Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 581
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2018
SHAKUNTLA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the sole
accused against the order dated 22.03.2018 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2003 wherein the
appellant’s conviction under Sections 304B and 498A
1
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and
2
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was converted
into that under Section 306 of the IPC with sentence
of 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
Signature Not Verified
1
“IPC”, hereinafter.
2
“DP Act”, hereinafter.
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.04.28
17:58:26 IST
Reason:
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 1 of 9
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-appellant
is the mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Kusum,
who was aged about 22 years and was married to the
son of the accused-appellant, one Rajendra Kumar,
on 14.05.1997. Smt.Kusum died on 04.05.1998 at
her matrimonial home. FIR dated 08.05.1998 was
filed by the father of the deceased against the
appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC
along with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
3. It was alleged in the said FIR that the complainant
had been informed numerous times by the deceased
that her mother-in-law, i.e. the appellant herein,
used to mentally and physically torture the deceased
for getting lesser amount of dowry. It was due to this
maltreatment that the deceased had come to her
parental house on 25.04.1998 and had informed her
parents that the appellant has again demanded a
sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a golden chain. Since the
parents of the deceased had to attend a wedding in
another village and the deceased was pregnant at the
time, they did not think it fit to leave her alone at the
parental home. As such, they convinced the deceased
daughter and sent her back to her matrimonial house
on 01.05.1998 along with her younger brother
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 2 of 9
Sandeep Kumar on the assurance that after
returning from the said wedding, the father of the
deceased shall resolve the issue of dowry with the
appellant. However, when the parents of the deceased
returned to their home on 05.05.1998, they were
informed that the deceased-daughter had died on
04.05.1998.
4. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and
Session Judge framed charges against the appellant
under the above-mentioned provisions which were
denied by her and claimed to be tried. The father, the
mother and the brother of the deceased deposed
before the Trial Court as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3,
respectively. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated
22.04.2003, found the appellant guilty under
Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC along with
Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and sentenced the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years under Section 304B of the IPC, one year
rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the IPC
and one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections
3 and 4 of the DP Act. The sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 3 of 9
5. The appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the
High Court challenging the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court. The High Court, vide the
impugned order, held that the offences under
Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act were not made out and
accordingly acquitted the appellant of the said
charges. However, it was observed that from the
statement of PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, it was clear that
the accused-appellant behaved in a manner which
led the deceased to commit suicide by consuming
poison and, thus, the appellant was convicted under
Section 306 of the IPC. Considering that the
appellant was about 70 years of age at the time, she
was awarded a sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is
before us challenging the conviction as well as the
sentence as recorded by the High Court.
7. We have heard learned senior counsel and counsel
appearing for the parties at length and perused the
material on record.
8. The most relevant statement for consideration is that
of PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, younger brother of the
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 4 of 9
deceased who was aged around 17 years at the time
of incident and was with the deceased in the days
leading up to the incident. He has stated that on
01.05.1998, he had accompanied his deceased sister
to her matrimonial home and stayed with her for the
following days. It has been stated by him that on the
day of the incident, in the forenoon of 04.05.1998, his
deceased sister had cooked rice and the appellant
abused the deceased about the way the rice was
cooked, then threw the food cooked by the deceased.
Thereafter, on the same day again at about 4.30/5.00
p.m., the appellant-accused abused the deceased. At
the time, there was no one else in the house except
PW-3, the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, PW-
3 was sent by the accused to call Raju. When PW-3
came back to her sister’s house, he saw that the
accused was shouting that her daughter-in-law, i.e.
the deceased, had consumed something. Then, the
appellant along with three other persons carried the
deceased to the hospital while PW-3 was asked to
stay back at the house and was not allowed to
accompany his sister. PW-3 further deposed that
when his brother-in-law and other persons came
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 5 of 9
back from the hospital, they told him that his sister
has died.
9. It has been noted by the Trial Court that this young
witness of 17 years has narrated the entire facts in a
very natural way. This fact has not gone unnoticed
by us as well as that PW-3 has given an account of
events in a very natural manner that does not seem
exaggerated or untruthful in any manner. In fact, the
said witness has also been very honest about his lack
of knowledge regarding the administration of poison
to his sister and has clearly stated that he was not an
eyewitness to the exact act and, thus, has made no
statement unnecessarily alleging that the accused
herself had administered such poison to the deceased
which caused her death. There is an element of
honesty and fairness in PW-3’s statement throughout
which lends it much credibility.
10. Additionally, it must be noted that on a conjoint
reading of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as well
as the FIR wherein PW-1 was the complainant, it
becomes apparent that the family members of the
deceased have been very precise in their allegations
against the appellant. Beginning from the point of
registration of the FIR and throughout the course of
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 6 of 9
trial, it has been stated across that it was solely the
mother-in-law of the accused, i.e. the appellant
herein, who used to physically and verbally abuse the
deceased with regard to demand for dowry. The
specific demand that was made by the accused time
and again has also remained the same throughout all
the statements. It is one of the rare cases where the
complainant has displayed honesty while making the
allegations and has not unnecessarily implicated
other family members of the husband of the deceased
by making omnibus allegations against all of them,
which is usually the adopted tactic in cases of similar
nature. Even the husband of the deceased has not
been roped in as a co-accused. This reflects on the
overall conduct of the prosecution, which has been
unusually fair and honest and, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no reason to
disbelieve the prosecution story.
11. The jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment
to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is settled that
the offence requires an active act or omission which
led the deceased to commit suicide, and this act or
omission must have been intended to push the
deceased into committing suicide. The facts of the
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 7 of 9
case make it abundantly clear that the deceased was
repeatedly tortured and abused by the accused on
account of dowry demand to the extent that the
deceased had to return to her parental home seeking
refuge. It was only on the assurance of her parents
that the deceased went back to her matrimonial
home hoping that the events would take an upturn
once her parents have returned from the wedding and
settle the matter of dowry with the appellant-
accused. However, the abuses hurled at the deceased
by the appellant on the day of the incident, i.e.
04.05.1998, unfortunately acted as a straw that
broke the camel’s back and led her to committing
suicide. Therefore, given the factual matrix, the guilt
of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Additionally, the High Court has adequately
considered the ground of old age of the appellant as
a mitigating factor and awarded her sentence of three
years rigorous imprisonment. We firmly believe that
the awarded sentence balances the interest of justice
quite equitably. Therefore, we do not find any reason
to interfere in the impugned order of the High Court.
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 8 of 9
13. The appellant was directed by this Court to be
released on bail during the pendency of this appeal
vide order dated 06.09.2018. As such, four weeks’
time is granted to the appellant to surrender before
the Trial Court concerned.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the
impugned order of the High Court is upheld. The
appellant is, hereby, directed to serve the remaining
period of sentence, as awarded by the High Court. In
case the appellant does not surrender within four
weeks from today the Trial Court shall take such
coercive measures as may be necessary for surrender
of the appellant to carry out the remaining sentence.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 25, 2025
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 9 of 9
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2018
SHAKUNTLA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the sole
accused against the order dated 22.03.2018 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2003 wherein the
appellant’s conviction under Sections 304B and 498A
1
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and
2
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was converted
into that under Section 306 of the IPC with sentence
of 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
Signature Not Verified
1
“IPC”, hereinafter.
2
“DP Act”, hereinafter.
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.04.28
17:58:26 IST
Reason:
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 1 of 9
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-appellant
is the mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Kusum,
who was aged about 22 years and was married to the
son of the accused-appellant, one Rajendra Kumar,
on 14.05.1997. Smt.Kusum died on 04.05.1998 at
her matrimonial home. FIR dated 08.05.1998 was
filed by the father of the deceased against the
appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC
along with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
3. It was alleged in the said FIR that the complainant
had been informed numerous times by the deceased
that her mother-in-law, i.e. the appellant herein,
used to mentally and physically torture the deceased
for getting lesser amount of dowry. It was due to this
maltreatment that the deceased had come to her
parental house on 25.04.1998 and had informed her
parents that the appellant has again demanded a
sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a golden chain. Since the
parents of the deceased had to attend a wedding in
another village and the deceased was pregnant at the
time, they did not think it fit to leave her alone at the
parental home. As such, they convinced the deceased
daughter and sent her back to her matrimonial house
on 01.05.1998 along with her younger brother
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 2 of 9
Sandeep Kumar on the assurance that after
returning from the said wedding, the father of the
deceased shall resolve the issue of dowry with the
appellant. However, when the parents of the deceased
returned to their home on 05.05.1998, they were
informed that the deceased-daughter had died on
04.05.1998.
4. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and
Session Judge framed charges against the appellant
under the above-mentioned provisions which were
denied by her and claimed to be tried. The father, the
mother and the brother of the deceased deposed
before the Trial Court as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3,
respectively. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated
22.04.2003, found the appellant guilty under
Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC along with
Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and sentenced the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years under Section 304B of the IPC, one year
rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the IPC
and one year rigorous imprisonment under Sections
3 and 4 of the DP Act. The sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 3 of 9
5. The appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the
High Court challenging the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court. The High Court, vide the
impugned order, held that the offences under
Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act were not made out and
accordingly acquitted the appellant of the said
charges. However, it was observed that from the
statement of PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, it was clear that
the accused-appellant behaved in a manner which
led the deceased to commit suicide by consuming
poison and, thus, the appellant was convicted under
Section 306 of the IPC. Considering that the
appellant was about 70 years of age at the time, she
was awarded a sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is
before us challenging the conviction as well as the
sentence as recorded by the High Court.
