Holding

The conviction under Section 498A IPC is set aside as neither dowry demand nor suicide was proved, and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The appellant Gopal was charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty that led to her death by asphyxia 22 years after their marriage. The trial court acquitted him on both counts, but the Rajasthan High Court convicted him under Section 498A, holding that the cruelty provision applied, while maintaining the acquittal on suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of Section 498A (both limbs) and the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could be invoked, given that no dowry demand was proved and suicide was not established. The Court held that without evidence of dowry demand, clause (b) of Section 498A was inapplicable, and the lack of a proven suicide meant Section 306 could not be applied; consequently, the presumption under Section 113A did not arise. The conviction under Section 498A was therefore set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court did not consider the pending charge under Section 323 IPC as the appellant had already served six months in custody.

Issues considered

Whether Section 498A IPC is applicable when the alleged cruelty occurred 22 years after marriage and no dowry demand is proved.
Whether the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked in the absence of a proven suicide within seven years of marriage.
Whether suicide must be established for the application of Section 306 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 323 IPC should be entertained given the appellant's custodial period.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113A
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306, s. 323, s. 498A

Subjects

Section 498Adowry demandcrueltysuicidepresumptionEvidence Act 113Aconviction set asidecriminal law

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 423

GO PAL A
V.
STATE OFRAJASTHAN
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2002
FEBRUARY 13, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
.If' Penal Code, 1860· : .
ss. 498A, 306 and 323 - Applicability of - Death of wife c
due to asphyxia, 22 years after marriage - FIR against husband
u/ss.498A and 306 - Acquittal by trial court - However, High
Court convicting uls. s. 498 A - On appeal, held: There was no
evidence of demand of dowry and case of suicide was not
established - Thus, s. 498A(b) ands. 306 not applicable -
_...., D
Since, husband has been in custody for 6 months, his conviction
uls. 323 not considered - Conviction uls. 498A set aside.
Prosecution case was that wife died 22 years afte,r
the marriage. The cause of death was asphyxia, due to
opium poisoning and there were 6 bruises on the body. E
FIR was registered against the appellant-husband u/
ss.498A & 306 IPC for beating his wife and treating her
~ with c'ruelty. Trial court acquitted the appellant as
prosecution case was not proved. High Court upheld
acquittal u/s.306 but convicted u/s.498A. Hence the F
present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Section 498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb
of s. 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such G
...,..
\.

<_· woman to cruelty shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been
defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section
as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely

423 H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A to drive a woman to commit suicide. When there is demand
of dowry, the case comes under clause (b) of the
Explanation to s. 498A. Clause (a) of the Explanation has
definite application to the facts of the instant case. The
effect of s. 113 A of the Evidence Act cannot be lost sight
of. As per s.113 A when the question as to whether
8
commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by
her husband or any relative of her husband and" it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of he_r marriage and that her
husband or such. relative other husband had subjected
C her to cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of
her husband. This has not been rebutted by the
appellants. For bringing in application of s. 306 IPC,
suicide has to be established. In the instant case, the trial
0 court and the High Court have categorically held that no
suicide has been established. So far as s.498-A(b) is
concerned, there must be an evidence of demand of
dowry. There is no evidence in that regard adduced by
the prosecution. That being so, s. 498 A(b) has no
application. As regard conviction of appellant u/s.323 IPC,
E said question is not gone into considering the fact that
the appellant has already suffered custody of about 6
months. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13] [ 428-G, H; 429-A, B, C,
D, E, F]
Akula Ravinder & Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
F AIR (1991) SC 1142 and Ba/want Singh & Ors. vs. State of
H.P (2008) 10 JT 58.9 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR (1991) SC 1142 Referred to Para 7
.
(2008) 10 JT 589 Referred to Para 8
G
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 57 of 2002 ·.:. ....
l
From the final Judgement and Order dated 23.5.2001 of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal
H Appeal No. 322 of 1993.
/.-

/"
~

~ GOPAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 425

~ S.K. Gambhir, S.K. Sinha and TN. Singh, with for the A
Appellant.
Aruneshwar Gupta, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,. J B

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgr:nent of a learned
I.
jf Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court a11owing the appeal
of the State Government and holding the appellant guilty of
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') while upholding the acquittal in
c
respect of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The
appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stip.ulation.
,., 2. Background facts giving rise to the prosecution are as D
),._
under:
On 4.7.1988, at about 10 p.m. Laxman Singh (P.W.13) who
was S.I. in the Police Station Nimbaheda received an information
from the Medical Officer Dr. R.D. Bhatt (P.W.15) from the Hospital
and on receiving that information, Laxman Singh reached the E
hospital where Prem Chand was present who informed orally
to Laxman Singh that fn the morning all the persons of his family
... had gone to the field in the house; wife of his son Gopal, namely,
J_
Ram Kumari (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was
alone and in the noon, when he went to his house, he found the F
deceased unconscious and then he called his wife Lahar Bai
(PW-4) who was living nearby and she also came there. Then
he called doctor and doctor advised him that she should be
taken to the hospital and in the hospital, when the treatment
was going on, the deceased died.
..,...\
G
·C
This oral report was reduced into writing and the same is
Ex. P/6 and on this report, Laxman Singh (P.W.13) registered
Marg FIR No.6/88 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in shorl lhe 'Code') and started investigation.
H
.l._
/

