Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 136
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).532 OF 2021
MUNNI DEVI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellant challenges her conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B and Section 316 of the Indian
1
Penal Code . She has been sentenced to imprisonment of seven
years.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant’s son, Rahul
was married with one Alka @ Pooja on 02.12.2010. As per the
brother of Alka, Anil Singh Tomar who has lodged the First
Information Report on 03.08.2011, it was alleged that his sister
was being harassed by her husband, her mother-in-law – the
Signature Not Verified
appellant, her brothers-in-law as well as her sisters-in-law who
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.02.09
16:56:45 IST
Reason:
1
For short, Penal Code
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 1 of 10
were demanding an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and a Car in dowry.
This demand of dowry by the family members from her
matrimonial home was informed to the informant. The relatives of
Alka had repeatedly talked to the members of her matrimonial
home but they did not stop their demand. On 03.08.2011 at about
05:30 A.M. the informant received information that his sister had
been murdered. Accordingly, the First Information Report was
lodged on the same day at 08:40 A.M against the husband of the
deceased, her mother-in-law, her brothers-in-law as well as her
sisters-in-law.
3. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was
submitted and the appellant including the other accused were
charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Section 316 of the Penal
Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
2
1961 . The accused having denied the charges were accordingly
tried. The prosecution examined about nine witnesses to support
the aforesaid charges. The accused examined one witness. At the
conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by
his judgment dated 10.08.2018 was pleased to convict the
husband-Rahul, his brother-Chetan and his mother-the appellant
2
For short, the Act of 1961
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 2 of 10
under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code along with
Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. They were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the
offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Penal Code, seven
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- for the
offence under Section 316 of the Penal Code, in default, additional
rigorous imprisonment of one year. They were also sentenced to
undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, in
default, additional imprisonment of six months. They were also
sentenced to two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for
the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961 and in default
of payment of fine to undergo three months additional
imprisonment. All sentences were to run concurrently. The other
accused came to be acquitted.
4. All the three convicted accused preferred separate appeals
challenging their conviction. The learned Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Chetan, the
brother of the husband and acquitted him from all the charges.
Insofar as the appeal of the husband-Rahul was concerned, his
conviction under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 3 of 10
1961 came to be set aside. His conviction under Sections 304-B
and 316 of the Penal Code came to be confirmed. However, his
sentence was reduced to the period undergone by him which was
about nine years and six months. It may be stated that Rahul had
preferred Criminal Appeal No.748 of 2021 challenging his
conviction before this Court. However, during pendency of the said
appeal, he expired and hence, his appeal has been dismissed today
by a separate order as having abated. Insofar as the appellant is
concerned, her conviction has also been upheld under Sections
316 and 304-B of the Penal Code. Her sentence was however
reduced to seven years. She was acquitted from the charges under
Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. It is against
this conviction under Sections 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code
that the appellant has come up in appeal.
5. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever on record to
sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B of the
Penal Code. According to him, to sustain a conviction under the
said provision it was necessary for the prosecution to have brought
on record evidence that would indicate beyond reasonable doubt
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 4 of 10
connection with any demand for dowry. Notwithstanding the fact
that the death occurred within a year of the marriage of the
appellant’s son with the deceased, there was no evidence to
indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment
at the hands of the appellant. He submitted that though the
informant referred to a registered letter dated 07.04.2011 to
support his stand that a complaint had been made with regard to
the harassment of his sister, there was no reference of writing such
letter in the First Information Report nor was a copy of that letter
produced during the trial. Except for a few general allegations that
there was a demand for dowry by the appellant and other relatives,
the same was not sufficient to bring home the charge under
Section 304-B of the Penal Code. Insofar as the appellant’s
conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code is concerned, it
was submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate
that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the unborn
child. The cause of death of the deceased was on account of suicide
with which the appellant could not be connected. The High Court
having set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 498-A of
the Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961,
coupled with the fact that there was no evidence on record to
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 5 of 10
indicate any cruelty or harassment being caused by the appellant
to the deceased in connection with any demand for dowry, the
appellant’s conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code was
also unsustainable. It was thus submitted that the appellant was
entitled to be acquitted from all the charges.
6. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent supported the judgment of the High Court and
submitted that since there was an allegation of cruelty and
harassment being meted out to the deceased shortly after her
marriage which led her to commit suicide, the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was attracted.
There was a presumption that it was the appellant who had caused
the dowry death on account of the cruelty and harassment inflicted
by her. The evidence led by the prosecution including that of the
relatives of the deceased clearly established that there was a
constant demand of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and a Car
towards dowry. As the family of the deceased could not satisfy such
demand, the deceased was led to commit suicide. There was
sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was
pregnant at the time of her death with a fetus of thirty-four weeks.
The Trial Court as well as the High Court were therefore justified
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 6 of 10
in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code. She, therefore,
submitted that there was no case made out to interfere with the
concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. The appeal was
therefore liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance we have also gone through the records
of the case. At the outset we may note that though the appellant
was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961, the High Court while
maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304-B
and 316 of the Penal Code has set aside her conviction under
Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. As per
Section 304-B (1) it would be necessary for the prosecution to show
that the death was caused otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of the marriage and that soon
before the death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection
with any demand for dowry. In the present case the death of the
appellant’s daughter-in-law has occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances in view of the fact that it was a case of
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 7 of 10
suicide. The death occurred within seven years of the marriage. It
would therefore be necessary to examine whether any evidence has
been led to prove beyond reasonable doubt that soon prior to
committing suicide, the appellant’s daughter-in-law was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by the appellant. This is for the reason
that the appellant’s conviction is under Section 304-B of the Penal
Code.
8. If the deposition of the informant – PW2/Anil Singh Tomar
who is the brother of the deceased is perused, it can be seen that
except for general statements about mental and physical
harassment being inflicted on his sister by the members of her
matrimonial family, there is not a single instance specifically
attributed to the appellant. Except for using the expression
“mental and physical harassment” the witness has not deposed
about any specific instance narrated to him by the deceased that
could indicate that his sister was subjected to cruelty or
harassment specifically by the appellant. His deposition is in
general terms without giving any specific details of any instance of
cruelty or harassment meted out to his sister by the appellant. The
other witnesses examined including PW3 and PW4 are also
members of the family of the deceased but they have also not
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 8 of 10
referred to any specific instance of cruelty or harassment being
caused by the appellant to the deceased. It is one thing to make a
demand for dowry and another thing to inflict cruelty or
harassment in connection with such demand for dowry. For
sustaining the conviction under Section 304-B of the Penal Code,
it would be necessary for the prosecution to bring on record at least
some instance of cruelty or harassment being caused to the
woman in connection with any demand for dowry that results in
her death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of the marriage. Such evidence, however, is
missing in the present case. It is to be noted that the High Court
acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Act of 1961 and 498A of IPC which acquittal has attained finality.
9. Coming to conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code, it
is not in dispute the deceased was carrying a fetus of thirty-four
weeks when she committed suicide. However, when the charge
against the appellant under Section 304-B of the Penal Code has
not been proved by the prosecution, there would be no basis
whatsoever to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 316
of the Penal Code. It is also to be noted that the appellant was not
present at her son’s matrimonial home when the death took place
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 9 of 10
on 03.08.2011. This fact stands admitted by PW2/Anil Singh
Tomar. We, therefore, find that there is no material whatsoever to
sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 316 of the Penal
Code.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 304-B
and 316 of the Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the
impugned judgment dated 02.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.5108 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges under Sections 304-B and 316 of the
Penal Code. She be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case. In case the appellant has been enlarged on bail during
pendency of the appeal, her bail bonds would stand discharged.
..………………………..J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
.…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
th
JANUARY 29 , 2026.
Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 10 of 10