SMT. BHAGWATI DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2289 : 2025 INSC 1051

                           Smt. Bhagwati Devi
                                     v.
                           State of Uttarakhand
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2616 of 2014)
                                29 August 2025
               [Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the order of conviction u/s.498-A IPC and
       consequential sentence imposed on the appellant-mother-in-law
       can be sustained on the basis of the material evidence.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A – Husband or relative of husband
       of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Dowry demand – Case
       of the complainant-father that his daughter was found dead
       inside the matrimonial home, and the accused persons-
       father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the daughter
       were present in the house; that the daughter had committed
       suicide by hanging herself; that the daughter used to inform
       that her mother-in-law was commenting on her sarcastically
       for dowry, and that her husband was out of the city – Trial
       court convicted only the appellant-mother-in-law u/s.498-A
       and sentenced her, however acquitted others of the charges
       u/ss.302/34, 304-B and 498A – High Court upheld the same –
       Correctness:
       Held: Order of conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable
       u/s.498-A and consequential sentence imposed cannot be
       sustained on the basis of the material evidence – Cumulative
       effect of the evidence of the witnesses-mother, father and brother
       of the girl, and the doctor would lead to the irresistible conclusion
       that the girl-deceased had not committed suicide on account of
       either demand for dowry being made or cruelty being inflicted
       on her – Neighbour of the appellant deposed that appellant had
       never made any demand for dowry, and that the deceased had
       informed her of not keeping well – She being neither the relative



* Author
2290                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    of the appellant nor belonging to the same community to which the
    appellant belongs would indicate that there was no interest in her
    to depose against the factual matrix or in favour of the appellant –
    Her evidence having been brushed aside by the courts below on
    the premise that she could not have deposed any fact with regard
    to the demand of dowry as it happens within the four walls is an
    erroneous finding – In such matters the word spreads faster than
    the wind about a daughter-in-law being harassed for the dowry by
    the parents in law – Such facts are conspicuously absent – Thus,
    the judgment of the High Court set aside and the appellant stands
    acquitted for offence u/s.498-A [Paras 11, 12]
    Penal Code, 1860 – s.498-A – Term cruelty – Meaning of, for
    purpose of s.498-A – Explained. [Para 8]

                             Case Law Cited
    Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [2009] 9 SCR 902 : (2009)
    13 SCC 330 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860.

                            List of Keywords
    Conviction u/s.498-A IPC; Dowry demand; Suicide by hanging;
    Material evidence; Cruelty; Word spreads faster than the wind;
    Daughter-in-law being harassed for the dowry by the parents in law.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    2616 of 2014
    From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2014 of the High Court
    of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLA No. 174 of 2003

                        Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Anshumaan Purohit, Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi.
    Advs. for the Respondent:
    Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Sunny Sachin
    Rawat.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                    2291

               Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Aravind Kumar, J.

