http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  585 of 2001

PETITIONER: Hazarilal

RESPONDENT: State of M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment  rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh  High Court, Jabalpur.  Appellant along with his mother Smt.  Sumatrani faced trial for alleged commission of offence  punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of the Indian  Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’). The learned second  Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No.125 of  1990, held the accused persons guilty and convicted each for  offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and  imposed sentence of 10 years and 3 years respectively with  fine of the second offence.     2.      Dashoda Bai (hereinafter called as ’deceased’) was the  daughter of Asha Ram (PW-1) and Parvati Bai (PW-2).   According to the prosecution she committed suicide by  burning herself on 28.8.1989 in the house of her husband.  About 10 days before the occurrence she was blessed with a  son.   

3.      Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:               In January, 1989 Dashoda Bai came to the house of her  parents and told them that now she would not go to the place  of her in-laws because she was being harassed by her mother- in-law and being beaten by her husband.  She had also shown  the marks of the injuries to them.  According to her the they   were demanding a golden ring, golden chain and a fan as  dowry.  They were threatening that accused-appellant Hajarilal  would re-marry.  The parents of the deceased complained to  Motilal, father of Hajarilal that their daughter was being  harassed and beaten by the mother-in-law and the husband.   Motilal promised that there would be no such complaint in  future.  On this assurance the parents of the girl sent her with  Motilal.  On the birth of the male child the parents of the girl  sent certain gifts which have been described as "Panch".  On  that occasion accused Hazarilal had expressed that he was not  happy with the deceased and her father should take her away.   He also expressed that he does not want to keep her.  On  22.9.1989 Motilal lodged the F.I.R. (Ex.P/10) at Garhakota  Police Station that Dashoda Bai had sustained burn injuries.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

She died on account of those injuries.  The accused pleaded  not guilty.  Their defence was that Dashoda Bai died on  account of bursting of the stove.  It was further stated that the  father of the deceased asked Motilal to make a gift of eight  acres of land in favour of the child left by the deceased and on  his refusal to do so he has given a false statement to the  police.        

4.      The trial court held the accused person guilty and as  noted above sentenced them.                                5.      In the appeal before the High Court it was urged that  there was no evidence to establish the demand of dowry and  also there was no evidence that the deceased was being  harassed and subjected to cruelty.  The High Court found that  there was no evidence of demand of dowry.  The prosecution  version relating to demand of dowry of golden ring, golden  chain and a fan did not appear to be true.  It noted that the  father of the deceased had been financed by the appellant for  purchase of some articles and in fact the appellant had taken  a loan in his name for the purpose.  The amount was far in  excess of the cost of the golden ring.  Therefore, the High  Court noted that he was not demanding any dowry.   Accordingly, the convictions so far as related to Section 304-B  was set aside in respect of both the accused persons.  So far  as the accusation under Section 498A was concerned, the  High Court came to hold that after giving birth to a child in the  normal course she could not have entertained the idea to  commit suicide unless she was being harassed by the  appellant.  Accordingly conviction under Section 498A was  maintained only so far as it related to appellant but the co- accused was acquitted.                                                

6.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that after having recorded a positive  finding that there was no question of any dowry demand the  conviction in terms of Section 498A was clearly untenable.       

7.      Leaned counsel for the State on the other hand  submitted that though there was no evidence of any demand  for dowry, the harassment and cruelty could be for special  reasons.  

8.      The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 show that they spoke about  the dowry to be the basis for suicide.  The High Court came to  the conclusion that because the deceased had given birth to a  child there was no reason for her to commit suicide. The  evidence of the parents of the deceased PWs 1 and 2 was only  relatable to dowry.  The High Court held that there was no  question of demand of dowry, and in fact, appellant was  financing the father of the deceased PW1. There being no other  material to show as to how the deceased was being harassed  or subjected to cruelty, the conclusion of the High Court that  because the deceased committed suicide there must be some  harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible.  There was no material to substantiate this conclusion. Merely  on surmises and conjectures the conviction could not have  recorded. There is a vast difference between "could have been",  "must have been" and "has been". In the absence of any  material, the case falls to the first category. In such a case  conviction is impermissible.          

9.      That being so, the conviction as recorded by the High  Court cannot be maintained and the order of the High Court is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

unsustainable and indefensible.    

10.     The appeal is allowed.  The bail bonds executed for the  purpose of bail stand discharged.