http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. SHANTI AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1990

BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) PANDIAN, S.R. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1226            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 675  1991 SCC  (1) 371        JT 1991 (1)   118  1990 SCALE  (2)988

ACT: Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 304-B and 498-A--Scope of.     Dowry Death--Relative of the husband of a woman subject- ing  her  to cruelty--Woman’s death occurring  in  unnatural circumstances--Prosecution of Accused-Conviction under  sec- tion  304-B--Acquittal under section 498-A--Effect  of--Sec- tions 304-B and 498-A--Whether mutually exclusive.     Evidence  Act,  1872: Section 113-B--Presumption  as  to dowry death. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 2--Dowry--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:     The appellants, along with three other co-accused,  were charged  of committing a dowry death. They  were  prosecuted under  sections  201, 304-B and 498-A of  the  Indian  Penal Code.  The Trial Court convicted the appellants on  all  the counts but acquitted the other three co-accused.     The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court which set aside their conviction under section 498-A holding that  Sections  304-B and 498-A are mutually  exclusive  and that when once the cruelty envisaged in section 498-A culmi- nates  in dowry death of the victim Section 304-B  alone  is attracted. Accordingly, the High Court acquitted the  appel- lants under section 498-A. But their convictions under  sec- tion 304-B and 201 were affirmed.     In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on  behalf of the appellants: (i) that the acquittal of the  appellants under  section 498-A indicates that cruelty on the  part  of the accused was not proved and consequently the death cannot be  one of "dowry death", and (ii) that there was no  direct evidence  in this case and that all the ingredients of  sec- tion 304-B of Indian Penal Code were not made out. Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 676     HELD: 1. The view of the.High Court that Sections  304-B and  498-A  I.P.C  are mutually exclusive  Is  not  correct. Sections  304-B  and  498-A cannot be held  to  be  mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that "cruelty" is a common essential to both  the Sections  and  that  has to be proved.  The  Explanation  to Section  498-A  gives the meaning of "cruelty".  In  Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

304-B  there  is no such explanation about  the  meaning  of "cruelty"  but  having regard to the  common  background  to these offences, the meaning of "cruelty or harassment"  will be  the  same as found in the explanation to  Section  498-A under which "cruelty" by itself mounts to an offence and  is punishable.  Under  Section 304-B, it is the  "dowry  death" that  is  punishable  and such death  should  have  occurred within  seven years of the marriage. No such period is  men- tioned  in  Section 498-A and the husband  or  his  relative would  be liable for subjecting the woman to  "cruelty"  any time  after the marriage. Further a person charged  and  ac- quitted  under section 304-B can be convicted under  Section 498-A  without charge being there, if such a case,  is  made out.  But from the point of view of practice  and  procedure and to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to  frame charges under both the Section and if the case  is established  they can be convicted under both  the  Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in  view of the substantive sentence being awarded  for  the major offence under Section 304-B. [682D-H; 683A]     1.1  In  the instant case, the High Court has  not  held that the prosecution has not established cruelty on the part of  the appellants but on the other hand it  considered  the entire  evidence and held that the element of cruelty  which is also an essential of Section 304-B I.P.C. has been estab- lished. In these circumstances, therefore, the mere  acquit- tal  of the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C.  makes  no difference for the purpose of this case. [682C-D]     2. In the instant case, there is absolutely no  material to  indicate  even remotely that it was a  case  of  natural death. It is nobody’s case that it Was accidental death.  In the  result it was an unnatural death; either  homicidal  or suicidal.  But  even assuming that it is a case  of  suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in  unnatural circumstances.  Even  in such a case, Section 304-B  is  at- tracted. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the appellants  have committed an offence punishable under  Sec- tion 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt. [681G-H; 682A]

JUDGMENT: