Holding

Acquittal under section 304‑B IPC does not preclude conviction under section 498‑A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the dying declarations establish the guilt of Santosh Kumar for murder.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted Santosh Kumar and others for the murder of Sunita, alleging dowry harassment. The trial court convicted Santosh Kumar under sections 302, 498‑A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, acquitting him of section 304‑B IPC. The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted all accused on the ground that failure to prove 304‑B barred conviction under the other statutes. The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of sections 498‑A IPC and the Dowry Act are distinct from those of 304‑B, so an acquittal under 304‑B does not preclude conviction under the other offences. The Court examined three consistent dying declarations, finding them reliable and sufficient to prove that Santosh Kumar poured kerosene on the victim and caused her death. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the trial court’s conviction under section 302 IPC (and the related offences), and ordered the appellant to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Issues considered

Whether an acquittal under section 304‑B IPC bars conviction under section 498‑A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the dying declarations of the deceased are sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for murder under section 302 IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s conviction on the basis of the alleged failure to prove 304‑B.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304-B, s. 498-A

Subjects

murderdowry deathsection 304-Bsection 498-ADowry Prohibition Actdying declarationsconvictionacquittalappeal

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 106
~

I

A STATE OF U.P. I.

v.
SANTOSH KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001)
SEPTEMBER 3,2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

t·
Penal Code, 1860 :

c ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A, and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act-A married woman harassed for dowry and
burnt alive-Conviction by trial court u/ss.302134 and 498-A
/PC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act-Acquittal by High Court
holding that charge uls. 304-B against the ac~used having
J'

D failed, they could not be convicted for other offences-Held: ~
The conclusion of High Court is erroneous and unsustainable
in /aw-Even if there is acquittal u/s. 304-B, still conviction u/
s. 498-A can be recorded-Again ambit and scope of ss. 3
and 4 of Dowry Act is different from that of ss.304-B and 498-
A /PC-Ingredients of ss.304-B and 498-A /PC-Explained-
E
Ambit and scope oi ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act-Explained-
All the three dying declarations including the one recorded
by the Tehsildar/Magistrate clearly established the guilt of
accused-No other view except that taken by trial court is
possible and the view taken by High Court is perverse and
F unsustainable in law-Judgment of High Court set-aside and
that of trial court restored as far as sentence imposed on
respondent u/s 302 is concerned-Appeal against accused
who died pending appeal, abated-Abatement of appeal-
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-ss. 3 and 4-Evidence-Dying
G declaration-Minor discrepancies in evidence-Effect of.-
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Appeal against .:t
judgment of acquittal passed by High Court-Scope of.

The respondent, one of the brothers of the husband
H 106
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 107
......
I

of the deceased, along with his uncle and mother, was A
prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss.
302/34, 304-8, 498-A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, on the allegations that the accused
harassed the bride for dowry and on the day of incident
the respondent-accused, on exhortation of other 8
accused, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire
causing her death. The trial court convicted and
-i
sehtenced the respondent u/ss. 302 and 498-A IPC and
ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act He was, however,
acquitted of the charge u/s 304-8 IPC. The other accused
were oonvicted and sentenced u/s 498 IPC and ss. 3 and
c
4 of the Dowry Act. They were acquitted of the charges
u/s 302/34 and 304-8/34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court
... acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved,
the State filed the appeal. During pendency of the appeal,
""" two of the respondent-accused died and the appeal as D
regards them abated.

Allowing the appeal as. regards the surviving
respondent, the Court
E
HELD : 1.1. The finding of the High Court that when
,>..
the charge u/s. 304-8 IPC was held to have failed, there
was no logic in convicting the accused for offences
punishable u/ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 as well as u/s. 498-A IPC, is palpably wrong and
F
unsustainable in law. The ingredients of s. 498-A IPC and
ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are different from the
ingredients of s.304-8 IPC. The demand of dowry is an
essential ingredient to attract s. 304-8 IPC, whereas u/
s.498-A IPC the demand of dowry is not the basic
ingredient of the offence. Therefore, even if there is G
"" acquittal u/s. 304-8 IPC, still conviction under section
498A can be recorded under the law. [Para 20, 21 and 37]
[116-D-F; 121-F-G]
1.2. On analysis of the s.304-8 IPC, the essential H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R
~

