SMT. SHANTI AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 13-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHANTI AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
NOVEMBER 13, 1990 
A 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code,-1860: Sections 304-B and 498-A-Scope of. 
Dowry Death-Relaiive of the husband !if a woman subjecting her 
to cruelty-Woman's death occurring in unnatural circumstances-
Prosecution of A_ccused-Conviction under section 304-B-:Acquittal 
under section 498-A-Effect of-Seciions 304-B and 498.-A~Whether 
mutually exclusive. 
· · 
. 
Evidence Act,· 1872: Section I 13:8-Presumption as to dowry 
death. 
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 2-Dow,.Y..,.Meaning of, 
The ~ppellants, along with three other co:acctised," we~e charged_ 
c 
D 
of committing a. dQwry death. They were prosecuted under sections 201, · 
304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code .. The Trial Court convicted 
E 
the appellants on all the counts but acquitted the other three co-accused. 
The appellants preferred ari· appeal before the High Court which_ 
set aside their conviction· '!Ilder section 498-A holding that_ Sections 
304-B and 498-A. are mutually exclusive and that when on~. the 
cruelty envisaged in section 498-A culminates in dowry death of the 
F 
victim Section 304-B alone is attracted~ Accordingly, the High Court 
acquitted the appellants under section 498-A. But their convictions 
under section 304-B and 201 were affirmed. 
· 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants: (i) that the acquittal of the appellants under section 498-A 
G 
indicates that cruelty on the part of the acctised was not proved and 
consequently the death cannot be one of "dowry death'', and (ii) that 
there was no direct evidence in this case and that all the ingredients of 
section 304-B oflndian Penal Code were not made out. 
. 
' 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
H. 
675 
A 
B 
c 
·o 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) Supp. c S.C.R. 
·HELD: 1. The view of the High Court that Sections 304-B and 
498-A I.P.C. are mutually exclusive is not correct. Sections 304-B and 
498-A cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal 
with two distinct offences. It is true that "cruelty" is a common essen-
tial to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to 
Section 44)8..A gives the meaning of "cruelty". In Section 3()4.B there is 
no such explanation about the meaning of "cruelty" but having regafd 
to the common background-to these offences, the memiing of "cruelty 
01· harassment" will be the same as found in the explanation to Section 
498-A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence and is 
punishable. Under Section 304-B, It IS the "dowry death" that Is 
punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of 
the marriage. No such period Is mentioned in Section 498-A end the 
husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to 
"cruelty" any time after the marriage. Further a person charged and 
acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A 
. without charge being there, If such a case is made oul. But from the 
point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects It 
is neceSsary in such cases to frame charges under both the Section and If 
the case Is established they can be convicted under both the Sections but 
no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in view of 
the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under 
section 304-B. [682D-H; 683A] 
E 
1.1 In the instant case, the High Court has not held that the 
prosecution has not established cruelty on the part of the appellants but 
on the other hand it considered the· entire evidence and held that the 
element of cruelty which is also an essential of Section 3()4.B I.P .C has 
been established. In these circnmstances, therefore, thi mere acquittal 
of the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. makes no dltJerence for 
• 
F 
the purpose of this case. [682C-D] 
· 
0 
2. In the instant case, there Is absolutely no material to indlcale 
even remotely that it was a case of natural death. It Is nobody's case 
that it was accidental death. In the result It was an unnatural death; 
either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that It Is a case of 
G 
suicide even then It would be death which had occurred in unnatural 
circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B Is attracted. There-
fore, the prosecution has established that the 11ppellants have commlted 
an offence punishable under Section 304-B bey

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