http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

SAROJINI AND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1992

BENCH:

[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

ACT:

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Sections 302 read with 34, 201-Dowry death-Husband and

mother-in-law charged with-Convicted and sentenced to life

imprisonment-High Court acquitting both the accused giving

them benefit of doubt-Mother-in-law convicted u/s.201 and

sentenced-‘Participis Criminis’-Circumstances clearly

showing both the accused participating in the crime-

Acquittal set aside and conviction and sentence of both the

accused restored-Conviction and sentence of Mother-in-law

u/s.201-Affirmed.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant-accused and her son were charged with

offences under S.302 read with S.34 IPC or alternatively

under S.306 read with S.34 I.P.C. for causing the death of ,

or abetment to cause suicide by, the daughter-in-law/wife of

the accused. According to the prosecution, it was a case of

dowry death. The dead body was found in a completely burnt

condition in the matrimonial house of the deceased. The

trial Court convicted both the accused under S.302 IPC read

with S.34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life.

On appeal the High Court acquitted both the mother and

son of their offences under S.302 read with S.34 IPC but

convicted the mother under S.201 IPC and sentenced her to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal and

the convicted accused preferred an appeal against her

conviction and sentence.

On behalf of the appellant accused it was contended

that the deceased either committed suicide or died due to

fire accident; that the husband of the deceased was not

present at the time of occurrence; and that the mother-in-

law was entitled to acquittal under S.201 IPC.

Allowing the appeal by the State and dismissing the

appeal by the accused, this Court,

HELD: 1. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of

the Post-mortem Doctor and the forensic Doctor, Who minutely

examined all the factual details and came to the finding

that the death was due to asphexia. This finding has been

accepted by the trial court as well as the High Court. Thus

there is no conflict of medical opinions to extend the

benefit of doubt to the accused. [32-D-E]

State (Delhi Admn.) v. Gulzarilal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC

1982, distinguished.

2. The conduct of the appellant-accused as evidenced by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

Ex.P-1 to P-4 the pre-marital demand for dowry and non-

compliance thereof is a relevant fact to establish motive as

rightly found by the courts below. The fact that the

daughter-in-law met with homicidal death within three months

from the date of marriage is also a relevant fact to

conclude that the death was due to the failure to comply

with the demand for dowry. At the earliest the appellant

accused came forward with the plea that the deceased

committed suicide at 8.00 or 8.30 a.m after taking meal,

which is found to be false, is also a relevant fact in

completing the chain of circumstances. [33-C-D)

3. The dead body was found in the store room which is in

the first floor. There is no other way of ingress or egress

to the first floor, except through the stair-case lying in

the ground floor of the house. As such it is impossible for

any other person to enter into the house except the inmates.

Admittedly, the deceased and her mother-in-law alone were

living in the house while her husband was working at a place

90 KMs. away and obviously he was coming and going to his

place of duty. The High Court also accepted the possibility

of his coming to his house and after committing the offence

he must have left the place as the journey on the high-way

would tak