SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

                [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1914 : 2025 INSC 581

                           Shakuntla Devi
                                   v.
                      The State of Uttar Pradesh
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1131 of 2018)
                                25 April 2025
                  [Vikram Nath,* Sanjay Karol and
                        Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court wherein the appellant’s conviction u/ss.304B and 498A IPC
       and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was converted
       into that u/s.306 IPC.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 304B, 498A – Dowry Prohibition Act,
       1961 – ss.3, 4 – Abetment of suicide – Dowry death – Death
       of the victim in her matrimonial home – FIR by complainant-
       father of the victim alleging that the appellant-mother-in-law
       of the victim used to mentally and physically torture her
       for getting less dowry – Trial court convicted the appellant
       u/ss.304B and 498A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the 1961 Act
       and sentenced accordingly – High Court acquitted the
       appellant of the said offences, however convicted her
       u/s.306 IPC on basis of the statement of the brother of the
       victim that the appellant behaved in a manner which led the
       victim to commit suicide by consuming poison – Interference
       with:
       Held: Not called for – Brother of the victim gave an account of
       events in a very natural manner that does not seem exaggerated
       or untruthful in any manner – Element of honesty and fairness
       in his statement throughout lends it much credibility – Family
       members of the deceased have been very precise in their
       allegations against the appellant – Complainant displayed
       honesty while making the allegations and has not unnecessarily
       implicated other family members of the husband of the deceased

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         1915

              Shakuntla Devi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


     by making omnibus allegations against all of them, which is
     usually the adopted tactic in cases of similar nature – Overall
     conduct of the prosecution unusually fair and honest and no
     reason to disbelieve the prosecution case – It is abundantly
     clear that the deceased was repeatedly tortured and abused
     by the accused on account of dowry demand – Abuses hurled
     at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident led
     her to committing suicide – Guilt of the appellant u/s.306 proved
     beyond reasonable doubt – High Court adequately considered
     the ground of old age of the appellant as a mitigating factor and
     awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment which
     balances the interest of justice quite equitably – Impugned order
     upheld. [Paras 9-14]

                               List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

                            List of Keywords
     Dowry death; Abetment of suicide; Interest of justice; Beyond
     reasonable doubt; Not unnecessarily implicating other family
     members; Mitigating factors; Old age; Omnibus allegations; Active
     act or omission leading deceased to commit suicide.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1131 of 2018
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 of the High
     Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLA No.627
     of 2003

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Nilakanta Nayak, Amit Yadav,
     Shishir Deshpande, Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Ms. Nehaol Sri L.V.,
     Praveen Gaur.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj.
1916                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     The instant appeal has been preferred by the sole accused against
       the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
       Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2003 wherein the appellant’s
       conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
       18601 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19612 was
       converted into that under Section 306 of the IPC with sentence of 3
       years rigorous imprisonment.
2.     Brief facts of the case are that the accused-appellant is the
       mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Kusum, who was aged about
       22 years and was married to the son of the accused-appellant, one
       Rajendra Kumar, on 14.05.1997. Smt.Kusum died on 04.05.1998 at
       her matrimonial home. FIR dated 08.05.1998 was filed by the father
       of the deceased against the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B
       of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
3.     It was alleged in the said FIR that the complainant had been
       informed numerous times by the deceased that her mother-in-law,
       i.e. the appellant herein, used to mentally and physically torture
       the deceased for getting lesser amount of dowry. It was due to this
       maltreatment that the deceased had come to her parental house
       on 25.04.1998 and had informed her parents that the appellant has
       again demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a golden chain. Since the
       parents of the deceased had to attend a wedding in another village
       and the deceased was pregnant at the time, they did not think it fit
       to leave her alone at the parental home. As such, they convinced
       the deceased daughter and sent her back to her matrimonial house
       on 01.05.1998 along with her younger brother Sandeep Kumar on
       the assurance that after returning from the said wedding, the father
       of the deceased shall resolve the issue of dowry with the appellant.



1    “IPC”, hereinafter.
2    “DP Act”, hereinafter.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1917

