reprimanded the deceased for visiting her parents against his family’s wishes and refused to communicate with her over the phone between January 18 and January 31, 2015, which allegedly caused her severe mental agony.

Initially, a case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC against the Appellant and four co-accused (his parents and brothers). The Trial Court acquitted all in-laws of all charges as the allegations of dowry demand and harassment were not proved. The Appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC but was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment. The Madras High Court later confirmed this conviction and sentence.

Definition of Cruelty: Under Section 498A IPC, cruelty involves willful conduct of a nature likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life or health. The Court noted that mental cruelty is a question of fact that depends on the sensitivity of the victim, social background, and individual circumstances; there is no “thumb rule” that applies uniformly to all cases.

Petty Quarrels vs. Cruelty: Referring to Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330, the Court emphasized that petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty; the conduct must be unbearable or persistent enough to drive a person to suicide.

Lack of Evidence: The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on oral testimony from the deceased’s parents and sister. The prosecution failed to produce call details to substantiate the allegation of non-communication. While WhatsApp chats were presented showing a lack of messages, the Court noted this was insufficient as communication could have occurred via normal phone calls.

Appellant’s Defense: The Appellant contended he had attempted to call, but the deceased’s phone was out of order, leading him to call her father instead. No allegations of harassment were proven for the period when the couple lived together. The Court concluded that marital differences and temporary non-communication (in this case, for thirteen days) do not automatically equate to criminal cruelty.