1.   The Appellant herein who has been convicted for the offence
     punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is assailing the judgment
     rendered by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
     Appeal No.174 of 2003 on 10.04.2014.
2.   The son of the Appellant – Sh. Sanjay Mishra married Smt. Chandra
     Devi, the daughter of the complainant – Dharmanand Joshi (PW-1)
     according to Hindu customs and rites about a year prior to her death
     on 15.06.2001. PW-1 presented a complaint before Bagwshwar (P.S.)
     on 16.06.2001 alleging that his daughter was found dead inside the
     matrimonial home and only the accused persons were present in the
     house. It was also stated in the complaint that the daughter of PW-1
     had committed suicide by hanging herself. However, he is said to
     have seen the wounds on his daughter’s body during examination
     and he along with the Patwari saw blood along with water oozing out
     from the mouth of his daughter. It was further alleged that she was
     pregnant at the time of her death and further stated that deceased
     used to inform that her mother-in-law was commenting on her
     sarcastically for dowry. Hence, expressing doubt about her death and
     his daughter having been killed requested suitable action being taken
     against the culprits. It was also stated by the complainant himself
     that her husband namely son-in-law was out of city on professional
     work at Mumbai. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime
     Case No.1 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
     and 304-B of IPC. The father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-
     law of the deceased were arraigned as accused and the trial court
     framed the charge for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and
     optional charge under Section 302 readwith Section 34 of IPC. On
     behalf of the prosecution, three (3) witnesses namely Dharmanand
     Joshi, Shambhu Dutt Joshi and Smt. Heera Devi apart from four (4)
     other witnesses were examined and on behalf of the accused one
     Smt. Janki Devi was examined. The learned Sessions Judge after
     trial held that the charge of Section 302 readwith Section 34 of IPC
     was not proved against all the accused. So also, for the charge
     of Section 304-B was held to be not proved and accused persons
2292                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302
     readwith Section 34 and Section 304-B of IPC. However, Accused
     no.2 – Mother-in-law namely the Appellant herein was convicted for
     the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC on the ground
     that deceased had informed her mother (PW-3) and brother (PW-2)
     about the harassment she was facing for dowry to which effect they
     had accordingly deposed before the trial court. Hence, the learned
     Trial Judge concluded that deceased had committed suicide due to
     harassment. However, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was
     held to be not proved against Accused no.1 and Accused no.3 and
     they came to be acquitted for all the offences alleged.
3.   The Accused no.2 being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence
     of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
     default sentence of three months imprisonment preferred an appeal
     before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2003. The High
     Court on reappreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion
     that evidence of PW-3 disclosed that on every visit made by the
     deceased to the paternal home, she had disclosed the demand of
     dowry by her mother-in-law as well as other accused persons as an
     acceptable piece of evidence and as such affirmed the judgment of
     sessions court. Hence, this Appeal.
4.   We have heard the arguments of Shri Anshumaan Purohit and Smt.
     Saakshi Singh Rawat, learned Counsels appearing for the Appellant
     and the Respondent respectively. It is the contention of the learned
     counsel for the Appellant that PW-1 complainant had not whispered
     a word in his complaint or in his evidence about any demand for
     dowry having been raised by the appellant and this vital aspect has
     been completely ignored by the courts below. He would also contend
     none of the independent witnesses examined by prosecution had
     deposed against the appellant to substantiate the offence of dowry
     demand and the witness examined on behalf of the appellant, namely
     neighbour Smt. Janki Devi (DW-1) had stated in unequivocal terms of
     no demand for dowry having been made by the appellant at any point
     of time. He would further elaborate his submissions by contending that
     conviction is based solely on uncorroborated statement of interested
     witnesses with no independent or medical evidence tendered to prove
     cruelty or dowry demand. He would further contend that concurrent
     findings conveniently overlooked the absence of any specific dowry
     demand or by what act the appellant’s conviction could be justifiable
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2293

               Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand


     under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, he prays for the appeal being
     allowed by setting aside the order of conviction.
5.   Per contra, Smt. Saakshi Singh Rawat, learned counsel appearing for
     the Respondent has vehemently contended that courts below have
     rightly arrived at a conclusion with regard to demand of dowry and
     the statement made by DW-1 examined on behalf of the accused
     was rightly not accepted or believed since such demand for dowry
     would be within the four corners of the matrimonial home and as
     such the courts below have rightly convicted the appellant for the
     offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, she prays for dismissal
     of the appeal.
6.   Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
     appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the records of the courts
     below, it would clearly emerge that though the appellant alongwith her
     husband and another son was charged for the offences punishable
     under Section 304-B and as an alternate under Section 302 readwith
     Section 34 of IPC they have been acquitted by the court below for
     which there was no appeal. In other words, the order of acquittal for
     the said two offences had attained finality.
7.   The only issue which remains to be examined in the instant appeal is
     whether the order of conviction under Section 498-A and consequential
     sentence imposed on the appellant can be sustained on the basis
     of the material evidence? The answer has to be necessarily in the
     negative for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
8.   A perusal of Section 498-A would clearly indicate that whoever, being
     the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her
     to cruelty would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a
     term which may extend to three years and also liable to fine. Under
     the caption of explanation “Cruelty” has been defined to mean and
     include 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 said woman
     or harassment of the woman or where the harassment is with a view
     to coercing her or any person related to her 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 such demand.
     Demand for dowry in any form is itself sufficient for Section 498-A of
     IPC being attracted. Demand made in any form either by the husband
2294                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      or by the relative of the husband would also attract Section 498-A
      of IPC. Even if the demand exhibits the conduct that would likely
      to drive the said woman being unable to bear such conduct would
      attract Explanation (a). Likewise, harassing of a married woman with
      a view to coercing her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand
      would also fall within the mischief of the expression ‘cruelty’. This
      court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam1 has
      held cruelty for purpose of Section 498-A of IPC is to be established
      in that context as it may be different from other statutory provisions.
      In other words, it has been held that it has to be established that
      the woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously/ persistently
      or atleast in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint. It has
      been further held:-
             “21. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to
             be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it
             may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to
             be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the
             man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and
             to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to
             commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman
             has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or
             at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint.
             Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the
             provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture
             to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed
             as cruelty.”
9.    Keeping the aforesaid salutary principles enunciated by this court
      in mind, while we turn our attention to the facts on hand it would be
      apt and appropriate to have a look at the complaint lodged by the
      father of the deceased PW-1 on the very next day of the demise
      of his daughter. The perusal of the complaint would indicate that
      the complainant had reached his daughter’s matrimonial home
      on 16.06.2001 at 4 A.M. and he came to know that his daughter
      had expired in the afternoon on 15.06.2001 and was informed that
      she had committed suicide by hanging. It is further stated that the
      deceased used to tell them during her visit to the paternal home