A ingredients that emerge are : (i) that the accused caused
death of a woman; (ii) that the accused was husband, or
any relative of the husband of that woman; (iii) that death
of such woman, (a) was caused by any burns, or bodily
injury, or (b) occurred otherwise than under normal
B circumstances; (iv) that such .death was caused within
seven years of the marriage of that woman; (v) that soon
before her death such woman. was subjected to cruelty,
or harassment; (vi) that the accused had subjected such
woman to such cruelty or harassment for, or in
c connection
F-H; 120-A-GJ
with any demand for dowry. IPara 32] [119-

1.3. The essential ingredients of s. 498-A IPC are: (i)
that there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman
!'
was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted
D of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to
..'
drive such woman to commit suicide,· or to cause grave
injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental
or physical; harassment of such woman where such
harassment was with a view to coercing such woman or
E- any person related t'J har to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security, or on account of ;;.
failure by such woman, or any person related to her to ·
meet the unlawf~I demand and the woman was subjected
to such cruelty by the husband of that woman or any
F relative of the husband of that woman. [Para 34] [120-F-
H; 121-A-B]
Karnataka v. Balappa 1999 Cri LJ 3064 (Kant); Smt.
Shanti & Another v. State of Haryana (1991) 1 SCC 371,
relied on
G ,,._
1.4. Section 3 of the i;>owry Act deals with penalty for
giving and taking of dowry. The scope and ambit of s. 3
is different from th.e scope and ambit of s.304-8 IPC.
Section 4 prohibits the demand for giving property or
H valuable security whic'h demand, if satisfied, would
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 109

~ constitute an offence u/s. 3 read with s. 2 of the Act. Thus, A
the ambit and scope of ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is
different from the ambit and scope of s. 498-A IPC. The
incorrect understanding of law has led to the erroneous
judgment consequently leading to grave miscarriage. of
justice. [Para 39 to 42] [123-C, E-G] B

2.1. The entire prosecution case hinges on the three
1 dying declarations made by the deceased. A careful
analysis of these dying declarations leads of only one
conclusion that the respondent after beating the
deceased poured kerosene on her and set her on fire; C
and that she died because of burn injuries sustained by
her. The docfor certified that the deceased was in a fit
mental c9ndition of give statement. The Tehsildar/
.... Magistrate (PW-13) who recorded the third dying
declaration also stated the same in his statement. [Para D
22 and 23] [117-A-D]

2.2. The basic consistency between the three dying
declarations given to PW1, the Investigating Officer (PW8)
and the Tehsildar/Magistrate (PW-13) is that the accused E
brought kerosene, poured the same on the deceased and

- -"- set her on fire and she died because of the burn injuries.
It is the real genesis of all the three dying declarations. It
must be appreciated that the deceased gaye these dying
declarations in a state when she was in acute pain, and F
minor inconsistencies in one dying declaration with
another should not render the dying declarations void.
Dying declarations must be construed in proper
perspective. The veracity of the dying declarations is
proved beyond any shadow of doubt. [Para 24 and 25] G
-.i [117-0-F]

2.3. The statement of the deceased made to the
Tehsildar/Magistrate (PW13) cannot be brushed aside. He
was totally an independent witness and there was no
reason for him to cook up any false story, Similarly, the H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
•
A statement, Ext.Ka.16, made to the Investigating Officer,
also seems to be correct, consistent and corroborated by
the other two statements made before the Tehsildar/
Magistrate (PW13) and PW1. [Para 26 and 27] [118-B-C]

2.4. In any criminal case where statements are
B
recorded after a considerable lapse of time, some
inconsistencies are bound to occur. But it is the duty of
the court to ensure that the truth prevails. If on material
particulars, the statements of prosecution witnesses are
consistent, then they cannot be discarded only because
c of minor inconsistencies. [Para 28] [118-D-E]

3. On a careful examination of all the three dying
declarations, which are totally consistent and le~d to only
r
one conclusion that the respondent has poured kerosene
D on the deceased and lit the fire, the guilt of the accused-
respondent of committing murder of the deceased is fully
and clearly made out. The fact is clearly corroborated
from the testimonies of the father of the deceased (PW1 ),
the Investigating Officer (PW8) and the Tehsildar/
E Magistrate (PW13). The respondent is clearly guilty of
offence u/s. 302 IPC. No other view is possible in the light o~

of the three dying declarations. [Para 30 and 44] [119-A;
124-A-B]

