1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1224  OF 2008

Mst. Anusuiya @ Saraswatibai & Anr.            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Madhya Pradesh    ….Respondent(s)                   

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This   appeal  is  filed  by  the  two  accused

persons against the final judgment and order dated

14.02.2007 passed  by  the  High Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of

1992  whereby  the  High  Court  partly  allowed  the

appeal  and  while  upholding  the  judgment  dated

02.04.1992 passed by the First Additional Sessions

Judge,  Chhindwara  in  Sessions  Trial  No.3/91

2

convicting  the  appellants-accused  under  Sections

306  and  498A   of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1908

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) reduced the period

of  their  sentence  awarded under  Section 306 IPC

from  Seven  years  to  five  years  and  a  fine  of

Rs.1000/-  each,  in  default  of  payment  of  fine,  to

further  undergo  RI  for  three  months  and  under

Section 498A, from three years to two years.  Both

the sentences to run concurrently.

2) Brief facts:

The  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  the

marriage  of  Rekhabai(deceased)  and

Chandrashekhar (appellant No.2) was performed on

12.05.1989,  six  months  prior  to  her  death.

Appellant No.1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

3) On 21.11.1989, a Marg Report was recorded at

Chandameta  Police  Station  that  Rekhabai  was

brought  dead  in  W.C.L.  Hospital  Bandkuhee  by

3

Gajanand.   After  preparing  the  inquest

panchanama(Ex.P/8),  the  dead body was sent  for

post mortem.  Dr. R.K. Basor(PW-8) performed the

post  mortem and submitted  the  report  (Ex.P/10).

According to PW-8, the death of Rekhabai was quite

unnatural. Thereafter the viscera collected from the

dead body was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory

for Chemical examination.   

3) On  25.11.1989,  Saligram  (PW-1),  father  of

Rekhabai(deceased),  submitted a  written report  to

the police station, Chhindwara mentioning therein

that  her daughter had committed suicide because

her  in-laws  were  harassing  her  for  not  bringing

dowry  in  marriage  and  demanding  one  Fan  and

Rs.500/- from her parents.  He further said that on

19.11.1989, one day before the death of Rekhabai,

his daughter and son-in-law came to his house and

stayed there for the night and on the next morning,

4

his son-in-law again demanded a Fan and Rs.500/-

from  him  and  on  not  being  given  the  same,  he

started  quarreling  and  went  away  saying  that

consequence would be heard of the next day.  On

the next day, when Rekhabai suddenly became ill,

Surendra  Pathak(CW-1)  examined  her  on  the

request of Chandrashekhar and advised him to take

her  to  the  Hospital.   On  the  way  to  Hospital,

Rekhabai died.     

4) On 30.03.1990, report of the Forensic Science

Laboratory was received mentioning therein that the

death  of  Rekhabai  was  caused  by  consuming  rat

poison.   

5) After investigation, charge sheet was filed and

by order dated 29.12.1990, the case was committed

to  the  Court  of  Sessions.   The  accused

persons(appellants) denied the charges.  

5

6) By  judgment  dated  02.04.1992,  the  First

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Chhindwara  convicted

the  appellants  for  the  offences  punishable  under

Sections 306 and 498A IPC and sentenced both of

them  under  Section  306  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  of  seven  years  and  a  fine  of

Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six

months. So far as the sentence under Section 498A

was concerned, both the appellants were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

The sentences were to run consecutively.

7) Challenging the judgment of  the  Trial  Court,

the appellants (accused) filed appeal before the High

Court.

8) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated

14.02.2007, partly allowed the appeal,  upheld the

conviction but modified the sentence awarded to the

6

appellants under Section 306 from Seven years to

five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default,

to further undergo RI for three months and so far as

sentence under Section 498A was concerned, it was

modified from three years to two years.  Both the

sentences were to run concurrently.

9) Against  the judgment of  the High Court,  the

appellants (accused) have filed this appeal by way of

special leave before this Court.  

10) Heard Mr.Pradeep Misra,  learned counsel  for

the appellants and Mr. B.N. Dubey, learned counsel

for the respondent.

11) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and on perusal  of  the  record of  the  case,

though we uphold the conviction of the appellants

under both the Sections, namely, Section 306 and

Section 498  IPC, but having regard to the peculiar

facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  as  set  out

7

hereinbelow,  modify  the  sentence  and accordingly

reduce the period of sentence of both the appellants

as indicted below.

12) We have perused the evidence with a view to

find out as to whether the prosecution was able to

prove their case under the twin Sections, namely,

Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC, which resulted

in death of  Rekhabai  and,  if  so,  whether  the two

Courts below were justified in convicting both the

appellants and awarding to them the sentence as

detailed above.

13)  Having  gone  through  the  evidence  and

examining the findings of the two Courts on all the

material issues involved in the case, we are of the

considered opinion that no fault can be found in the

manner in which both the Courts below appreciated

the evidence so also no fault can be found in their

8

respective  reasoning  which  resulted  in  convicting

the appellants.  

14) It is a settled principle of law that if there is no

perversity  noticed  in  the  findings  of  the  Courts

below and more  so when the  findings  of  the  two

Court below are of concurrence then such findings

would be binding on this Court while hearing the

appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Such

is the case here.

15) It is not in dispute that Rekhabai died within

six months from the date of her marriage. The date

of  marriage  is  12.05.1989  whereas  the  death

occurred on 21.11.1989.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that

Rekhabai died due to consuming the poison. It  is

also  not  in  dispute  that  the  two  Courts,  on

appreciating  the  evidence,  recorded  a  categorical

finding that  appellant No. 1, mother-in-law and the

husband  (appellant  No.  2)  had  demanded  dowry

9

from the parents of the  deceased and when they

did  not  accede  to  the  dowry  demand,  appellant

No.2-  husband  threatened  the  father  of  the

deceased  and  deceased  herself  of  the  dire

consequences  for  not  acceding  to  his  demand  of

dowry.  

16) It  has  also  come  in  the  evidence  of  the

deceased's father (PW-1), which found acceptance to

the two Courts and, in our opinion, rightly that the

appellants  used  to  beat  the  deceased  soon  after

their marriage till her death.

17)  In the light of the aforementioned findings of

the two Courts below to which we concur, a case

under  Section  306  and   Section  498-A  IPC  was

rightly  held  made  out  against  appellant  No.  1-

mother-in-law and appellant No. 2-husband.  

18) Indeed  when  an  unnatural  death  of  the

married woman takes place within seven years of

10

her marriage then a presumption, as envisaged in

Section 113-A of the Evidence Act,1972 against the

husband and his relatives is made out. In this case,

the  same  was  duly  made  out  with  the  aid  of

evidence  adduced  against  the  appellants.   The

appellants, however, in their defense failed to rebut

the  presumption  and  whatever  evidence  they

adduced  in  defense  was  not  held  enough to  give

them the benefit of doubt or clean acquittal.

19) We,  therefore,  uphold  the  conviction  of  both

the appellants under Section 306 and Section 498-A

of IPC   

20) This takes us to the next question about the

award of sentence to the appellants under both the

Sections.  We may state here that there is no appeal

filed by the State for enhancement of the period of

sentence.   In  other  words,  the  State  or/and

11

Complainant accepted the jail sentence, which was

awarded to the appellants by the Courts below.

21) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  appellant

No.1-mother-in-law  has  undergone  total  jail

sentence for a period of 9 months or so out of the

jail sentence awarded to her, during the pendency of

the appeal.  It is also not in dispute that she is now

around 75 years of age and is not keeping well. It is

also  not  in  dispute  that  she  is  presently  on  bail

granted by this Court.  

22) So  far  as  appellant  No.2-husband  is

concerned, he too has undergone around 1 year 1

month approx.  

23)   Apart  from  what  is  taken  note  of  above,

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  made  a

statement  at  the  bar  that  appellant  No.  2  has

remarried with a girl from the family of deceased,

i.e., the deceased's aunt's daughter and since then

12

the relations between the two families have become

quite cordial.

24) Taking  into  consideration  the  totality  of

aforementioned  facts  and,  particularly  the

circumstances,  we  are  inclined  to  modify  the

sentence of the appellants as under.

25) So  far  as   appellant  No.  1-mother-in-law  is

concerned, we modify her sentence and reduce the

same  to  already  undergone.  In  this  view  of  the

matter,  appellant  No.  1-mother-in-law  is  not

required to undergo any more jail sentence.  

26) So  far  as  appellant  No.  2-husband  of  the

deceased,  Rekhabai,  is  concerned,  his sentence is

reduced from 5 years to 2 years under Section 306

IPC. So far as sentence of 2 years awarded under

Section 498-A is concerned, it is upheld. The fine

amount awarded in both is also upheld. Both the

sentences are to run concurrently.

13

27) In view of this, appellant No. 2, who is also on

bail by the order of this Court, has to surrender to

undergo remaining period of jail sentence awarded

to him by this Court. The bail granted to appellant

No.  2  is,  therefore,  cancelled  to  enable  him  to

surrender  and  undergo  remaining  period  of  jail

sentence awarded by this Court.  

28) With  the  aforementioned  modification,  the

appeal  stands  allowed  in  part  and  the  impugned

judgment stands modified accordingly to the extent

indicated above.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

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

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 25, 2018