KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

A
                       [2014] 11 S.C.R. 220


         KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERI
                                                                   •
                                v.
                      . STATE OF GUJARAT
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1152 of 2009)
                      DECEMBER 05. 2014.
B
          [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.]

      Penal Code 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Dowry death -
  Prosecution of husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the
C deceased - Acquittal of husband and father-in-law by courts
  below and conviction of mother-in-law - Held: Allegations of
  cruelty and demand of dowry by the mother-in-law, specifically
  proved by the material witnesses - In the facts of the case,
  she is not entitled to pa(ity with other accused.
D
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. In view of evidence of material witnesses,
  the High Court has committed no error in appreciating the
  evidence for coming to the conclusion that allegations of
E torture as well as demand of articles by way of dowry
  against the appellant was clear, specific and stood
  proved. [Para 13] [227-D-F]

        Satish Chandra and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
F   2014 (6) SCC 723 - relied ~>n.

         Durga Prasad vs. State of M.P. 2010 (9) SCC 74 -
    referred to.

       2. FIR should contain the essential features of the
G prosecution case but it cannot be expected to be an
_ encyclopedia of whole prosecution case. It may be quite
  natural for a friend of the deceased such as PW 18 not ·
  to remember the exact figure which was disclosed by the_

H                               220
•     KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERI v.                  221
                STATE OF GUJARAT

    deceased sometime back, as the amount demanded by               A
    the appellant mother-in-law. [Para 12] [227-A-C]

        3. On a careful perusal of the entire materials, it is
    found that the appellant cannot claim parity with the case
    of accused Nos. 1 or 3 who were acquitted by the High           8
    Court and by the Trial Court respectively. [Para 15]
    [228-E]

        Hardial Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC
    455 - referred to.
                                                                    c
         4. However, ends of justice would be satisfactorily
    met by reducing the sentence of eight years RI for
    offences under Section 3048 and 498A IPC to seven
    years RI. Other sentences shall remain the same. [Para
    16] [228-G]                                                     D

       Satbir Singh vs. State of Punjab 2001 (3) Suppl.
              =
    SCR 353 2001 (8) SCC 633 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
                                                                    E
         2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 353      referred to     para 9
         2010 (9) sec 74              referred to     para 9
         1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 455      referred to     para 9
         2014 (6) sec 123             relied on       para 12       F

        CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1152 of 2009.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 21.01.2009 of the High
    '.Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of   G
     2000.

        Meenakshi Arora, Rahul Narayan, Mohit Singh, Mahima,
    Vasav Anantharaman for the Appellant.
                                                                    H
    222       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 11 S.C.R.


A       Jesal, Swati Vaibhav, Hemantika Wahi for the
    Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. The sole appellant,
8 Kanchanben is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is facing
  conviction under Section 3048 and 498A of the Indian Penal
  Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) with sentence of RI for
  eight years and penalty of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation ..
  She has also been convicted under Section 3 of the Dowry
C Prohibition Act with simple imr;irisonment for five years and
  penalty of Rs.3,000/- with default clause. For conviction under
  Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, she has been inflicted
  with simple imprisonment of six months and penalty of Rs. 500/
  -. The sentences have to run concurrently.
D
        2. For the offence in questionJn which the daughter-in-law
  of the appellant namely Hina died a suicidal death after
  consuming poison within seven months of her marriage with the
  son of the appellant, the Police chargesheeted three persons,
E accused No.1 Nilesh Kumar, who is the husband of the
  deceased, the appellant as accused No.2 and appellant's
  husband Purshattambhai as accused No.3. As per prosecution
  case, the marriage between the deceased and Nilesh was
  solemnized on 4.12.1997. She went from her parental house
F at Surat to her matrimonial home at Vidyanagar which falls on
  the way from Surat to Ahmedabad and is just one hour drive
  from Ahmedabad. According to the prosecution case, during
  the short span of matrimonial life the deceased faced demands
  for dowry as well as mental and physical harassment from the
G accused persons. She confided her sad plight with ·her mother;
  the inform.ant Chandrikaben (PW 8), as well as her cousin sister
  Aartiben (PW 10) and a friend Sonalben (PW 18).

      3. According to the prosecution case, the accused
H persons wanted various articles by way of dowry and the
•         KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERI v.                       223
           STATE OF GUJARAT [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
        demand was conveyed to the deceased mainly by her mother-            A
    )
        in-law, the appellant who allegedly, also used to instigate her
        son Nilesh to ill-treat his wife the deceased.

              4. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 5.7.1998,
        Hina informed her mother at about 8.30 a.m. on telephone that        8
        due to ill-treatment she was fed up and was going to end her
        life. Soon thereafter, the father-in-law of the deceased informed
        the parents of the deceased-Hina that she had consumed
        poison and was being removed to hospital. The parents left
        Surat by road but by the time they reached the hospital after 2      c
        p.m., Hina was unconscious and was gasping for breath and
        soon she died.

             5. The material or:i record discloses that on the date of
        death of Hina i.e. 5. 7 .1998 itself, first information report was
        lodged by PW-8 Chandrikaben disclosing physical and mental           D
        harassment of the deceased particularly at the hands of her
        mother-in-law as well as demands for various articles by way
        of dowry. The post-mortem examination of dead body of Hina
        was conducted after necessary panchnama and on receipt of
        report from the, Forensic Science Laboratory, it was confirmed       E
        that she had died of aluminum phosphate poisoning.

             6. After holding trial in accordance with law and taking on
        record oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial court did
        not find sufficient specific allegation against accused No.3, the F
        father-in-law of the deceased and therefore accused No.3 was
        acquitted of all charges whereas accused No.1, the husband .
        of the deceased and the appellant were convicted for identical
        charges as noticed earlier but acquitted of charge under section
        306 IPC.                                                          G
             7. Both the convicted accused preferred appeals before
        the High Court against their conviction. The State of Gujarat also
        preferred an appeal against acquittal of accused No.3 and a
        criminal revision was also instituted on account of a notice
                                                                             H
        224     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


    A issued by the High Court for enhancement of sentence awarded
      to the convicted accused. The High Court by common judgment
      and order, which is under appeal noticed certain special
      features in the conduct of accused No.1, the husband such as
      his having received a call from his wife, the deceased and taken
    B her to hospital and that instances against him were general in
      nature and therefore granted acquittal to accused No.1. The
      appeal of the appellant was dismissed by confirming the
      conviction and sentence as made by the Trial Court.

    C      8. Mrs. Meenakashi Arora, learned senior counsel argued
      the appeal at length seeking acquittal of the appellant on various
      grounds but particularly on the ground that the evidence against
      the appellant and against her son, accused No.1, who has been
      acquitted by the High Court stand at par and therefore, the
      appellant is entitled to benefit of such parity. The other main
    0
      ground urged by the senior counsel was that allegations of
      general harassment or cruelty against the mother-in- law i.e. the
      appellant cannot be used for sustaining conviction under
      Section 304B of the IPC unless it is found on the basis of good
    E evidence that ~uch harassment was in connection with any
      demand for dowry.

            9. To supplement the oral arguments extending over more
      than two days, written submissions have also been filed with a
      view to criticize the prosecution case and create doubt
    F regar.ding the correctness of allegations, both in respect of
      harassment and demand for-d~ry. It has also been highlighted
      that the death was on account ofae~ taking a small dose
      of poisonous tablet which could be by acciaent-A-d~
      was also raised that father of the deceased had talks with one
    G Minister and some officials of the police while he was traveling
      from Surat to reach the hospital and meet his daughter. On that
      basis it had been argued that the prosecution witness Dhirubhai
      (PW 9) being a member of legislative assembly wielded
      influence and interfe[E!d with investigation. Elaborating such
    H
J
•     KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERI v.                     225
        STATE OF GUJARAT [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
    interference it was suggested that in all probability the           A
    deceas.ed Hina must have made some statement in the Hospital
    and as no such statement has been disclosed, this appears to
    be a result of interference with investigation. Some case laws
    have also been cited particularly on the proposition that dowry
    does not include customary gifts not related to marriage, as        B
    spelt out in the case of Satbir Singh vs. State of Punjab,
    2001 (8) sec 633 and several subsequent judgments taking
    the same view. Judgment of this Court in the case of Durga
    Prasad vs. State of M.P. 2010 (9) SCC 74 is one of the main
    judgments relied upon to support the proposition that even if       C
    cruelty to the deceased is proved, in order to bring home the
    guilt against the accused under Section 3048 IPC, it must
    further be proved that the cruelty was in relation to demand for
    dowry. Several other judgments referred to in the written
    submissions are on general principles governing criminal trials     D
    and therefore, need not be dealt with separately. However, it
     is useful to take note of judgments beginning from the case of
    Hardial Singh VS. State of Punjab, 1992 Suppl. (2) sec 455
     in support of the proposition that where evidence is common
     to all accused, parity must be maintained in the matter of their   E
     conviction .

           .10. On the other hand, Ms. Jesel, learned counsel for the
    State has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 22
    and 23 of the High Court judgment to show that all the criticism F
    made against the prosecution case in respect of evidence to ..
    show harassment and demand of dowry was carefully
    considered to come to a finding that it was the accused No.2
    Kanchanben, the appellant before us who caused cruelty and
    ill-treatment to Hina and was responsible for demand of dowry. G
    In paragraph 23, the High Court further noted the ill-treatment
    and harassment caused by the appellant and her behavior when
    a common relation Hasmukhbhai (PW 12) went to the house
    of the accused with a view to advise the accused not to torture
    the deceased. From further discussion in paragraph 23 it was H
    226       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 11 S.C.R. •


A shown that so far as the evidence against the accused No.1
  was concerned, only general allegations were leveled against
  him and in that light the High Court noticed that almost similar
  general allegations were leveled against accused No.3, the
  father-in-law. In paragraph 23.1 it was further noted that besides
B parity in the case of accused No.1 and accused No.3 apparently
  the deceased had faith in accused No.1, as after consuming
  poison she immediately telephoned him. It was he who came
  to the house and took Hina to hospital and admitted her for
  treatment. The Court further noted that Hasmukhbhai (PW 12)
C did not allege any demand of dowry by Nilesh accused no.1
  nor did Nilesh make any complaint against the deceased. As
  against the appellant, the High Court found cogent and specific
  evidence that she ill-treated and caused cruelty to the deceased.