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the
deceased was conducted by Dr. R. K. Gupta (P. W. 11) and Dr.
R.D. Bhatt (P.W.15) and the post mortem report is Ex.P/4 and
both the doctors have stated that cause of death of Smt. Ram
Kumari was asphyxia and this may be probably due to opium
B poisoning and they also found 6 bruises, three on the right thigh
and three on her right hip. Thereafter P.W.13 Laxman Singh
came to the conclusion that accused Gopal who was husband
of the deceased used to treat her with cruelty and used to beat ~·

x
her and a case for offence under Sections 498A and 306 l.P.C.
c was made out and he himself lodged FIR Ex.P/8 and on this
FIR Ex.P/8 investigation of the case was done by Netrapal $in9-h
(PW-14) who was S.H.O. in the police station Nimbaheda. After
usual investigation challan was submitted in the Court of
MagistraJe for offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC from
where the case was committed to the Court of Additional
D
Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda. . ......
Since the accused pleaded innocence trial was held and
15 witnesses were examined. The trial Court directed acquittal
of the appellant inter-alia holding as follows:
E (i) It has. not been proved by the prosecution that the
deceased has been subjected to cruelty and single act of cruelty
or beating is not sufficient.
...
. (ii) Since the deceased had undergone tubectomy _..
F operation after delivery of 3rd child and because of that she was
not in a position to work and she used to feel restlessness and
accused respondent used to al?k her to work and there was
dispute between husband and the wife on this point and such
type of dispute cannot be covered
G ~_ggriev~d by the judgment and order, State filed an appeal
/..
and as noted above the same was allowed. ""\.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the marriage took place some time in 1976 and
the date of occurrence is July, 1998 and therefore Section 113-
H
GOPAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 427
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act') A
has no application. Further it is submitted that the ingredients
of Section 498-A have not been established.
4. It has been concluded by the High Court that suicide
has not been proved. Therefore, Section 498-A has no
..J application. Section 498-A(b) relates to demand of dowr)' for 8
which there is no evidence.

I 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State
~
submitted that the case is covered by Section 498-A(b). It is
submitted that in any event injuries have been established and
therefore Section 323 IPC has beeri clearly established. It is by
c-
way of reply learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no
charge has been framed for Section 323.
6. The ingredients of Section 498-A are as follows:
"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman D
>'
.... subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or
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. E
Explanation - For the purpose of this section 'cruelty'

. 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
F
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable G
~

... security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."
7. 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 H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A required to be established in order to bring home the application
.,+..,
of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the j--
~

Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A. Substantive
Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 1138 of the
Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted
B
that Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC 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 Section 498A gives l(

the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 3048 there is no such
c explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. Ben having regard to
common background .to these offences it has to be taken that
the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as
prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which
. 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 3048 it
D is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have
occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is >..(

A.
mentionec'.i in Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted
' under Section 3048 can be convicted 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
E
the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of
Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and
Section 1138 of the Evidence Act include 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
F committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date
of marriage.
8. The above position was highlighted in 8alwant Singh &
Ors. v. State of H.P. [2008(10) JT 589].
9. Section 498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section
G 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman, subject~ such woman to cruelty ;..,

shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in clause (a) of •
the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit
H suicide. When there is demand of dowry, the case comes under
GOPAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 429
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

.... clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A. Clause (a) of the A
Explanation has definite application to the facts of the present
case. Additionally, effect of Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence
Act cannot be lost sight of.
10. Further as per Section 113 A of the Evidence Act when
the question as to whether commission of suicide by a woman 8
had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband
,_ and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period
> of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide had been C
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. This
has not been rebutted by the appellants.
11. For bringing in application of Section 306 IPC, suicide
has to be established. In the instant case, the trial Court and the
0
t High Court have categorically held that no suicide has been
established.
12. So far as Section 498-A(b) is concerned, there must
be an evidence of demand of dowry. There is no evidence in
that regard adduced by the prosecution. That being so, as rightly E
contended by learned counsel for the appellant Section 498-
A(b) has no application.

13. The crucial question is whether the appellant can be
convicted in terms of Section 323 IPC. Even if it is so as
contended by learned counsel for the respondent, considering F
the fact that the appellant has already suffered custody of about
6 months, we do not consider it necessary to go into that
question. The appeal is allowed. The conviction as recorded is

... set aside. The bail bonds executed by the appellant for release
on bail pursuant to the order dated 14.1.2002 shall stand G
-. discharged.

N.J. Appeal allowed.