Holding

Sections 304B and 498A are distinct offences; cruelty must be proved for conviction under 498A, and a person acquitted under 304B may still be convicted under 498A if the case of cruelty is established.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Balwant Singh and others against their convictions under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of the IPC for the death of Renu Bala. The Court clarified that Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) are distinct offences; cruelty as defined in the Explanation to 498A must be proved for a conviction under that provision. It held that a person acquitted under 304B can still be convicted under 498A if the evidence establishes cruelty, and that both sections may operate concurrently. The evidence did not establish any overt act by the brother‑in‑law (A‑3), leading to his acquittal, while the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and husband were found guilty. Their one‑year sentences were reduced to the period already served due to their age. The appeal was dismissed and the convictions upheld for the three appellants.

Issues considered

Whether Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC are mutually inclusive or constitute distinct offences.
Whether cruelty, as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, must be proved for a conviction under that section.
Whether a person acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A on the same facts.
Whether the brother‑in‑law can be held guilty of cruelty in the absence of evidence of an overt act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 173, s. 313
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 1138
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 306, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathcrueltySection 498ASection 304BSection 306presumption under Evidence Act 1138sentencingacquittalconvictionIndian Penal Code

Judgment

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1111
...... _\.

BALWANT SINGH AND ORS. A
\/.
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appea1-11Ju. 831 of 2001)
/•

-.\ SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
t B
[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
appellants were not guilty u/s.306, there was scope of
c 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
the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common
G
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
'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should
H
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~ State of AndhraPradesh
AIR (2007) SC 3146 - relied on.
2. On analyzing of the evidence it is,clear that there
0
is no material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-
law of the deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted
of the charge. So far as other three accused persons are
concerned, the accusations have been established by the
evidence. of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the documentary evidence
· and the exhibited letters and the convi~tions recorded so E
far as they are concerned cannot be faulted. It is to be
noted that the High Court has imposed sentence of-one
year. Considering the age of the father-in-law and mother~
in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence already
undergone by them while upholding the conviction the F
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
[Paras 8, 9) [1118,A-D]
Case Law Reference
AIR (1991) SC 1142. relied on Para 7 G
AIR (2007) SC 3146 relied on Para 7
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 831 of 2001
H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
.(_

A From the final Order dated 12/1/2001 of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Appeal No. 318 of 1997
Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Appellants.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent.
~

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal challenge is to
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court holding each of the appellants guilty of offence pun-
c ishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the 'IPC') while setting aside the conviction and the sen-
tence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellants-accused were tried for offences punish-
D
able under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. Accused No.1
Balwant Singh was father-in-law, accused No.4-Kanta Devi was
mother-in-law, accused No.3-Ravinder Singh was brother-in-
law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband of Renu Bala
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). The deceased was
E daughter of one Gurdayal Singh and Kamla Devi. She was
married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 in accordance with
the Hindu rites and rituals. After few days of her marriage, when
Renu Bala visited the house of her parents, she complained as
to how accused persons were treating her with cruelty by put- )>-
F ting demands for refrigerator and scooter as dowry. It was al-
leged that on January 5, 1993, Kamla Devi, mother of Renu
Bala came to know from Tilak Raj, her brother-in-law that Renu
Bala was admitted in a hospital at Gagret. She, therefore, along
with Tilak Raj went to the hospital, but Renu Bala was not there,
G and they came to know that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar
Kalan, the village where the accused were staying. Both of them
then went to the residence of the accused and found Renu Bala
lying dead in verandah of the house of the accused and none of
~ .
the accused was there. Kamla Devi suspected foul play that
H her daughter Renu Bala was either killed or was compelled to
BALWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF H.P. 1115
). [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

commit suicide by consuming poison on account of their un- A
lawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating her with
cruelty. She, therefore, lodged a report with the police Ex.PW-
3/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short the 'Code') ar Police Station, Una, which was regis-
tered as formal F.l.R. vide Ex.PW-11/A. After registration of the B
case, the investigation started. The police went to the spot, pre-
pared inquest report and rough spot map of the place where
,.dead body of Renu Bala was found. The Investigating officer
also took into possession vomit of Renu Bala and the clothes
worn by her at the time of vomiting prior to her death. Two let- c
ters, which were produced by Devinder Singh, were also taken
in possession. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar
Raizda, which revealed thatRenu Bala was having pregnancy of
fourteen to sixteen weeks. He reserved his opinion regarding
cause of death till receipt of report of Chemical Analyser. After
+ D
receiving the report, Dr. Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of
death was peripheral circulatory failure due to aluminum phos-
phide which was sufficient cause of death in natural course of
events. Further investigation was conducted by ASI, Jarnail Singh,
who obtained two letters produced by Gurdyal Singh, father 'of
deceased Renu Bala. He submitted a report under Section 173 E
of the Code in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Una, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Una, vide his order dated April 25, 1994.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State F
' ~
as well as learned defence counsel, a charge was framed
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec-
tions 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and they were asked as
to whether they plead guilty.
The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed G
to be tried.

t )' 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16
witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was closed state-
ments of the accused persons were recorded in terms of the
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
..
A Section 313 of the Code. Six witnesses were examined to es-
tablish their innocence. From the suggestions put during cross -
_exBmination the accused persons tried to make out a case that
deceased was suffering from epilepsy and frustrated by her life
she committed suicide. The trial court as noted above held the
~
B accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Section
498A and 306 IPC while directing acquittal of the charge in
terms of Section 304-8 IPC. In appeal after referring to the evi-
dence High Court came to hold that the offence under Section
306 is not made out.
c 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there
is no evidence of any overt act by A-3. The letters Exh.PW-5/A
and PW-5/C show that there was no demand of dowry but there
was improper treatment. ·

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out
D
that having held that the appellants were not guilty of offence
· punishable under Section 306 IPC there is no scope for con-
victing the appellants under Section 498A IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand sup-
E ported the judgment of the High Court.

Section 498A reads as follows:

"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or
F the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
~
- '

liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this_ section 'cruelty'
G means -
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to ... ~

cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
H
8ALWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF H.P. 1117
).
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

(b) harassment ofthe woman wnere such hara'ssment A
is with a view to coercing her or any person related.
to tier to meet any unlawful demand for any property
. . . or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet sucf.t demand."
7. Consequences of cruelty which ~re likely to drivefa·- 1~L
woman to· commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman a,re
required to be established in order to bring home the applica-
tion of Section 49BA IPC. Cruelty has been defined in .the Ex-
planation for the purpose of.Section 498A, Substantive Sec- C
tion498A IPC and presumptive Section 11 ~B of the·Evidence
Ad have been in.serted in the respective statutes by Criminal '
Law(SecondAmendment)Act, 1983. It isto be noted thpt Sec-
tions 3048 a.nd 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inctu~
sive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true D .
that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that
has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the
. meaning-of 'cruelty'. In Section 3048 there is no such explana-
tion about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common .
background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning . E
of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Ex-
planation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts .
to an offence. Under Section 3048 it is 'dowry death' that is pun-
ishable and such death should have occurred within seven years .
of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A F
person charged and acquitted under Section 3048 can be con-
victed under Section 498A without 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. (See Akula R9vinder and
others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142).
Section 498A IPC and Section 1138 of the Evidence Act incluoe G
in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of
Section 1138 of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption
arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven
years from the date of marriage.
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A The above position was highlighted in M. Srinivasu/u v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 3146).

8. On analyzing of the evidence it is clear that there is no
material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the
deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So
8 far as other three accused persons are concerned, the accusa-
tions have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and
5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and the
convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot be
faulted.
c 9. It is to be noted that the High Court has imposed sen-
tence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law and
mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence already
undergone by them while upholding the conviction the sentence
D is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal stands
• dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned. +

10. The appE~al is disposed of accordingly.
D.G. Appeal disposed of.

,..