New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of a Kerala-based engineer under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, holding that mere non-communication with one’s wife for thirteen days, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of the provision.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026, allowed the appeals and directed the return of the appellant’s passport, which had been withheld since his conviction.
The appellant, Jayesh Kanna, had married the deceased, Sangeetha, in 2014. He was working as an engineer in Muscat, Oman, and left India approximately four weeks after the wedding. The deceased stayed with her in-laws for about one and a half months and then shifted to her parental home after some time. She was later found dead by hanging at her parents’ house. An FIR was registered against the appellant and four co-accused—the father-in-law, mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law, and a juvenile—under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
The Trial Court, after a full trial, acquitted all co-accused of the dowry death and cruelty charges for want of proof. The charge of abetment of suicide was also not established against any of the accused. The appellant alone was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The sole basis for this conviction was the finding that the appellant’s refusal to speak to the deceased over the phone because she had visited her parental home without informing the in-laws constituted willful conduct likely to drive her to suicide.
The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence in January 2023 and also dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the appellant seeking the return of his passport. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate R. Basant, appearing for the appellant, argued that the factual matrix disclosed no cognizable act of cruelty. He pointed out that the couple’s physical association lasted barely a month before the appellant left for Muscat, that no harassment was alleged or proved during that period, and that the conviction rested entirely on the oral testimony of the deceased’s family members, without any call records or documentary evidence to establish non-communication.
The Court examined Section 498A IPC and the settled legal position on mental cruelty. Relying on Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 414] and Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [(2009) 13 SCC 330], the Bench reiterated that mental cruelty is a question of fact to be determined from the specific circumstances of each case and that cruelty must be continuous or persistent, or at least in close proximity to the complaint. Petty quarrels, the Court observed, do not suffice.
On the evidentiary deficit, the Court was unambiguous. The prosecution’s case rested solely on the oral testimony of the deceased’s mother, father, and sister, who had made several improvements over the FIR version. The Court held that the allegation of non-communication by the appellant ought to have been substantiated through call detail records:
“The prosecution was duty bound to prove such allegation of lack of communication between the Appellant and the deceased with the call details of the deceased, accused and the parents of the deceased… merely oral testimony to say that because of non-communication on the part of the Appellant, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide was not sufficient to bring the charge within the purview of cruelty.”
The Court also rejected the reliance placed on WhatsApp chat records showing no messages from the appellant, observing that the absence of WhatsApp messages does not rule out communication through ordinary phone calls. Additionally, the appellant had stated in his defence that he had tried to contact the deceased, but her phone was not functional, and that he had accordingly called her father.
Examining the overall conduct of the parties, the Court noted that no cruelty had been established during the period the deceased lived with the appellant and his family and that there was no evidence of any quarrel between them. In these circumstances, thirteen days of non-communication—the sole act attributed to the appellant—could not be elevated to the level of cruelty under Section 498A IPC:
“Mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case. Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication.”
The conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside. Since the denial of the appellant’s passport had been premised solely on his conviction, the Court also directed its return. Bail bonds, if any, were discharged.
Case: Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner, Law and Order (West) & Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026), 2026 INSC 615.
