Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.  1519 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1959 of 2019)

Kantilal        .... Appellant(s) Versus

The State of Gujarat    ….Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. On  02.10.2013,   Maheshwari  committed  suicide  by

jumping from Jamalpur  Bridge into  Sabarmati  River.

FIR was registered on a complaint filed by her father

(PW-1)  that  Maheshwari  was being harassed by her

husband  –  Suhag  Kantibhai  Parmar  and  his  family

members for not complying their demand   of dowry.

He further alleged that Suhag Kantibhai Parmar had

an  illicit  relationship  with  another  lady.   Appellant-

Kantilal Laxman Parmar, father-in-law of the deceased,

was also accused of physically assaulting Maheshwari.

Allegations of physical and mental cruelty were made

1 | P a g e

against Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar - brother-in-

law,  Bhavnaben  Kantibhai  Parmar  -sister-in-law  and

Manoramaben  Kantibhai  Parmar  -  mother-in-law  of

Maheshwari.   According  to  the  FIR,  the  informant

came  to  know about  the  suicide  committed  by  his

daughter. He reached the hospital and found her body

lying  on  a  stretcher.   FIR  was  registered  under

Sections 498A, 306, 323 and 149 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 7

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.   

2. On  completion  of  the  investigation,  charges  were

framed against all the accused.  After conducting trial,

the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad convicted all the

accused under Sections 498A and 114 IPC.  Accused

No.2-Suhag  Kantibhai  Parmar  was  further  convicted

under Section 306 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of

the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act.   Accused  No.1-  the

Appellant  and  Accused  No.3  -  Pratik  @  Pintoo

Kantibhai  Parmar were also convicted under Section

323 IPC.  Accused No.2- Suhag Kantibhai Parmar was

sentenced  to  suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for  five

2 | P a g e

years  and  a  fine  of  Rs.2000/-  for  the  offence

punishable  under  Section  306  IPC.   He  was  further

sentenced to  five years for  the offences punishable

under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and  three  years  for  the  offence  punishable  under

Section 498A IPC.  The Appellant and Accused No.3

Pratik @ Pintoo Kantibhai Parmar were sentenced to

undergo  three  years  imprisonment  for  the  offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 114 IPC and six

months for the offence punishable under Section 323

IPC.  Accused No.4- Bhavnaben Kantibhai Parmar and

Accused No.5-  Manoramaben Kantibhai  Parmar were

sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment

for the offence punishable under Section 498A.   

3. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial  court was

convinced  that  deceased-Maheshwari  committed

suicide due to the harassment that she suffered at the

hands of the accused for not satisfying the demand of

dowry.  The evidence of PW- 1 and PW-4, who are the

father and mother of the deceased, was found to be

reliable.   The  trial  court  was  convinced  that  the

3 | P a g e

charges against the accused were proved on the basis

of  the evidence available on record.   In  the Appeal

filed  by  the  accused,  the  High  Court  acquitted

Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5, but upheld the conviction of

the Appellant for committing offences under Sections

498A, 114 and 323 IPC.  The conviction and sentence

of Accused No.2-Suhag Kantibhai  Parmar-husband of

the deceased, was also confirmed by the High Court.

We are informed that Accused No.2- Suhag  Kantibhai

Parmar  has undergone the sentence.   We are only

concerned with the Appeal filed by Accused No.1.  The

High  Court  upheld  the  conviction  and  sentence  of

Accused  No.1-  Kantilal  Laxmanbhai  Parmar  on  the

basis of the evidence of PW-1, that he was informed

by the deceased that she was beaten up twice by the

Appellant.     Ms.  Jaikriti  S.  Jadeja,  learned  counsel

appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that

the evidence of PW-1 could not have been relied upon

by  the  trial  court  and  the  High  Court   to  hold  the

Appellant guilty of the charges.   PW-1 deposed that

the deceased-Maheshwari as well as his wife (PW-4)

4 | P a g e

informed  him  that  the  Appellant  had  beaten  the

deceased-Maheshwari  twice.   Whereas,  PW-4  was

silent  about  the  Appellant  causing  any  physical

violence on her daughter.   

4. Ms.  Aastha  Mehta,  learned  counsel  appearing  on

behalf  of  the  State  submitted  that  the  suicide

committed by the deceased was due to harassment

by the Accused and his son Suhag Kantibhai Parmar.

The  medical  evidence  disclosed  that  the  deceased

was pregnant at the time of her death. The extreme

step  had  been  taken  by  the  deceased  due  to

unbearable torture at the hands of the Accused.  She

submitted  that  the evidence of  PW1 is  sufficient  to

uphold the conviction of the Appellant who was also

responsible  for  driving  the  deceased  to  commit

suicide.  

5. As stated earlier, Accused No.2 who is the husband of

the deceased accepted the conviction and served out

the sentence imposed upon him and the conviction

and sentence of Accused Nos. 3 and 5 were set aside.

5 | P a g e

Apart  from  the  allegation  that  the  entire  family

harassed the deceased, the overt act attributed to the

Appellant  is  that  he  had  physically  assaulted  the

deceased  on  two  occasions.   This  allegation  finds

place in  the FIR.   PW-1 deposed in  court  about the

Appellant  beating  the  deceased  on  two  occasions.

PW1 stated that he was informed by PW4 about the

incident of Appellant beating his deceased daughter.

However, PW 4 did not speak of any such incident of

the Appellant beating the deceased on two occasions.

Reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of

PW1,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Appellant  was

convicted under Sections 498A, 114 and 323 as there

is  no  corroboration  by  PW4 who is  alleged to  have

given the information to him.  Other than the above

allegation, the Appellant stands on the same footing

as  of  Accused  Nos.  3,  4  and  5  who  have  been

acquitted by the High Court.   As the accusation of the

physical assault by the appellant on the deceased is

not proved, he is entitled to be acquitted.

6 | P a g e

6. In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal is allowed and the

Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections

498A,  114  and  323  of  the  IPC.   The  Appellant  is

directed to be released forthwith if he is not required

in any other case.   

                ..…................................J.

                                             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]          

                                     ..…….............................J.                                                    [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, October 04, 2019.  

7 | P a g e