Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi Versus State of Gujarat : Supreme Court-Section 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code 1860
Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2009 Judgment Date: Dec 05, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2009
Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi .....Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat .....Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
The sole appellant, Kanchanben is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is
facing conviction under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as IPC) with sentence of RI for eight years and
penalty of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. She has also been
convicted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with simple
imprisonment for five years and penalty of Rs.3,000/- with default clause.
For conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, she has been
inflicted with simple imprisonment of six months and penalty of Rs. 500/-.
The sentences have to run concurrently.
For the offence in question in which the daughter-in-law of the appellant
namely Hina died a suicidal death after consuming poison within seven
months of her marriage with the son of the appellant, the Police
chargesheeted three persons, accused No.1 Nilesh Kumar, who is the husband
of the deceased, the appellant as accused No.2 and appellant's husband
Purshattambhai as accused No.3. As per prosecution case, the marriage
between the deceased and Nilesh was solemnized on 4.12.1997. She went from
her parental house at Surat to her matrimonial home at Vidyanagar which
falls on the way from Surat to Ahmedabad and is just one hour drive from
Ahmedabad. According to the prosecution case, during the short span of
matrimonial life the deceased faced demands for dowry as well as mental and
physical harassment from the accused persons. She confided her sad plight
with her mother, the informant Chandrikaben (PW 8), as well as her cousin
sister Aartiben (PW 10) and a friend Sonalben (PW 18).
According to the prosecution case, the accused persons wanted various
articles by way of dowry and the demand was conveyed to the deceased mainly
by her mother-in-law, the appellant who allegedly, also used to instigate
her son Nilesh to ill-treat his wife the deceased.
The specific case of the prosecution is that on 5.7.1998, Hina informed her
mother at about 8.30 a.m. on telephone that due to ill-treatment she was
fed up and was going to end her life. Soon thereafter, the father-in-law
of the deceased informed the parents of the deceased-Hina that she had
consumed poison and was being removed to hospital. The parents left Surat
by road but by the time they reached the hospital after 2 p.m., Hina was
unconscious and was gasping for breath and soon she died.
The material on record discloses that on the date of death of Hina i.e.
5.7.1998 itself, first information report was lodged by PW-8 Chandrikaben
disclosing physical and mental harassment of the deceased particularly at
the hands of her mother-in-law as well as demands for various articles by
way of dowry. The post-mortem examination of dead body of Hina was
conducted after necessary panchnama and on receipt of report from the
Forensic Science Laboratory, it was confirmed that she had died of aluminum
phosphate poisoning.
After holding trial in accordance with law and taking on record oral as
well as documentary evidence, the trial court did not find sufficient
specific allegation against accused No.3, the father-in-law of the deceased
and therefore accused No.3 was acquitted of all charges whereas accused
No.1, the husband of the deceased and the appellant were convicted for
identical charges as noticed earlier but acquitted of charge under section
306 IPC.
Both the convicted accused preferred appeals before the High Court against
their conviction. The State of Gujarat also preferred an appeal against
acquittal of accused No.3 and a criminal revision was also instituted on
account of a notice issued by the High Court for enhancement of sentence
awarded to the convicted accused. The High Court by common judgment and
order, which is under appeal noticed certain special features in the
conduct of accused No.1, the husband such as his having received a call
from his wife, the deceased and taken her to hospital and that instances
against him were general in nature and therefore granted acquittal to
accused No.1. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by confirming the
conviction and sentence as made by the Trial Court.
Mrs. Meenakashi Arora, learned senior counsel argued the appeal at length
seeking acquittal of the appellant on various grounds but particularly on
the ground that the evidence against the appellant and against her son,
accused No.1, who has been acquitted by the High Court stand at par and
therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of such parity. The other
main ground urged by the senior counsel was that allegations of general
harassment or cruelty against the mother-in- law i.e. the appellant cannot
be used for sustaining conviction under Section 304B of the IPC unless it
is found on the basis of good evidence that such harassment was in
connection with any demand for dowry.
To supplement the oral arguments extending over more than two days, written
submissions have also been filed with a view to criticize the prosecution
case and create doubt regarding the correctness of allegations, both in
respect of harassment and demand for dowry. It has also been highlighted
that the death was on account of deceased taking a small dose of poisonous
tablet which could be by accident. A defence plea was also raised that
father of the deceased had talks with one Minister and some officials of
the police while he was traveling from Surat to reach the hospital and meet
his daughter. On that basis it had been argued that the prosecution
witness Dhirubhai (PW 9) being a member of legislative assembly wielded
influence and interfered with investigation. Elaborating such interference
it was suggested that in all probability the deceased Hina must have made
some statement in the Hospital and as no such statement has been disclosed,
this appears to be a result of interference with investigation. Some case
laws have also been cited particularly on the proposition that dowry does
not include customary gifts not related to marriage, as spelt out in the
case of Satbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2001(8) SCC 633 and several
subsequent judgments taking the same view. Judgment of this Court in the
case of Durga Prasad vs. State of M.P. 2010 (9) SCC 74 is one of the main
judgments relied upon to support the proposition that even if cruelty to
the deceased is proved, in order to bring home the guilt against the
accused under Section 304B IPC, it must further be proved that the cruelty
was in relation to demand for dowry. Several other judgments referred to
in the written submissions are on general principles governing criminal
trials and therefore, need not be dealt with separately. However, it is
useful to take note of judgments beginning from the case of Hardial Singh
vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 455 in support of the proposition
that where evidence is common to all accused, parity must be maintained in
the matter of their conviction.
