HAZARILAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 20-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
--+ 
HAZARILAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
JUNE 20, 2007 
[DR. ARJJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-ss.498A-Prosecution ulss. 304 B and 498 A-
O/accused-husband-Deceased committed suicide after ten days she was 
blessed with a son-Deposition of parents of deceased was relatable to C 
dowry alone-Conviction by trial court for both the offences-High Court 
acquitting him uls 304 B holding that there was no question of demand 
of dowry-But convicting under 498A holding that because suicide was 
committed, there must be some harassment and cruelty-On appeal, Held: 
Conviction under s. 498A is impermissible in absence of any material to 
show harassment or cruelty-Conviction cannot be recorded on surmises D 
and conjectures. 
Appellant - accused (husband) and co-accused (mother of the 
apptllant} \\aii prosecuted for alleged com mission of offence punishable u/ 
ss 304-B and 498-A IPC. According to prosecution, the appellant's wife 
committed suicide by burning herself in the house of her husband after IO E 
days she was blessed with a son. PWs 1 and 2 (parents of the deceased) 
had deposed that the deceased had complained to them that the accused 
persons were harassing her by demanding dowry. Trial court held the 
accused persons guilty for commission of offences charged under. 
High Court acquitted the co-accused (mother of appellant) of both F 
the charges. It acquitted the appellant-accused u/s 304 B holding that there 
was no evidence of demand of dowry. However it convicted the appellant u/ 
s 498A holding that after giving birth to a child she could not have 
entertained the idea to commit suicide unless she was being harassed. 
Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
, ~ 
HELD: The evidence of PWs I and 2 was only relatable to dowry. 
The High Court held that there was no question of demand of dowry, and in 
1081 
H 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A fact, appellant was financing the father of the deceased. There being no other 
material to show as to how the deceased was being harassed or subjected to 
cruelty, the conclusion of the High Court that because the deceased committed 
suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is insupportable and 
indefensible. There was no material to substantiate this conclusion. Merely 
B on surmises and conjectures the conviction could not have been recorded. 
There is a vast difference between "could have been", "must have been" and 
"has been". In the absence of any material, the case falls to the first category. 
In such a case conviction is impermissible. (Para SJ (1084-B, C, DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 
c 2001. 
D 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2000 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 1993. 
Vikas Singh Jangra (for Hari Shankar K, Adv.) for the Appellant. 
Govind Goyal (for C.D. Singh) for the Respondent . 
·' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Appellant calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High . 
E Court, Jabalpur. Appellant along with his mother Smt. Sumatra11i faced trial 
for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The learned second 
Additional Se!">sions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No.125 of 1990, held the 
accused persons guilty and convicted each for offence punishable under 
F Sections 3048 and 498A IPC and imposed sentence of I 0 years and 3 years 
respectively with fine of the second offence. . 
2. Dashoda Bai (hereinafter called as 'deceased') was the daughter of 
Asha Ram (PW- I) and Parvati Bai (PW-2). According to the prosecution she 
committed suicide by burning herself on 28.8.1989 in the house of her husband. 
G About JO days before the occurrence she was blessed with a son. 
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
In January, 1989 Dashoda Bai came to the house of her parents and told 
them that now she would not go to the place of her in-laws because she, was 
H being harassed by her mother-in-law and being beaten by her husband. She 
HAZARILALv. STATEOFM.P. [PASAYAT.J.) 
1083 
had also shown the marks of the injuries to them. According to her the they A 
were demanding a golden ring. golden chain and a fan as dowry. They were 
threatening that accused-appellant Hajarilal would re-marry. The parents of 

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