4. This Court has always been slow in reversing the
F order of acquittal, particularly in a case where the other
view is possible or plausible. The Court is fully conscious
of its bounden obligation .and duty that it is dealing with
appeal against acquittal by the High Court. Unfortunately,
in the instant case, the High Court, without assigning any
G cogent reason, set aside a well reasoned judgment of the ,.
trial court and acquitted the respondent of the offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC. The view taken by High Court is
perverse and unsustainable in law. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the
H trial court is restored as far as the sentence of the
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 111

respondent u/s 302 IPC is concerned. [Para 46 and 47] A
[124-D-F]
Case Law Reference :
1999 Cri LJ 3064 (Kant) relied on Para 36
B
(1991) 1 sec 371 relied on Para 36

"I CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1199 of 2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 2.3.2000 of the High c
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 1993.

Pramod Swarup and Manoj Kumar Dwivedi (for Gunnam
-<
Venkateswara Rao) for the Appellant.
D
B.S. Jain and Manish Raghav (for Goodwill lndeevar) for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed E
... against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dated 2.3.2000 passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 1993.

2. The respondent and other accused were charged under • F
sections 302/34, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Dowry Act') read with
section 34 of the IPC.

3. The llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, in Sessions G
Trial No. 483 of 1992, convicted respondent Santosh Kumar
under sections 302 and 498-A and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Act. He was however acquitted under section 304-B IPC. The
llnd Additional Sessions Judge convicted respondents Shiv
Pyari and Prem Narain under sections 498-A IPC and sections H
L
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. i

A 3 and 4 of the Dowry JXct. They were however acquitted under
sections 302/34 and 304-IPC.
\

4. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused I
and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused
respondents imposed by the trial court for the offences for
8
which they were held guilty and convicted.

5. The appellant State of U.P. aggrieved by the impugned \"'
judgment has filed this appeal under Article 136 of Jhe
Constitution.
c
6. The State of U.P. has filed this appeal against accused
Shiv Pyari, Prem Narain and Santosh Kumar. The other
accused Shiv Pyari wife of Dea Krishan and Prem Narain s/o
,_
Guru Deen have expired during the pendency of the appeal, r
D therefore, the appeal filed by the State of U.P. against them has
abated.

7. In this appeal, we are concerned with the only surviving
accused respondent Santosh Kumar. Brief facts of the case in
nutshell are as under;
E ~ .....
8. Deceased Sunita, daughter of Dhani Ram was married :Jo.
to Ram Chandra on 1.5.1987. At the time of marriage, Dhani ....
Ram gave dowry to his daughter beyond his capacity, but
unfortunately her in-laws were not satisfied and they harassed
F. her by regularly demanding dowry in the form of articles and
money. Sunita told her parents repeatedly about the demands
of dowry. Her father Dhani Ram met Prem Narain and Shiv
Pyari · and assured ·them that apart from whatever he had
already given in dowry he would continue giving them
throughout his life, but they should not harass his daughter.
G ,
9. According to the prosecution, on 15.3.1992 at about
9.00 a.m., Sunita was beaten by Shiv Piyari, Santosh Kumar
and Prem Narain on account of demand of dowry. Deceased
Sunita told them that there was no use of harassing her
H everyday for dowry and that it would be better if she was
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 113
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
finished once for all. Prem Narain exhorted at Santosh Kumar A
saying that, "DAAL DO MITTI KA TAIL JALA DO SALi KO AUR
JO 10-20 HAZAR LAGENGE HUM LAGA DENGE" - meaning
thereby to pour kerosene oil and kill her and we would take care
of litigation expenses of ten to twenty thousand to save Santosh
Kumar. Immediately thereafter, Santosh Kumar broug~t a B
container of kerosene oil and poured the same on Sunita and
--J lit fire and burnt her alive. Deceased Sunita immediately after
the burning episode cried for help and ultimately jumped into a
small water pond to save her life.