7. We have heard learned senior counsel and counsel
appearing for the parties at length and perused the
material on record.
8. The most relevant statement for consideration is that
of PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, younger brother of the
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 4 of 9
deceased who was aged around 17 years at the time
of incident and was with the deceased in the days
leading up to the incident. He has stated that on
01.05.1998, he had accompanied his deceased sister
to her matrimonial home and stayed with her for the
following days. It has been stated by him that on the
day of the incident, in the forenoon of 04.05.1998, his
deceased sister had cooked rice and the appellant
abused the deceased about the way the rice was
cooked, then threw the food cooked by the deceased.
Thereafter, on the same day again at about 4.30/5.00
p.m., the appellant-accused abused the deceased. At
the time, there was no one else in the house except
PW-3, the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, PW-
3 was sent by the accused to call Raju. When PW-3
came back to her sister’s house, he saw that the
accused was shouting that her daughter-in-law, i.e.
the deceased, had consumed something. Then, the
appellant along with three other persons carried the
deceased to the hospital while PW-3 was asked to
stay back at the house and was not allowed to
accompany his sister. PW-3 further deposed that
when his brother-in-law and other persons came
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 5 of 9
back from the hospital, they told him that his sister
has died.
9. It has been noted by the Trial Court that this young
witness of 17 years has narrated the entire facts in a
very natural way. This fact has not gone unnoticed
by us as well as that PW-3 has given an account of
events in a very natural manner that does not seem
exaggerated or untruthful in any manner. In fact, the
said witness has also been very honest about his lack
of knowledge regarding the administration of poison
to his sister and has clearly stated that he was not an
eyewitness to the exact act and, thus, has made no
statement unnecessarily alleging that the accused
herself had administered such poison to the deceased
which caused her death. There is an element of
honesty and fairness in PW-3’s statement throughout
which lends it much credibility.
10. Additionally, it must be noted that on a conjoint
reading of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as well
as the FIR wherein PW-1 was the complainant, it
becomes apparent that the family members of the
deceased have been very precise in their allegations
against the appellant. Beginning from the point of
registration of the FIR and throughout the course of
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 6 of 9
trial, it has been stated across that it was solely the
mother-in-law of the accused, i.e. the appellant
herein, who used to physically and verbally abuse the
deceased with regard to demand for dowry. The
specific demand that was made by the accused time
and again has also remained the same throughout all
the statements. It is one of the rare cases where the
complainant has displayed honesty while making the
allegations and has not unnecessarily implicated
other family members of the husband of the deceased
by making omnibus allegations against all of them,
which is usually the adopted tactic in cases of similar
nature. Even the husband of the deceased has not
been roped in as a co-accused. This reflects on the
overall conduct of the prosecution, which has been
unusually fair and honest and, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no reason to
disbelieve the prosecution story.
11. The jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment
to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is settled that
the offence requires an active act or omission which
led the deceased to commit suicide, and this act or
omission must have been intended to push the
deceased into committing suicide. The facts of the
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 7 of 9
case make it abundantly clear that the deceased was
repeatedly tortured and abused by the accused on
account of dowry demand to the extent that the
deceased had to return to her parental home seeking
refuge. It was only on the assurance of her parents
that the deceased went back to her matrimonial
home hoping that the events would take an upturn
once her parents have returned from the wedding and
settle the matter of dowry with the appellant-
accused. However, the abuses hurled at the deceased
by the appellant on the day of the incident, i.e.
04.05.1998, unfortunately acted as a straw that
broke the camel’s back and led her to committing
suicide. Therefore, given the factual matrix, the guilt
of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Additionally, the High Court has adequately
considered the ground of old age of the appellant as
a mitigating factor and awarded her sentence of three
years rigorous imprisonment. We firmly believe that
the awarded sentence balances the interest of justice
quite equitably. Therefore, we do not find any reason
to interfere in the impugned order of the High Court.
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 8 of 9
13. The appellant was directed by this Court to be
released on bail during the pendency of this appeal
vide order dated 06.09.2018. As such, four weeks’
time is granted to the appellant to surrender before
the Trial Court concerned.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the
impugned order of the High Court is upheld. The
appellant is, hereby, directed to serve the remaining
period of sentence, as awarded by the High Court. In
case the appellant does not surrender within four
weeks from today the Trial Court shall take such
coercive measures as may be necessary for surrender
of the appellant to carry out the remaining sentence.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 25, 2025
Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 9 of 9