Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2008

Bhupendra                   .…..Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh     …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The  question  before  us  is  whether  Bhupendra  (the  

appellant) was rightly convicted by the Additional Sessions  

Judge,  Morena,  Madhya  Pradesh  of  having  committed  an  

offence punishable under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and  

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and whether his  

conviction was rightly upheld by the High Court of Madhya  

Pradesh.  In our opinion the question must be answered in  

the affirmative and therefore we find no merit in this appeal.

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 1 of 17

Page 2

The facts 2. Geeta Bai married Bhupendra on 7th June, 1993 and at  

that  time  her  father  PW-1  Bhika  Ram  gave  dowry  to  

Bhupendra and his family according to their means. The case  

of  the  prosecution  was  that  Geeta  Bai  was  harassed  by  

Bhupendra and members of his family who demanded dowry  

over  and  above  what  was  given  to  them  at  the  time  of  

marriage. Initially, the demand was for a she buffalo which  

was met by Bhika Ram. Then there was a further demand for  

Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 20th August, 1996.  However, since  

Bhika Ram was unable to meet this demand, and apparently  

fearing the worst, Geeta Bai consumed wheat tablets on the  

evening of 20th August, 1996 at her matrimonial home.

3. Since Geeta Bai had taken unwell, Bhupendra took her  

to the District  Hospital  at  Morena for  treatment.  PW-8 Dr.  

S.C. Aggarwal informed the Station Officer of Police Station  

City Kotwali at about 10.30 p.m. about the incident. Later on,  

Geeta Bai died at about 11.25 p.m. and intimation of this  

was also sent by Dr. Aggarwal to the Station Officer of Police  

Station  City  Kotwali.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 2 of 17

Page 3

received,  a  case  was  registered  and  investigations  

commenced by the police.   

4. Separately,  Bhika  Ram  made  a  complaint  on  21st  

August,  1996  to  the  Superintendent  of  Police  and  to  the  

District  Magistrate  at  Morena  that  Bhupendra,  his  father  

Vrindavan and his mother Sheela Devi had caused the dowry  

death of Geeta Bai.  

5. On  the  same  day,  a  post  mortem  examination  was  

conducted on the body of Geeta Bai and it was opined by  

PW-7  Dr.  Siyaram  Sharma  (who  had  conducted  the  post  

mortem examination) that she had two injuries on her body,  

one on the left forearm which was caused by a hard, blunt  

object while the other injury was on the back of the right  

hand caused by a tooth bite.  Both these injuries were ante  

mortem.  It  was also opined that the cause of death was  

suspected poisoning.1

6. On these broad facts, a charge sheet was filed against  

the  three  accused  persons  for  offences  punishable  under  

1 Though  the  viscera  of  the  deceased  were  sent  for  chemical  examination,  the  examination report had not been received when the witness was examined on 13 th  August, 1999.

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 3 of 17

Page 4

Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and in the alternative  

for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

Decision of the Trial Court 7. The Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1996  

pronounced judgment on 6th June, 2001.  It was held, on an  

examination  of  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence,  that  

there was nothing to doubt the correctness and veracity of  

the evidence given by Bhika Ram, his wife PW-2 Munni Devi,  

his brother-in-law PW-3 Munna Lal, the aunt of the deceased  

being  PW-4  Urmila  and  Bhika  Ram’s  brother  PW-5  Ram  

Narayan.

8. It was held, on the basis of their evidence, that apart  

from the dowry given to Bhupendra’s family at the time of  

marriage, there was an additional demand for dowry made  

by Vrindavan to give him one buffalo.  This demand was met  

by  Bhika  Ram  but  there  was  a  further  demand  on  20th  

August, 1996 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which could not be  

met by him.   

9. It was also held that due to the inability of Bhika Ram to  

immediately meet the demand for additional dowry, Geeta  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 4 of 17

Page 5

Bai was subjected to harassment and cruelty for not bringing  

adequate dowry.  She was subjected to beating and was not  

given  proper  clothes  to  wear  about  which  she  had  even  

informed Bhika Ram.  

10. Finally, it was held that Geeta Bai had died an unnatural  

death  within  7  years  of  her  marriage  thereby  inviting  an  

adverse  presumption  of  a  dowry  death  against  all  the  

accused persons.

11. The  Sessions  Judge  noted  that  according  to  the  

accused, Geeta Bai died due to food poisoning.  He noted  

that there was no evidence brought forth in this regard and  

that no other member of the family had complained of any  

food poisoning.  It was also noted that Dr. S.C. Aggarwal had  

stated in his cross examination that the ill  effects of food  

poisoning  are  not  so  intense  as  to  cause  the  death  of  a  

person within an hour.

12. On the basis  of  the evidence on record the Sessions  

Judge  found  Bhupendra  and  Vrindavan  guilty  of  offences  

punishable under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section  

306 of the IPC.  However, he found that the prosecution had  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 5 of 17

Page 6

failed to prove that Sheela Devi had humiliated Geeta Bai or  

treated her with cruelty which resulted in her death within 7  

years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances.

Decision of the High Court 13. Feeling aggrieved, by their conviction and the sentence  

imposed upon them, Vrindavan and Bhupendra filed Criminal  

Appeal  No.  344  of  2001  in  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh. By judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007  

the High Court upheld the conviction of Bhupendra but held  

that there was no clinching evidence against Vrindavan and  

therefore  he  was  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  doubt  and  

consequent acquittal.   

14. The High Court noted the contentions made on behalf  

of the convicts on the merits of the case, namely, that the  

statements of Geeta Bai’s parents were not reliable and that  

she  had  died  as  a  result  of  food  poisoning.  It  was  also  

contended  that  some  material  witnesses  had  not  been  

examined by the prosecution.   

15. The High Court concluded that virtually from the date of  

her marriage, Geeta Bai had been treated with cruelty and  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 6 of 17

Page 7

subjected to harassment for not bringing sufficient dowry.  In  

fact Vrindavan had clearly informed Bhika Ram that Geeta  

Bai would be killed in case the demand for additional dowry  

was not fulfilled.  Even on 20th August, 1996 Bhupendra had  

come to Bhika Ram’s house and had demanded Rs. 10,000/-  

cash as additional dowry.  On that occasion, when Geeta Bai  

was going to her matrimonial home along with Bhupendra,  

she  told  Bhika  Ram  that  she  was  being  harassed  and  

requested  him  to  fulfill  the  demand  for  additional  dowry  

otherwise she would be killed.

16. The  High  Court  found  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the  

testimony  of  Bhika  Ram  nor  did  it  find  any  reason  to  

disbelieve  the  testimony  of  other  witnesses  even  though  

they  belonged to  Bhika  Ram’s  extended family.  The High  

Court also concluded that Geeta Bai was subjected to cruelty  

and harassment as a result of which she consumed wheat  

tablets and died an unnatural death. It was also noted that  

there were ante mortem injuries on the body of Geeta Bai.

17. As regards the failure of the prosecution to record the  

testimony of some material witnesses, the High Court held  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 7 of 17

Page 8

that  the  prosecution  had  examined  witnesses  who  gave  

evidence in detail about the cruelty and death of Geeta Bai  

and  no  adverse  inference  could  be  drawn  if  additional  

witnesses were not examined.    

18. The High Court found that in so far as the conviction of  

Bhupendra is  concerned,  there  was adequate evidence to  

uphold  it  but  the  evidence  to  hold  Vrindavan  guilty  was  

insufficient and accordingly he was acquitted.

19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th  

October,  2007 passed by the High Court,  Bhupendra is  in  

appeal.

Discussion 20. Learned counsel urged two contentions before us, none  

of which were raised before the Sessions Judge or before the  

High  Court.  Frankly,  we  ought  not  to  entertain  these  

contentions. But, according to learned counsel there is some  

lack of clarity on the issues raised and it is only because of  

this that we have entertained his submissions.  

21. The  first  contention  was  that  since  there  was  no  

chemical examination report of the viscera, it could not be  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 8 of 17

Page 9

said that Geeta Bai died because of consuming poisonous  

wheat tablets.  The second contention was that a conviction  

could not be sustained both under Section 304-B of the IPC  

as well as under Section 306 of the IPC.  In this context it  

was urged that both these sections were mutually exclusive  

and a conviction can be founded on either of these sections  

but not both.

Section 304-B of the IPC reads as follows: “304-B.  Dowry  death.—(1)  Where  the  death  of  a  woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs  otherwise  than  under  normal  circumstances  within  seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon  before  her  death  she  was  subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband  or  any  relative  of  her  husband  for,  or  in  connection  with,  any  demand  for  dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and  such  husband  or  relative  shall  be  deemed  to  have  caused her death.