10. On hearing the hue and cry, Om Prakash, Chotey
c
Yadav and Santosh son of Jagdish arrived there and took her
out from the pond. She was alive at that time. Dhani Ram, father
~, of the deceased, on hearing about the incident came to his
daughter's house. The investigating officer also reached the
spot and seized the container of kerosene oil, the piece of burnt D
dhoti and pieces of broken bangles. He took the same into
custody in the presence of witnesses. After completing the
~
necessary formalities of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the accused persons under sections 302/34, 3048
and 498A of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. E
)\

.-· 11. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its
case. PWs 3 and 4, who alleged to have seen the occurrence,
did not support the prosecution case, except the version that
the deceased Sunita had jumped into a water pond and she F
was taken out from that pond and at that time accused persons
'• and the family members of Dhani Ram were present there.

12. According. to the prosecution, the death of deceased
Sunita was caused by accused Santosh Kumar in furtherance
-+ of the common intention of all the accused on account of G
demand of dowry, while the defence version as set up by the
respondents was a case of accidental fire. According to the
defence version, the deceased Sunita was cooking and
accidentally caught fire and died because of burn injuries:
H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 13. The trial court came to a definite finding that it was a
clear case of murder and not a case of accidental (ire.
According to the trial court, Dhani Ram PW1, father of the
deceased, on receiving the information about burning of his
daughter reached at the place of occurrence. Deceased Sunita
-B categorically told him that accused Santosh Kumar poured
kerosene oil and set her on fire. She also stated that before
setting her on fire, accused Santosh Kumar and others had r.
beaten her. She further stated that accused Prem Narain told,
"Pour kerosene oil and set her on fire. I will spend Rupees 10
c to 20 thousand required for litigation to defend you (Santosh).
This was construed to be the first dying declaration according
to the prosecution.

-14. The second dying declaration is Ext.Ka.16 which was r
. recorded under section 161 of the Code of Crirr.inal Procedure
D · (for short, the Cr.P.C.) in the case diary by the Investigating
Officer Shiv Kumar Tyagi PW8. In this dying declaration, it is
stated that a day before the occurrence at about 9 a.m. she
had a quarrel with her mother-in-law because she had refused
to give Rs.20/- demanded by her. That, after some time her
E husband's younger brother, Santosh Kumar, came from outside
and asked her as to what she had been doing in Bombay, then j

she replied that he could very well inquire from Bombay itself.
Immediately thereafter he started hitting her by kicks, fists and
blows. At thqt time, Sunita to.Id him that he could finish her
F forever instead of killing her slowly. Accused Santosh Kumar
immediately thereafter brought kerosene oil in a container and
threw· it on her body and set her on fire. Sunita rushed towards
her mother-in-law Shiv Pyari but she did not save her ~nd,
therefore, she rushed towards the water pond and jumped into
G it. The villagers tried to save her by bringing her out of the pond. -1-

15. The third dying declaration is what was stated by
deceased Sunita to the Tehsildar/Magistrate Rajesh Kumar
Shrivastava, PW13. The Tehsildar/ Magistrate was summoned
to record her dying deClaration. Dr. S.N.H. Rizvi of the District
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 115
JDALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
..,
Hospital, Unnao gave certificate that he had examined A
deceased Sunita and she was in her full senses and her I

statement could be recorded and only thereafter her statement
was recorded by the Tehsildar. The said Tehsildar clearly stated
that she was in a fit condition to give her,,statement. Deceased
Sunita stated to the Tehsildar/Magistrate that she demanded B
Rs.20/- from her mother-in-law who refused to give her Rs.20/
-. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Santosh Kumar came from the
l
outside and asked her, "what were you doing in Bombay". She
replied, "Go to Bombay and get the matter inquired into". On
getting this reply from the deceased, Santosh Kumar started c
beating her and her father-in-law also abused her. On
exhortation of Prem Narain, Santosh Kumar brought a container
of kerosene oil and poured the same on her whole body and
...._ set her on fire. In that statement, she has also stated that she
had no dispute with her husband and Ram Kishore, another
0
brother of her husband. She stated that her mother-in-law Shiv
Pyari, uncle-in-law Prem Narain, brother-in-law (Oevar) Santosh
Kumar and elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Arjun Prasad had been
harassing her from the very beginning. She also stated that her
brothers-in-law Santosh Kumar and Arjun Prasad always used
to tell her, "Bring 'Roti' (Bread) from your father''. E
-",
16. Om Prakash PW2, Chotey Yadav PW3 and Santosh
PW4 did not support the prosecution case, the prosecution
case hinges on the statements made by Dhani Ram PW1,
Inspector S.K. Tyagi PW8 and the Tehsildar/Magistrate Rajesh F
Kumar Srivastava PW13.