              Shakuntla Devi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


     However, when the parents of the deceased returned to their home
     on 05.05.1998, they were informed that the deceased-daughter had
     died on 04.05.1998.
4.   After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and Session Judge
     framed charges against the appellant under the above-mentioned
     provisions which were denied by her and claimed to be tried. The
     father, the mother and the brother of the deceased deposed before
     the Trial Court as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, respectively. The Trial
     Court, vide judgment dated 22.04.2003, found the appellant guilty
     under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC along with Sections 3
     and 4 of the DP Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous
     imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of the IPC, one
     year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the IPC and one
     year rigorous imprisonment under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
     The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5.   The appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court
     challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
     The High Court, vide the impugned order, held that the offences under
     Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP
     Act were not made out and accordingly acquitted the appellant of
     the said charges. However, it was observed that from the statement
     of PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, it was clear that the accused-appellant
     behaved in a manner which led the deceased to commit suicide
     by consuming poison and, thus, the appellant was convicted under
     Section 306 of the IPC. Considering that the appellant was about
     70 years of age at the time, she was awarded a sentence of three
     years rigorous imprisonment.
6.   Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before us
     challenging the conviction as well as the sentence as recorded by
     the High Court.
7.   We have heard learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for
     the parties at length and perused the material on record.
8.   The most relevant statement for consideration is that of PW-3,
     Sandeep Kumar, younger brother of the deceased who was aged
     around 17 years at the time of incident and was with the deceased in
     the days leading up to the incident. He has stated that on 01.05.1998,
1918                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     he had accompanied his deceased sister to her matrimonial home
     and stayed with her for the following days. It has been stated by
     him that on the day of the incident, in the forenoon of 04.05.1998,
     his deceased sister had cooked rice and the appellant abused the
     deceased about the way the rice was cooked, then threw the food
     cooked by the deceased. Thereafter, on the same day again at
     about 4.30/5.00 p.m., the appellant-accused abused the deceased.
     At the time, there was no one else in the house except PW-3, the
     deceased and the accused. Thereafter, PW-3 was sent by the
     accused to call Raju. When PW-3 came back to her sister’s house,
     he saw that the accused was shouting that her daughter-in-law, i.e.
     the deceased, had consumed something. Then, the appellant along
     with three other persons carried the deceased to the hospital while
     PW-3 was asked to stay back at the house and was not allowed to
     accompany his sister. PW-3 further deposed that when his brother-
     in-law and other persons came back from the hospital, they told him
     that his sister has died.
9.   It has been noted by the Trial Court that this young witness of 17
     years has narrated the entire facts in a very natural way. This fact
     has not gone unnoticed by us as well as that PW-3 has given an
     account of events in a very natural manner that does not seem
     exaggerated or untruthful in any manner. In fact, the said witness
     has also been very honest about his lack of knowledge regarding
     the administration of poison to his sister and has clearly stated that
     he was not an eyewitness to the exact act and, thus, has made
     no statement unnecessarily alleging that the accused herself had
     administered such poison to the deceased which caused her death.
     There is an element of honesty and fairness in PW-3’s statement
     throughout which lends it much credibility.
10. Additionally, it must be noted that on a conjoint reading of the
    statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the FIR wherein PW-1
    was the complainant, it becomes apparent that the family members
    of the deceased have been very precise in their allegations against
    the appellant. Beginning from the point of registration of the FIR and
    throughout the course of trial, it has been stated across that it was
    solely the mother-in-law of the accused, i.e. the appellant herein,
    who used to physically and verbally abuse the deceased with regard
    to demand for dowry. The specific demand that was made by the
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                     1919

              Shakuntla Devi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


     accused time and again has also remained the same throughout all
     the statements. It is one of the rare cases where the complainant
     has displayed honesty while making the allegations and has not
     unnecessarily implicated other family members of the husband of
     the deceased by making omnibus allegations against all of them,
     which is usually the adopted tactic in cases of similar nature. Even
     the husband of the deceased has not been roped in as a co-accused.
     This reflects on the overall conduct of the prosecution, which has
     been unusually fair and honest and, in the facts and circumstances
     of the case, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story.
11. The jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment to suicide under
    Section 306 of the IPC is settled that the offence requires an active
    act or omission which led the deceased to commit suicide, and this
    act or omission must have been intended to push the deceased
    into committing suicide. The facts of the case make it abundantly
    clear that the deceased was repeatedly tortured and abused by the
    accused on account of dowry demand to the extent that the deceased
    had to return to her parental home seeking refuge. It was only on
    the assurance of her parents that the deceased went back to her
    matrimonial home hoping that the events would take an upturn once
    her parents have returned from the wedding and settle the matter
    of dowry with the appellant-accused. However, the abuses hurled
    at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident, i.e.
    04.05.1998, unfortunately acted as a straw that broke the camel’s
    back and led her to committing suicide. Therefore, given the factual
    matrix, the guilt of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC has
    been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Additionally, the High Court has adequately considered the ground
    of old age of the appellant as a mitigating factor and awarded her
    sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. We firmly believe
    that the awarded sentence balances the interest of justice quite
    equitably. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the
    impugned order of the High Court.
13. The appellant was directed by this Court to be released on bail during
    the pendency of this appeal vide order dated 06.09.2018. As such,
    four weeks’ time is granted to the appellant to surrender before the
    Trial Court concerned.
1920                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the impugned order of the
    High Court is upheld. The appellant is, hereby, directed to serve the
    remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the High Court. In case
    the appellant does not surrender within four weeks from today the
    Trial Court shall take such coercive measures as may be necessary
    for surrender of the appellant to carry out the remaining sentence.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain