Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131  OF 2010

MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Four persons in all, Sharad Jain-the husband of  

the deceased, his parents Maniklal Jain and Sheela Jain  

and  his  sister  Paras  Jain  were  brought  to  trial  for  

offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the  

IPC for having driven the deceased Jyoti to suicide. The  

trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  evidence  

particularly  of  P.Ws.  4  and  5  the  parents  of  the  

deceased, and the evidence of some of the neighbours  

including P.W. 10 held that the case against all four  

accused had been proved beyond doubt.  The trial court,  

accordingly,  awarded  a  sentence  of  7  years  rigorous  

imprisonment   under  Section  304B   but  no  separate

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 2

sentence  was  awarded  under  Section  498A.   The  trial  

court also imposed a heavy fine on the accused.  The  

accused thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court and  

the High Court vide the impugned judgment allowed the  

appeal of Paras Jain but dismissed the appeal of the  

other three.  The present appeal is, therefore, confined  

only to Maniklal, Sheela Jain and Sharad Jain.

2. At the very outset Mr. Dubey, the learned Senior  

Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that Maniklal  

Jain and Sharad Jain had been released on the completion  

of their sentence and as of now only Sheela Jain who had  

undergone  about  one  year  and  eight  months  of  the  

sentence  stood  confined  to  custody.   He  has,  

accordingly, pleaded that in the light of the fact that  

there was no clear evidence against Sheela Jain, she was  

entitled to acquittal.  In elaboration, he has pointed  

out that even P.W. 4 Narendra Kumar,  the father of the  

deceased, who had lodged the complaint which had led to  

the  investigation  and  the  prosecution  had  named  only  

Maniklal  Jain  as  the  culprit  and  that  there  were  no  

allegations at the initial stage against the other three  

accused.  He has also pointed out that it appeared that  

the incident had been precipitated not on account of  

demands for dowry but because the deceased appeared to

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 3

have  been  sexually  harassed  by  Maniklal  Jain,  her  

father-in-law, and that it had been so stated by P.W. 5  

Chanda Jain, the mother of the deceased  who candidly  

admitted that she had been told by her daughter that she  

had been subjected to harassment by her father in law.   

3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the learned counsel for  

the State of Madhya Pradesh has, however, supported the  

judgments of the courts below and has pointed out that  

serious allegations with regard to demands for dowry had  

been made from the parents of the deceased and from her  

as well and a young girl, who had been married for only  

about  nine  months,  had,  in  frustration,  committed  

suicide by consuming poison.  She had also submitted  

that in addition to the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 5, a  

statement of an independent witness P.W. 10, a neighbor  

of P.Ws. 4 and 5  was available and he had  sworn to the  

fact that repeated and aggressive demands for dowry had  

been made from the parents of the deceased and as they  

had been not able to satisfy those demands, she had been  

subjected to harassment and cruelty.   

4. As  already  mentioned  above,  we  are  restricting  

our  decision  only  to  Sheela  Jain  who  alone  stands  

confined  to  custody  as  of  today.   P.W.  4  in  his

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 4

statement  admitted  that  at  the  initial  stage  

allegations  of  demands  for  dowry  had  been  made  only  

against Maniklal Jain.  He also stated that no demands  

for dowry had been made before the marriage or during  

the marriage and it was sometime after the marriage that  

demands had been made.  He also admitted that he had  

lodged the complaint before the concerned officer about  

five days after the death of his daughter.  We have also  

examined his statement very carefully and find that in  

addition to the above uncertain evidence only general  

demands  for  dowry  had  been  made  with  respect  to  the  

other accused and (in particular) no serious allegations  

have been levelled against the appellant Sheela Jain.  

We have also gone through the evidence of P.W. 5, the  

mother of the deceased.  From her testimony, we find  

that she too had made general statements and that the  

main allegations were against Maniklal and Sharad.  P.W.  

5 also admitted that Maniklal Jain had been harrasssing  

the  deceased  sexually  and  that  she  had  pacified  her  

daughter and told her to keep quiet to keep the family  

honour.  She also candidly admitted that no demands for  

dowry had been made by Sheela Jain either before, during  

or after the wedding.  Likewise, we have examined the  

statement of P.W. 10, the neighbour.  His statement does  

not in any way advance the case against Sheela Jain any

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 5

further.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the  

cumulative reasons mentioned above, there is some doubt  

with regard to the involvement of Sheela Jain appellant.

5. We, accordingly,  allow this appeal, set aside the  

judgments of the courts below and order her acquittal.  

It is stated that Sheela Jain is in custody.  She be  

released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any  

other case.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131  OF 2010

MANIKLAL JAIN & ORS. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have partly  

allowed the appeal as there is some doubt with regard  

to the involvement of Sheela Jain, the mother in law of  

the deceased.  We order her acquittal.   

It is stated that appellant Sheela Jain is in  

custody.   She  shall  be  released  forth  with  if  not  

wanted in connection with any other case.  

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on  

record.   

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

Crl.A. No. 1131 of 2010 7

NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.