Explanation.—For  the  purpose  of  this  sub-section,  “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of  the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2)  Whoever commits  dowry death shall  be punished  with imprisonment for a term which shall  not be less  than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  to  imprisonment for life.”

Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows: “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits  suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 9 of 17

Page 10

shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  description for a term which may extend to ten years,  and shall also be liable to fine.”

Absence of a viscera report 22. Normally, the viscera are preserved and submitted for  

chemical  analysis  under  the  following  circumstances:  (1)  

When  the  investigating  officer  requests  for  such  an  

examination;  (2)  When  the  medical  officer  suspects  the  

presence of poison by smell or some other evidence while  

conducting  an  autopsy  on  injury  cases;  (3)  To  exclude  

poisoning, in instances where the cause of death could not  

be arrived at on post mortem examination and there is no  

natural  disease  or  injury  to  account  for  it,  and  (4)  In  

decomposed bodies.2

23. In Taiyab Khan and Others v. State of Bihar (Now  

Jharkhand),  (2005)  13  SCC 455 it  was  urged  that  the  

viscera report would have shown whether the dowry death of  

the appellant’s wife occurred on account of consumption of  

poison.  Since the chemical examination report of the viscera  

2 Parikhs’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; Fourth edition, 1985 at  page 90.

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 10 of 17

Page 11

was not received, it could not be said to be a case of death  

by poisoning. This contention was rejected by holding that  

factually the case was one of an unnatural death. Therefore,  

since Section 304-B of the IPC refers to death which occurs  

otherwise than under normal circumstances, the absence of  

a viscera report would not make any difference to the fate of  

the case. In other words, for the purposes of Section 304-B  

of the IPC the mere fact of an unnatural death is sufficient to  

invite a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence  

Act, 1872.

24. The view expressed in  Taiyab Khan was reiterated in  

Ananda  Mohan  Sen  and  Another  v.  State  of  West  

Bengal, (2007) 10 SCC 774.  In that case the exact cause  

of death could not be stated since the viscera preserved by  

the autopsy surgeon were to be sent to the chemical expert.  

In fact, one of the witnesses stated that the unnatural death  

was due to the effect of poisoning but he would be able to  

conclusively state the cause of death by poisoning only if he  

could detect poison in the viscera report. This Court noted  

that it was not in dispute that the death was an unnatural  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 11 of 17

Page 12

death and held that the deposition of the witness indicated  

that the death was due to poisoning.  It is only the nature of  

the poison that could not be identified.  In view of this, the  

conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC was  

upheld, there being no charge under Section 304-B of the  

IPC.

25. In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999)  

8  SCC 715  the  accused  and  the  victim had  coffee  at  a  

friend’s  house.  Soon  thereafter,  the  accused  launched  a  

murderous  assault  on  the  victim  with  a  chopper.  It  was  

pleaded by the accused that if they actually had coffee at  

the friend’s house, it would have shown up in the stomach  

contents.  This  Court  dismissed  the  contention  as  “too  

puerile”. It was held that there was no need for the doctor to  

ascertain whether there was coffee in the stomach contents  

of  the  victim.  This  is  because  the  case  was  not  one  of  

suspected death by poisoning.   

26. These  decisions  clearly  bring  out  that  a  chemical  

examination of the viscera is not mandatory in every case of  

a dowry death; even when a viscera report is sought for, its  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 12 of 17

Page 13

absence  is  not  necessarily  fatal  to  the  case  of  the  

prosecution  when  an  unnatural  death  punishable  under  

Section 304-B of  the IPC or  under Section 306 of  the IPC  

takes place; in a case of an unnatural death inviting Section  

304-B of the IPC (read with the presumption under Section  

113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872) or Section 306 of the IPC  

(read  with  the  presumption  under  Section  113-A  of  the  

Evidence  Act,  1872)  as  long  as  there  is  evidence  of  

poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely  

necessary.

27. That apart, we find on facts from the evidence adduced  

in this case that the cause of death of Geeta Bai was clearly  

a result of consumption of poison.  Dr. Siyaram Sharma had  

stated in his testimony that the death of the deceased was  

caused  due  to  suspected  poisoning.   This  particular  

statement was not challenged by Bhupendra.

