REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  831 OF 2001

Balwant Singh and Ors.  ….Appellants

Versus

State of H.P. ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a learned

Single  Judge  of  the  Himachal  Pradesh  High  Court  holding

each  of  the  appellants  guilty  of  offence  punishable  under

Section 498A of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860 (in  short  the

‘IPC’)  while  setting  aside  the  conviction  and  the  sentence

imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The  appellants-accused  were  tried  for  offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. Accused

No.1  Balwant  Singh  was  father-in-law,  accused  No.4-Kanta

Devi  was  mother-in-law,  accused  No.3-Ravinder  Singh  was

brother-in-law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband of

Renu  Bala  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘deceased’).  The

deceased  was  daughter  of  one  Gurdayal  Singh  and  Kamla

Devi. She was married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 in

accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals.   After few days of

her  marriage,  when  Renu  Bala  visited  the  house  of  her

parents,  she  complained  as  to  how  accused  persons  were

treating her with cruelty by putting  demands for refrigerator

and scooter as dowry. It was alleged that on January 5, 1993,

Kamla Devi,  mother of  Renu Bala came to know from Tilak

Raj,  her  brother-in-law  that  Renu  Bala was  admitted  in  a

2

hospital at Gagret. She, therefore, along with Tilak Raj went to

the hospital, but Renu Bala was not there, and they came to

know that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar Kalan, the village

where the accused were staying. Both of them then went to

the residence of the accused and found Renu Bala lying dead

in  verandah of  the  house  of  the  accused  and  none  of  the

accused was there. Kamla Devi suspected foul play that her

daughter  Renu  Bala  was  either  killed  or  was  compelled  to

commit  suicide  by  consuming  poison  on  account  of  their

unlawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating her

with cruelty.  She,  therefore,  lodged a report  with the police

Ex.PW-3/A  under  Section  154  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’)  at Police Station, Una,

which was registered as formal F.I.R. vide Ex.PW-11/A. After

registration of the case, the investigation started. The police

went to the spot, prepared inquest report and rough spot map

of the place where dead body of Renu Bala was found. The

Investigating officer also took into possession vomit of Renu

Bala and the clothes worn by her at the time of vomiting prior

to her death. Two letters, which were produced by Devinder

3

Singh,  were  also  taken  in  possession.  Postmortem  was

conducted  by  Dr.  Vijay  Kumar  Raizda,  which revealed  that

Renu Bala was having pregnancy of fourteen to sixteen weeks.

He reserved his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt of

report  of  Chemical  Analyser.  After  receiving  the  report,  Dr.

Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of death was peripheral

circulatory  failure  due  to  aluminum  phosphide  which  was

sufficient cause of death in natural course of events. Further

investigation  was  conducted  by  ASI,  Jarnail  Singh,  who

obtained  two  letters  produced  by  Gurdyal  Singh,  father  of

deceased Renu Bala. He submitted a report under Section 173

of the Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Una, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions

Judge, Una, vide his order dated April 25, 1994.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State

as  well  as  learned  defence  counsel,  a  charge  was  framed

against  the  accused  for  the  offences  punishable  under

Sections  498-A,  304-B  and  306  of  the  IPC  and  they  were

asked as to whether they plead guilty.

4

The  accused  did  not  plead  guilty  to  the  charge  and

claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16

witnesses.  After  the  prosecution  evidence  was  closed

statements of the accused persons were recorded in terms of

the Section 313 of the Code. Six witnesses were examined to

establish their innocence.  From the suggestions put during

cross examination the accused persons tried to make out a

case that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and frustrated

by her life she committed suicide.   The trial  court as noted

above held the accused persons guilty of offences punishable

under Section 498A and 306 IPC while directing acquittal of

the  charge  in terms of  Section 304-B IPC.   In  appeal  after

referring to the  evidence  High Court  came  to  hold that  the

offence under Section 306 is not made out.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there

is no evidence of any overt act by A-3. The letters Exh.PW-5/A

5

and PW-5/C show that there was no demand of  dowry but

there was improper treatment.  

5. Learned counsel  for the appellants  further pointed  out

that having held that the appellants were not guilty of offence

punishable  under  Section  306  IPC  there  is  no  scope  for

convicting the appellants under Section 498A IPC.  

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand

supported the judgment of the High Court.  

Section 498A reads as follows:

“498A:  Husband or relative of husband of a woman  subjecting  her  to  cruelty-  Whoever, being  the  husband  or  the  relative  of  the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to  cruelty  shall  be  punished  with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.  

Explanation – For the purpose of this section ’cruelty’ means –

(a) any  wilful  conduct  which  is  of  such  a nature  as  is  likely  to  drive  the  woman  to commit  suicide  or  to  cause  grave  injury  or

6

danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment  of  the  woman  where  such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any  person  related  to  her  to  meet  any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any  person  related  to  her  to  meet  such demand.”

7. Consequences  of  cruelty  which  are  likely  to  drive  a

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger

to  life,  limb  or  health,  whether  mental  or  physical  of  the

woman are required to be established in order to bring home

the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined

in  the  Explanation  for  the  purpose  of  Section  498A.

Substantive Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 113B

of  the  Evidence  Act  have  been  inserted  in  the  respective

statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is

to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A, IPC cannot be held

to  be  mutually  inclusive.  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

7

Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of ‘cruelty’.  In

Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning

of  ‘cruelty’.   But  having  regard  to  common  background  to

these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of ‘cruelty’

or ‘harassment’ is the same as prescribed in the Explanation

to Section 498A under which ‘cruelty’ by itself amounts to an

offence.   Under  Section  304B  it  is  ‘dowry  death’  that  is

punishable  and  such  death  should  have  occurred  within

seven  years  of  marriage.   No  such  period  is  mentioned  in

Section 498A.  A person charged and acquitted under Section

304B  can  be  convicted  under  Section  498A  without  that

charge being there, if such a case is made out.  If the case is

established,  there  can  be  a  conviction  under  both  the

sections.   (See  Akula  Ravinder  and  others v.  The  State  of

Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and

Section 113B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude

past events of cruelty.  Period of operation of Section 113B of

the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a

woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from

the date of marriage.             

8

The above position was highlighted in  M. Srinivasulu v.

State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 3146).

8. On analyzing of the evidence it is clear that there is no

material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the

deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So

far  as  other  three  accused  persons  are  concerned,  the

accusations have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4

and 5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and

the convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot

be faulted.  

9. It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  High  Court  has  imposed

sentence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law

and mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence

already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the

sentence  is  reduced  to  the  period  already  undergone.   The

appeal stands dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned.   

9

10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, September 29, 2008

10