BALWANT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF H.P.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 29-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

_\. 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1111 
...... 
BALWANT SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
\/. 
STATE OF H.P. 
(Criminal Appea1-11Ju. 831 of 2001) 
/• 
-.\ 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 
B 
t 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: S. 498-A - Applicability of - A persoQ 
charged and acquitted u/s. 3048 can be convicted uls .. 498A c 
without that charge being there, if a case is made out - s. 3048 
and s.498A deal with distinct offences hence cannot be held 
to be mutually inclusive - On facts, since no evidence to es-
tablish guilt of brother-in-Jaw, . his conviction under s.498A is 
, 
set aside - Offence established in case of husband and in-
. 
D 
... 
Jaws on the basis of testimony of witnesses and letters and 
their conviction is upheld - However, considering age of in-
laws, sentence of one year.imposed on them by High Court 
reduce,d to period undergone - Sentence/sentencing - Evi-
dence Act, 1872 - S.1138. 
E 
Prosecution case was that A-1 was father-in-law, A-2 
was husband, A-3 was brother-in-law and A-4 was mother~ 
in-law of the deceased. After few days of her marriage, when · 
deceased visited her parents· house, she complained of ill 
' 
treatment by in-laws for dowry. On the day of incident, 
~ 
~ 
F 
mother of deceased came to know that deceased was ad- · 
-j 
mitted in hospital. She went to the hospital but did not find 
~ 
her there. Then she came to know from her brother-in-law 
that deceased was taken to the village where the accused 
were staying. Both of them went to the house of the ac-
G 
cused where they found deceased lying dead. The lnves-
tigating officer took into possession vomit of deceased and 
~ 
~ 
the clothes worn by her at the time .of vomiting prior to her · 
death. Two letters were also taken in possession. 
1111 
H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
' 
·_.( ·-
A 
The Trial Court held the accused persons guilty of 
offences punishable under s.498A and 306 IPC while di-
recting acquittal from charge under s.3048 IPC. High 
Court after referring to the evidence, held that the offence 
under s.306 was not made out. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that 
there was no evidence of any overt act by A-3; that the 
letters showed that there was no demand of dowry but 
there was improper treatment; and that having held that 
c 
appellants were not guilty u/s.306, there was scope of 
conviction u/s.498A. 
Dismissing the appeal so far as A-2 is concerned and 
disposing of the appeal relating to A-1, A-3 and A-4, the 
Court 
D 
HELD: 1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely 
~ 
to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave 
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or 
physical of the woman are required to be established in 
order to bring home the application of s.498A IPC. Cru-
E elty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose 
of s.498A. Substantive s.498A IPC and presumptive 
s.1138 of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the re-
spective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) 
Act, 1983. It is to be noted that s.3048 and s.498A, IPC 
F cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions 
... 
deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a 
common essential to both the Sections and that has to 
be proved. The Explanation to s.498A gives the meaning 
of 'cruelty'. In s.3048 there is no such explanation about 
G the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common 
background to these offences, it has to be taken that the 
meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as pre-
scribed in the Explanation to s.498A under which 'cru-
·~ 
'\ 
elty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under s.3048 it is 
H 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should 
}. 
BALWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF H.P. 
1113 
have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such A 
period is mentioned in s.498A. A person charged and ac-
quitted under s.3048 can be convicted under s.498A with-
out that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If 
the case is established, there can be a conviction under 
both the sections. S.498A IPC and s.1138 of the Evidence B 
Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Pe-
riod of operation of s.1138 of.the Evidence Act is seven 
years, presumption arises when a woman committed sui-
cide within a period of seven years from the date of mar-
riage. [Para 7] [1117, B-Hl 
· 
c 
Aku/a Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andtira Pradesh 
AIR (1991) SC 1142; M. Srinivasulu v~ St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.