28. Similarly, Dr. Aggarwal had mentioned in his intimation  

on 20th August,  1996 at  10.30 p.m.  to  Police Station City  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 13 of 17

Page 14

Kotwali,  Morena  that  Geeta  Bai  had  been  brought  to  the  

hospital because she had consumed a wheat tablet.3   

29. Even  DW-1  Ram  Naresh  Sharma,  in  his  statement  

before the Court stated that the brother-in-law of Bhupendra  

told him that Geeta Bai had consumed some poisonous pills  

in  the  house  of  the  appellant  and  was  admitted  in  the  

hospital.

30. All  this  evidence  clearly  suggests  that  there  was  no  

doubt that Geeta Bai had died an unnatural death and that  

her  death  was  due  to  consumption  of  some  poisonous  

substance.  What exactly is the poison she consumed pales  

into  insignificance even on  the  facts  of  the  case  and the  

evidence on record.

31. We therefore  reject  the first  contention advanced by  

learned counsel both in law as well as on merits.

Mutual exclusivity of Sections 304-B and 306 of the  IPC

3 A wheat tablet is used by farmers for killing insects in the wheat crop and is said to  be commonly found in a village house.

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 14 of 17

Page 15

32. The second contention is also without any substance.  

In  Satvir  Singh  and  Others  v.  State  of  Punjab  and   

Another, (2001) 8 SCC 633 this Court drew a distinction  

between Section 306 of the IPC and Section 304-B of the IPC  

in the following words:-

“Section 306 IPC when read with Section 113-A of  the  Evidence Act  has  only  enabled  the  court  to  punish a husband or his relative who subjected a  woman to cruelty (as envisaged in Section 498-A  IPC)  if  such  woman  committed  suicide  within  7  years of her marriage. It is immaterial for Section  306 IPC  whether  the  cruelty  or  harassment  was  caused “soon before her death” or earlier. If it was  caused  “soon  before  her  death”  the  special  provision in Section 304-B IPC would be invocable,  otherwise resort can be made to Section 306 IPC.”

33. It was held that Section 306 of the IPC is wide enough  

to  take  care  of  an  offence  under  Section  304-B  also.  

However,  an  offence  under  Section  304-B  of  the  IPC  has  

been made a far more serious offence with imposition of a  

minimum  period  of  seven  years  imprisonment  with  the  

sentence going upto imprisonment for life.  Considering the  

gravity of the offence it is treated separately from an offence  

punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. On this basis, this  

Court rejected the contention that if a dowry related death is  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 15 of 17

Page 16

a  case  of  suicide  it  would  not  fall  within  the  purview  of  

Section 304-B of the IPC at all.  Reliance in this regard was  

placed  on  Shanti  and  Another  v.  State  of  Haryana,   

(1991) 1 SCC 371 and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and  

Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207 wherein this Court held that a  

suicide is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit  

of Section 304-B of the IPC.   

34. In  Shanti this Court was concerned with a death that  

had occurred “otherwise than under normal circumstances”  

as mentioned in Section 304-B of the IPC.  It was held that an  

unnatural dowry death, whether homicidal or suicidal, would  

attract Section 304-B of the IPC. This expression was also  

considered  in  Kans  Raj where  it  was  held  that  it  would  

mean death, not in the normal course, but apparently under  

suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burns or bodily  

injury.  In  Kans Raj the  conviction  of  the  husband of  the  

deceased  was  upheld  both  for  offences  punishable  under  

Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 306 of the IPC also.

35. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section 306 of the  

IPC is much broader in its application and takes within its  

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 16 of 17

Page 17

fold  one  aspect  of  Section  304-B  of  the  IPC.   These  two  

sections  are  not  mutually  exclusive.   If  a  conviction  for  

causing a suicide is based on Section 304-B of the IPC, it will  

necessarily  attract  Section  306 of  the  IPC.   However,  the  

converse is not true.

36. Consequently,  we reject the second contention urged  

by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Conclusion

37. We see no  merit  in  the  appeal  and it  is  accordingly  

dismissed.                

38. The  bail  bond  of  Bhupendra  is  cancelled  and  it  is  

directed that he should be taken into custody to serve out  

the remainder of his sentence.

                                                     ….…….……………………..J.   (Ranjana Prakash  Desai)

….…….……………………..J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; November 11, 2013

Crl.Appeal No.1774 of 2008                                                                            Page 17 of 17