On the other hand, Ms. Jesel, learned counsel for the State has drawn the
attention of this Court to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the High Court judgment
to show that all the criticism made against the prosecution case in respect
of evidence to show harassment and demand of dowry was carefully considered
to come to a finding that it was the accused No.2 Kanchanben, the appellant
before us who caused cruelty and ill-treatment to Hina and was responsible
for demand of dowry. In paragraph 23, the High Court further noted the ill-
treatment and harassment caused by the appellant and her behavior when a
common relation Hasmukhbhai (PW 12) went to the house of the accused with a
view to advise the accused not to torture the deceased. From further
discussion in paragraph 23 it was shown that so far as the evidence against
the accused No.1 was concerned, only general allegations were leveled
against him and in that light the High Court noticed that almost similar
general allegations were leveled against accused No.3, the father-in-law.
In paragraph 23.1 it was further noted that besides parity in the case of
accused No.1 and accused No.3 apparently the deceased had faith in accused
No.1, as after consuming poison she immediately telephoned him. It was he
who came to the house and took Hina to hospital and admitted her for
treatment. The Court further noted that Hasmukhbhai (PW 12) did not allege
any demand of dowry by Nilesh accused no.1 nor did Nilesh make any
complaint against the deceased. As against the appellant, the High Court
found cogent and specific evidence that she ill-treated and caused cruelty
to the deceased.
Thus, according to learned counsel for the State, there could not be merit
in the criticism of the defence that the case of the appellant stood at par
with that of other co-accused who have been acquitted. She also pointed
out that the plea of deceased having taken poison by mistake or
accidentally is totally without merit, in view of earliest version of the
occurrence in the FIR supported by the evidence of the informant that at
about 8.30 in the morning of the fateful date, the deceased telephoned her
mother to inform her that she was fed up with her life on account of
torture and she was going to end her life. Hence, there could not be any
chance of accidental taking of a highly fatal poison which no body can keep
in the bed room mixed with ordinary medicines. She conceded that a demand
of a mixture juicer which was clearly established through evidence of more
than one witness was not mentioned in the FIR and demand of Rs.5 lacs
spoken of by Sonalben (PW 18), a friend of the deceased, might be a mistake
for Rs.50 thousand as appearing in the evidence of some other witnesses.
She, however, further contended that such minor discrepancies cannot
discredit the entire prosecution case.
It stands to reason that all minute details and all items relating to
demand by way of dowry may not come to the mind of grieving mother of the
deceased at the time of lodging of FIR. It is well established in law that
FIR should contain the essential features of the prosecution case but it
cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia of whole prosecution case. It may
be quite natural for a friend of the deceased such as PW 18 not to remember
the exact figure which was disclosed by the deceased sometime back as the
amount demanded by the mother-in-law. Learned counsel for the State also
placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish
Chandra and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2014 (6) SCC 723 in support of
the proposition that if sufficient and good material is available on record
then mother-in-law of the victim in a case under Section 304B IPC may
lawfully be convicted for such an offence even in the absence of conviction
of the husband.
After going through the relevant material including judgments of the courts
below and evidence of material witnesses, particularly informant PW 8, her
husband PW 9, a cousin of the deceased PW 10 and a friend of the deceased
PW 18 this Court finds that the High Court has committed no error in
appreciating the evidence for coming to the conclusion that allegations of
torture as well as demand of articles by way of dowry against the appellant
was clear, specific and stood proved. Learned senior counsel has tried to
show that the family of the appellant is quite well off having two cars and
two scooters for use. But that by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve
the statement of witnesses noticed above. Even the evidence of PW 12 who
is the common relation of both the parties discloses in no uncertain terms
that he had received information from not only the informant Chandirkaben
(PW8) but also from his niece Aartiben (PW 10) of demand of dowry articles
as well as harassment and torture made to deceased Hina and disclosed by
her to the informant and PW 10. In the last part of his statement in
chief, PW 12 has categorically stated that Hina was being harassed mentally
and physically for the purpose of receiving dowry and therefore she
committed suicide by taking poison. The evidence of PW 8, the informant at
many places is very specific based upon version given by the deceased that
her mother-in-law was finding faults repeatedly with her house hold work,
she was compelling her to get up early in the morning and was misguiding
Nilesh, accused No.1 by talking about very minor matters about the
deceased. At another place PW 8 deposed that the deceased informed her
that her mother-in-law asked the deceased in the name of Nilesh to bring a
big box type cot, room furniture, juicer mixer, gifts and cash amount
received in marriage from her parents otherwise Nilesh would divorce her.
When Hina told her mother in law that if such talk takes place she will
commit suicide, the mother-in-law replied that her son will be relieved if
she commits suicide.
Even the evidence of PWs 10 and 18, when examined carefully disclose
specific and clear allegations against the appellant in respect of demand
as well as torture.
On a careful perusal of the entire materials, it is found that the
appellant cannot claim parity with the case of accused Nos.1 or 3 who were
acquitted by the High Court and by the Trial Court respectively. The other
criticisms against the prosecution case were raised before the court below
and those have been satisfactorily dealt with by them. Hence they require
no repetition.
In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed. However, in our view ends of justice would be
satisfactorily met by reducing the sentence of eight years RI for offences
under Section 304B and 498A to seven years RI. We order accordingly.
Other sentences shall remain the same. The bail bond of the appellant shall
stand cancelled. She must surrender or be apprehended to serve out the
remaining sentence in accordance with law.
...................................................J.
[M.Y. EQBAL]
.................................................J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
December 05, 2014.