Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Smt. Bhagwati Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2616 of 2014
Decided On : 29-08-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A – Cruelty – Conviction and sentence – Acquittal from offence under Section 304-B of IPC – Demand for dowry in any form is itself sufficient for Section 498-A of IPC being attracted – Demand made in any form either by husband or by relative of husband would also attract Section 498-A of IPC – It has to be established that woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously/ persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint – Cause of death has been recorded as asphyxia on account of strangulation as evidenced from post-mortem report – Cumulative effect of evidence of witnesses showing that deceased had not committed suicide on account of either demand for dowry being made or cruelty being inflicted on her – Conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentence imposed on her cannot be sustained – Judgment of High Court set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 8, 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein who has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is assailing the judgment rendered by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2003 on 10.04.2014.
Findings of Court:
Doctor who conducted post-mortem and submitted the report of the deceased has opined cause of death appears to be asphyxia on account of strangulation. He admits if there is strangulation then possibility of injuries being suffered to other parts of the body is possible and when there is resistance to the strangulation there is likelihood of urination and faecal matter can also be excreted which was not found on the body of the deceased.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The court held that conviction under Section 498-A cannot be sustained where there is lack of sustained cruelty or evidence of dowry demand; the post-mortem showed asphyxia due to strangulation, and the complainant’s testimony did not establish dowry demand or cruelty (acquittal upheld). (!) (!) (!) - The definition and interpretation of "cruelty" under Section 498-A IPC requires evidence of continuous/persistent cruelty or harassment close to the time of complaint, and petty quarrels alone are insufficient; dowry demand in any form suffices to attract 498-A, but must be established by credible evidence. (!) - The appellate court emphasized that DW-1’s testimony and other prosecution evidence did not adequately establish dowry harassment, leading to acquittal and reversal of lower court conviction. (!) (!) - The judgment sets aside the High Court’s affirming conviction and acquits the accused; the death cause and surrounding evidence did not prove cruelty or dowry demand as required. (!)
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. The Appellant herein who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is assailing the judgment rendered by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2003 on 10.04.2014.
2. The son of the Appellant – Sh. Sanjay Mishra married Smt. Chandra Devi, the daughter of the complainant – Dharmanand Joshi (PW1) according to Hindu customs and rites about a year prior to her death on 15.06.2001. PW-1 presented a complaint before Bagwshwar (P.S.) on 16.06.2001 alleging that his daughter was found dead inside the matrimonial home and only the accused persons were present in the house. It was also stated in the complaint that the daughter of PW-1 had committed suicide by hanging herself. However, he is said to have seen the wounds on his daughter’s body during examination and he along with the Patwari saw blood along with water oozing out from the mouth of his daughter. It was further alleged that she was pregnant at the time of her death and further stated that deceased used to inform that her mother-in- law was commenting on her sarcastically for dowry. Hence, expressing doubt about her death and his daughter having been killed requested suitable action being taken against the culprits. It was also stated by the complainant himself that her husband namely son-in-law was out of city on professional work at Mumbai. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime Case No.1 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 304-B of IPC. The father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased were arraigned as accused and the trial court framed the charge for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and optional charge under Section 302 readwith Section 34 of IPC. On behalf of the prosecution, three (3) witnesses namely Dharmanand Joshi, Shambhu Dutt Joshi and Smt. Heera Devi apart from four (4) other witnesses were examined and on behalf of the accused one Smt. Janki Devi was examined. The learned Sessions Judge after trial held that the charge of Section 302 readwith Section 34 of IPC was not proved against all the accused. So also, for the charge of Section 304-B was held to be not proved and accused persons were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 and Section 304-B of IPC. However, Accused no.2 – Mother-in-law namely the Appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC on the ground that deceased had informed her mother (PW-3) and brother (PW-2) about the harassment she was facing for dowry to which effect they had accordingly deposed before the trial court. Hence, the learned Trial Judge concluded that deceased had committed suicide due to harassment. However, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was held to be not proved against Accused no.1 and Accused no.3 and they came to be acquitted for all the offences alleged.
3. The Accused no.2 being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of three months imprisonment preferred an appeal before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2003. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that evidence of PW- 3 disclosed that on every visit made by the deceased to the paternal home, she had disclosed the demand of dowry by her mother-in-law as well as other accused persons as an acceptable piece of evidence and as such affirmed the judgment of sessions court. Hence, this Appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of Shri Anshumaan Purohit and Smt. Saakshi Singh Rawat, learned Counsels appearing for the Appellant and the Respondent respectively. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that PW-1 complainant had not whispered a word in his complaint or in his evidence about any demand for dowry having been raised by the appellant and this vital aspect has been completely ignored by the courts
Cruelty – It has to be established that woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously/ persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint.
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the act constitutes 'cruelty' as defined by the statute under Section 498A IPC.
To secure conviction under Section 304(B) and 498(A) IPC, specific overt acts of cruelty must be established against the accused; mere familial relations are insufficient.
Cruelty under Section 498A IPC is defined independently of any dowry demand; physical and mental abuse constitute sufficient grounds for charges under this section.
Cruelty and dowry offences – To attract Section 498-A of IPC, there need not be demand of dowry.
Conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone; direct proof of sustained cruelty or harassment is essential.
The absence of proximate evidence of harassment for dowry before the death of the deceased invalidated a conviction under Section 304B IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
