BHUPENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 11-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 269 
BHUPENDRA 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE 1860: 
ss.498, 304-B and 306 - Demand for dowry by bride's 
husband and his parents - Death of bride by consuming 
poisonous substance - Conviction of husband by courts below 
- Upheld. 
A 
B 
c 
ss.304-B and s.306 - Dowry death - Chemical D 
examination of viscera - Held: Not mandatory in every case 
of a dowry death - Even when a viscera report is sought for, 
its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case of the 
prosecution when an unnatural death punishable u/s 304-B 
or u/s 306 takes place -- In a case of unnatural death inviting 
E 
s.304-B /PC (read with the presumption uls 113-8 of Evidence 
Act) or s.306 /PC (read with the presumption u/s 113-A of 
Evidence Act) as long as there is evidence of poisoning, 
identification of the poison may not be absolutely necessary. 
ss.304-B and 306 - Dowry death and suicide - Held: 
ss.306 and 304-B not mutually exclusive -- If a conviction for 
causing suicide is based on s.304-B, it will necessarily attract 
s. 306 -- However, the converse is not true. 
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE: 
Chemical analysis of viscera - Object of, and 
circumstances under which it is done - Explained. 
269 
F 
G 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was married on 7.6.1993 .. On 20.8.1996, 
his wife committed suicide. The prosecution case was 
that the appellant and his family membt!rs demanded 
dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter, which was 
given to them. On 20.8.1996, they demanded Rs.10,000/-
B and as bride's father was unable to fulfill the demand, she 
consumed wheat tablets and died in the hospital on the 
same date at 11.30 p.m. A charge-sheet was filed against 
the appellant and his parents for offences punishable u/ 
ss 498-A, 304-8 and 306, IPC. The trial court convicted the 
c appellant and his father of the offences charged and 
acquitted his mother. The High Court upheld the 
conviction of the appellant, and acquitted his father on 
benefit of doubt. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
D appellant that since there was no chemical examination 
report of the viscera, it could not be said that the 
deceased died because of consuming poisonous wheat 
tablets; and that a conviction could not be sustained both 
u/s 304-B IPC as well as u/s 306 of the IPC. It was urged 
E that both these sections were mutually exclusive and a 
conviction can be founded on either of these sections but 
not both. However, these points were not raised before 
the courts below. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 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 
G 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 dis;ease or injury to 
H 
BHUPENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
271 
account for it, and (4) In decomposed bodies. [para 22] 
A 
[278-C-E] 
Taiyab Khan and Others v. State of Bihar (Now 
Jharkhand), (2005) 13 SCC 455; Ananda Mohan Sen and 
Another v. State of West Bengal, 2007 (6) SCR 1088 = (2007) 
8 
10 SCC 774; State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, 1999 
(3) Suppl. SCR 359 = (1999) 8 sec 715 - relied on. 
1.2 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 absence is not necessarily C 
fatal to the case of the prosecution when an unnatural 
· death punishable u/s 304-B or u/s 306, IPC takes place; 
in a case of an unnatural death inviting s.304-B, IPC (read 
with the presumption u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act) or 
s.306, IPC (read with the presumption u/s 113-A of the 
D 
Evidence Act) as long as there is evidence of poisoning, 
identification of the poison may not be absolutely 
necessary. [para 26] [279-G-H; 280-A-B] 
1.3 Besides, on facts from the evidence adduced in 
E 
the instant case, it has been established that the cause 
of death of the deceased was clearly a result of 
consumption of poison. The post mortem doctor had 
stated in his testimony that the death of the deceased was 
caused due to suspected poisoning

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.