Last update:October 24, 2024, 2:49 p.m. IST

The court held that the accused husband had obtained a loan against the jewelry gifted to his wife by her mother during the marriage.

A single judge bench of Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the review petition filed by the husband. (Getty)

The Kerala High Court has upheld a man’s conviction for breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pointing out that “when the husband or any other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates the stridhana or converts it to his own use, he is guilty of criminal breach of trust”, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada.

A single judge bench of Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the review petition filed by the husband. The court upheld the sentence of six months simple imprisonment and the compensation of Rs 5,00,000 awarded by the trial court to the victim, his wife.

The case revolves around allegations of criminal breach of trust committed by Surendra Kumar, the husband of the complainant (PW1). The marriage between the parties was solemnized on December 18, 2009. During the marriage, the wife received 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments as a gift from her mother. She entrusted the gold to her husband on the condition that he store it safely in a bank locker. Contrary to this agreement, Kumar secretly promised the ornaments at Muthoot Fincorp in Kasaragod without his wife’s consent, leading to a complaint. The prosecution based its case on evidence, including testimonies from the wife, her mother and the director of Muthoot Fincorp. The gold was then recovered and compared to photographic evidence showing the same ornaments given at her wedding.

The trial court found that Kumar had violated the trust reposed in him by dishonestly misappropriating the gold ornaments and using them to secure a loan without the knowledge of his wife and, therefore, he was convicted under of Section 406 of the IPC. The husband challenged the trial court’s decision, but the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Subsequently, he filed a review petition in the High Court.

The High Court, after considering the evidence, observed that “it is true that mere breach of contract does not amount to an offense under Section 406 IPC and the ingredients must be present to conclude that the accused has committed an offense under Section 406 IPC. of the CIP. In the present case, the prosecution case is that the mother of PW1 gifted 50 gold sovereigns to PW1 and the same was entrusted by PW1 to the accused for keeping them as trustee in a locker bank. The accused, instead of keeping the gold jewelry in a bank locker, misappropriated and dishonestly converted these properties for his own use by pawning them with Muthoot Fincorp and thereby breached the trust and PW1 thereby suffered a loss.

The court noted that the essential elements of a criminal breach of trust were present. “Thus, in the present case, the necessary ingredients to attract offense under Section 406 of the IPC are fully established. In such a case, there is no reason to disbelieve that the accused has committed the offense punishable under Section 406 of the IPC,” the court said.

In conclusion, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating that “there is no reason to conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the court of appeals is greater than the facts.” of the case in question, where witness PW1, in fact, suffered loss of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The request for review was therefore rejected.