        11. Thus, according to learned counsel for the State, there
0
  could not be merit in the criticism of the defence that the case
  of the appellant stood at par with that of other co-accused who
  have been acquitted. She also pointed out that the plea of
  deceased having taken poison by mistake or accidentally is
E totally without merit, in view of earliest version of the occurrence
  in the FIR supported by the evidence of the informant that at
  about 8.30 in the morning of the fateful date, the deceased
  telephoned her mother to inform her that she was fed up with
  her life on account of torture and she was going to end her life.
F Hence, there could not be any chance of accidental taking of a
  highly fatal poison which no body can keep in the bed room
  mixed with ordinary medicines. She conceded that a demand
  of a mixture juicer which was clearly established through
  evidence of more than one witness was not mentioned in the
G FIR and demand of Rs.5 lacs spoken of by Sonalben (PW 18),
  a friend of the deceased, might be a mistake for Rs.50
  thousand as appearing in the evidence of some other
  witnesses. She, however, further contended that such minor
  discrepancies cannot discredit the entire prosecution case.

H         12. It stands to reason that all minute details and all items
•     KANCHANBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHANDERI v.                        227
        STATE OF GUJARAT [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.)
    relating to demand by way of dowry may not come to the mind            A
    of grieving mother of the deceased at the time of lodging of
    FIR. It is well established in law that FIR should contain the
    essential features of the prosecution case but it cannot be
    expected to be an encyclopedia of whole prosecution case. It
    may be quite natural for a friend of the deceased such as PW           8
    18 not to remember the exact figure which was disclosed by
    the deceased sometime back as the arhount demanded by the
    mother-in-law. Learned counsel for the State also placed
    reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish
    Chandra and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2014 (6)                  C
    sec 723 in support of the proposition that if sufficient and good
    material is available on record then mother-in-law of the victim
    in a calje under Section 3048 IPC may lawfully be convicted
    for such an offence even in the absence of conviction of the
    husband.                                                               D
         13. After going through the relevant material including
    judgments of the courts below and evidence of material
    witnesses, particularly informant PW 8, her husband PW 9, a
    cousin of the deceased PW 10 and a friend of the deceased
    PW 18 this Court finds that the High Court has committed no            E
    error in appreciating the evidence for coming to the conclusion
    that allegations of torture as well as demand of articles by way
    of dowry against the appellant was clear, specific and stood
    proved. Learned senior counsel has tried to show that the family
    of the appellant is quite well off having two cars and two             F
    scooters for use. But that by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve
    the statement of witnesses noticed above. Even the evidence
    of PW 12 who is the common relation of both the parties
    discloses in no uncertain terms that he had received information
    from not only the informant Chandirkaben (PW8) but also from           G
    his niece Aartiben (PW 10) of demand of dowry articles as well
    as harassment and torture made to deceased Hina and
    disclosed by her to the informant and PW 10. In the last part of
    his statement in chief, PW 12 has categorically stated that Hina
    was being harassed mentally and physically for the purpose of          H
        228       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


    A receiving dowry and therefore she committed suicide by taking
      poison. The evidence of PW 8, the informant at many places
      is very specific based upon version given by the de eased that
      her mother-in-law was finding faults repeatedly with    r house
      hold work, she was compelling her to get up early in the orning
    B and was misguiding Nilesh, accused No.1 by talking about very
      minor matters about the deceased. At another place PW 8
      deposed that the deceased informed her that her mother-in-law
      asked the deceased in the name of Nilesh to bring a big box
      type-cot, room furniture, juicer mixer, gifts and cash amount
    c received in marriage from her parents otherwise Nilesh would
      divorce her. When Rina told her mother in law that if such talk
      takes place she will commit suicide, the mother-in-law replied
      that her son will be relieved if she commits suicide.
           14. Even the evidence of PWs 10 and 18, when examined
    D carefully disclose specific and clear allegations against the
      appellant in respect of demand as well as torture.

            15. On a careful perusal of the entire materials, it is found
      that the appellant cannot claim parity with the case of accused
    E Nos.1 or 3 who were acquitted by the High Court and by the
      Trial Court respectively. The other criticisms against the
      prosecution case were raised before the court below and those
      have been satisfactorily dealt with by them. Hence they require
      no repetition.
    F
            16. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal
      and it is accordingly dismissed. However, in our view ends of
      justice would be satisfactorily met by reducing the sentence of
      eight years RI for offences under Section 3048 and 498A to
    G seven years RI. We order accordingly. Other sentences shall
      remain the same. The bail bond of the appellant shall stand
      cancelled. She must surrender or be apprehended to serve out
      the remaining sentence in accordance with law.

        Kalpna K. Tripathy                              Appeal dismissed.
    H
I