1    (2009) 13 SCC 330
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2295

               Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand


     that her mother-in-law used to comment on her sarcastically for
     dowry. There is not even a word with regard to any dowry demand
     having been raised by the appellant. In this background when the
     deposition of the complainant PW-1 is perused it would not detain
     us for long to arrive at a definite conclusion that his deposition does
     not indicate of any such demand for dowry having been made or
     the deceased having been inflicted with cruelty so as to drive her to
     commit suicide. It would be appropriate to note at this juncture itself
     that the cause of death has been recorded as asphyxia on account
     of strangulation as evidenced from the post-mortem report.
10. The trial court has based the conviction on the strength of the evidence
    of the mother of the deceased PW-3. She has deposed that her in-laws
    used to state that the dowry given was less and she used to weep.
    In the cross-examination she admits that her daughter had come with
    her younger brother-in-law and had not made any complaint about
    the members of the matrimonial home. She also admits that during
    Shiv Ratri her daughter had come alongwith son-in-law and she did
    not make any complaint. She further admits that when PW-1 went to
    drop her to her matrimonial home she did not make any complaint
    to her father about any demand for dowry being made. She further
    admits that the alleged demands made by father-in-law, mother-in-
    law and younger brother-in-law was for the first time disclosed in the
    court when she tendered her examination-in-chief. She also admits
    that the married life of her daughter was happy and cordial and at
    the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry. She infact
    admits at the time of marriage her son-in-law had told that he has
    no demand of dowry. A holistic look at the deposition of PW-3 that is
    the mother of the deceased would not inspire any confidence to any
    person of common prudence to arrive at a conclusion that on account
    of either harassment for dowry or on account of demand for dowry
    made by the appellant she had been perforced to commit suicide.
    Even the evidence of PW-2 that is the brother of the deceased is in
    line with the evidence tendered by his mother PW-3. Infact he also
    admits that there was no demand for dowry made before marriage
    and the marriage was solemnised happily and properly and only on
    the basis of doubt he was expressing that his sister might have been
    murdered. The doctor (PW-4) who conducted the post-mortem and
    submitted the report (Ex. Ka-2) of the deceased PW-4 has opined the
    cause of death appears to be asphyxia on account of strangulation.
2296                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     He admits if there is strangulation then possibility of injuries being
     suffered to other parts of the body is possible and when there is
     resistance to the strangulation there is likelihood of urination and
     faecal matter can also be excreted which was not found on the body
     of the deceased.
11. Thus, the cumulative effect of the evidence of these witnesses
    would drive us to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased had
    not committed suicide on account of either demand for dowry being
    made or cruelty being inflicted on her. Our view also gets fortified
    by the fact that the neighbour of the appellant who was examined
    as DW-1 has deposed that appellant had never made any demand
    for dowry. She also deposed that the deceased had informed her of
    not keeping well. She being neither the relative of the appellant nor
    belonging to the same community to which the appellant belongs
    would indicate that there was no interest in her to depose against the
    factual matrix or in favour of the appellant. Her evidence having been
    brushed aside by the trial court and also High Court on the premise
    that she could not have deposed any fact with regard to the demand
    of dowry as it happens within the four walls is an erroneous finding
    particularly in such matters the word spreads faster than the wind
    about a daughter-in-law being harassed for the dowry by the parents
    in law. Such facts being conspicuously absent in the instant case,
    we have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the conviction
    of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and
    the sentence imposed on her cannot be sustained.
12. For the reasons aforestated above, we allow this Appeal, set aside
    the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
    Appeal No.174 of 2003 dated 10.04.2014 and acquit the accused
    for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Her bail bonds stand
    discharged. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain