Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

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

A Single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband. The court confirmed the six-month simple imprisonment and Rs. 5,00,000 compensation awarded by the trial court, payable 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 solemnised 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 would store it securely in a bank locker. Contrary to this agreement, Kumar secretly pledged 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 manager of Muthoot Fincorp. The gold was later recovered and matched with photographic evidence that showed the same ornaments gifted during her marriage.

The trial court concluded that Kumar had violated the trust placed in him by dishonestly misappropriating the gold ornaments and using them to secure a loan without his wife's knowledge and hence, he was found guilty under Section 406 of IPC. The husband challenged the decision of the trial court, but the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment. Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the High Court.

The High Court, after examining the evidence, observed that, “It is true that a mere breach of contract doesn’t constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC and the ingredients are to be satisfied to hold that the accused had committed offence under Section 406 of IPC. In the instant case the prosecution case is that the mother of PW1 gifted 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to PW1 and the same was entrusted by PW1 to the accused for keeping the same as a trustee in a bank locker. The accused instead of keeping the gold ornaments in a bank locker, dishonestly misappropriated and converted that property for his own use by pledging the same in Muthoot Fincorp and thereby violated the trust and thereby PW1 suffered loss out of the same.”

The court noted that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust were satisfied.  “Thus, in the instant case, the ingredients to attract offence under Section 406 of IPC is fully made out. In such a case, there is no reason to disbelieve that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC,” stated the court.

Conclusively, the court upheld the decision of the trial court stating that “there is no reason to find that the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is on higher side on the facts of the given case, where PW1, in fact, sustained loss of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments.” The revision petition was, therefore, dismissed.

 

Cause Title: Surendra Kumar v State of Kerala [Crl.R.P.1006/2024]

Appearances : Advocates P.K.Subhash and Dance Antony (for the Accused/ Petitioner), and Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George (for the State)