Husband steals ‘Stree Dhan’ and pawns wife’s jewelry. Guilty of criminal breach of trust: Kerala HC

Last updated:October 24, 2024, 2:49 PM IST

The court noted that the accused husband secured a loan for the jewelry that his mother gifted to his wife during the marriage

The Kerala High Court has upheld a man’s conviction for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stressing that “the husband or any other member of the family dishonestly appropriates stridhana or converts it into his own.” “He is the guilty of criminal breach of trust,” citing the Supreme Court verdict in the case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada.

A single bench of Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband. The court upheld the six-month simple imprisonment awarded by the trial court and compensation of Rs 5,00,000 to be paid to the victim, his wife.

The case revolves around allegations of criminal breach of trust by Surendra Kumar, husband of the complainant (PW1). The wedding between the parties was solemnized on December 18, 2009. During the marriage, the woman received 50 sovereigns of gold jewelry as a gift from her mother. She entrusted the gold to her husband on the condition that he would keep it safe in a bank safe deposit box. Contrary to this agreement, Kumar secretly pawned the jewelery at Muthoot Fincorp in Kasaragod without his wife’s consent, which led to a complaint. The prosecution based its case on evidence including statements from the wife, her mother and the manager of Muthoot Fincorp. The gold was later recovered and matched with photographic evidence showing the same jewelry that had been given to her during her marriage.

The trial court concluded that Kumar had breached the trust reposed in him by dishonestly misappropriating the gold ornaments and using them to secure a loan without his wife’s knowledge and was therefore found guilty under Section 406 of the IPC. The husband challenged the trial court’s decision, but the appeal court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. He then submitted an application for revision to the Higher Regional Court.

After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court observed, “It is true that mere breach of contract does not constitute an offense under Section 406 of IPC and the elements of the offense exist to show that the accused has committed an offense under Section 406” of IPC. In the present case, the prosecution’s point is that PW1’s mother gifted 50 sovereign gold ornaments to PW1 and that PW1 entrusted the same to the accused because he kept it in a bank locker as a trustee. Instead of keeping the gold ornaments in a bank locker, the accused dishonestly misappropriated and converted this property for his own use by pawning it with Muthoot Fincorp and thereby breached the trust thereby causing PW1 to suffer loss therefrom.”

The court found that the essential elements of criminal breach of trust were met. “Thus, in the present case, the facts under Section 406 of the IPC have been fully set out. In such a case, there is no reason to believe that the accused has committed the offense punishable under Section 406 of the IPC,” the court said.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and observed that “there is no reason to hold that the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is higher in view of the facts of the present case involving PW1 . “In fact, there was a sustained loss of 50 sovereigns of gold jewelry.” The appeal was therefore rejected.