Page 1

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.

1. 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.

2. 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  

1

Page 2

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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).

3. 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.    

4. 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.

2

Page 3

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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  

3

Page 4

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

appellant was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence as made by  

the Trial Court.  

8. 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.

9. 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  

4

Page 5

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.

10. 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-

5

Page 6

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.

11. 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.  

6

Page 7

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.

12. 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.

13. After  going through the relevant material  including judgments of  the  

courts below and evidence of material witnesses, particularly informant PW 8,  

7

Page 8

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.  

8

Page 9

Crl.A. No.1152/2009

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.

14. 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.

15. 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.   

16. 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.

9