17. The trial court carefully marshalled and analyzed the
entire evidence on record. On the basis of the three dying
declarations, the trial court found the accused Santosh Kumar
G
-1. guilty of killing Sunita by pouring kerosene oil and setting her
on fire. The Tehsildar/Magistrate PW13 categorically stated that
deceased Sunita was in her full senses throughout the recording
of her dying declaration.

H
I

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
....
A 18. The trial court after analyzing the entire evidence, while ,•
acquitting respondent Santosh Kumar under section 304-8 IPC,
convicted him under sections 302 and 498-A IPC and under
sections 3and 4 of the Dowry Act. Respondents Shiv Pyari and
Prem Narain were convicted by the trial court only under section
8 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
19. The High Court in the impugned judgment observed
that when the State has not filed any appeal against the order r
of acquittal under section 304-B IPC, the order of acquittal for
the charge of offence punishable under section 304-B IPC has
c be~ome final. The respondents preferred appeal against
conviction under sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Act by the trial court.
20. The High Court while acquitting the respondents herein r
D under all the charges observed as under:

"When the charge under section 304-B l.P.C. was held to
have failed, then there was no logic in convicting the
appellants for offences punishable under sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as under section
E
498-A l.P.C. The trial Court ought to have acquitted all the
appellants for offences punishable under section 498-A
IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act."
. f

21. This finding of the High Court is palpably wrong and
F unsustainable. The ingredients of sections 498-A IPC and
sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are different from the
ingredients of section 304-B IPC. This erroneous understanding
of law has led to entirely erroneous and unsustainable findings
by the High Court. The High Court was entitled to re-appreciate
·G the entire evidence in appeal, but in doing so the High Court
could not ignore the vital features of the prosecution evidence. -1 ....
The High Court has given no reasons for setting aside a well
reasoned judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused
under section 302 IPC. In this appeal, we are called upon to \

'
H primarily decide about the legality of acquittal of the respondent
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 117
[OALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
,.,
under section 302 IPC. A

22. The entire prosecution case hinges on the three dying
declarations made by the deceased. On careful analysis of
these dying declarations, it leads to only one conclusion that
respondent Santosh Kumar after beating deceased Sunita B
poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and that she died
because of burn injuries sustained by her. The High Court
1 unnecessarily gave undue importance to the minor
contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and dying
declarations.
c
91111 23. The High Court ought to have examined this case in
the proper perspective. The doctor also certified that the
deceased was in a fit mental condition to give statement. The
""" Tehsildar/Magistrate PW13 also stated the same in his
statement. 0

24. The basic consistency between the three dying
declarations given to Dhani Ram PW1, the Investigating Officer
PW8 and the Tehsildar/Magistrate PW13 is that the accused
Santosh Kumar brought kerosene oil, poured the same on the
E
deceased and set her on fire and she died because of the burn
~, · injury. It is the real genesis of all the three dying declarations. It
must be properly appreciated that the deceased Sunita gave
these dying declarations in a state when she was having acute
pain and minor inconsistencies in one dying declaration with
F
another should not render the dying declarations void. Dying
declarations must be construed in proper perspective.

25. The veracity of the dying declarations is proved beyond
any shadow of doubt because the deceased specifically did
not level any allegation against her husband and her other G
,... brother-in-law Ram Kishore. If she wanted to implicate other
members of the family, she could have also named her brother-
in-law Ram Kishore and husband Ram Chandra. But she
specifically attributed the act of bringing and pouring kerosene
oil on her and setting her on fire only by respondent Santosh H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Kumar. The, High Court ought to have appreciated this fact in
proper perspective as to why the dying person in all her three
dying declarations named only Santosh Kumar and attributed
act of pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire to him .alone
when there were so many members in the family.
B
26. The statement of the deceased made to the Tehsildar/
Magistrate PW13 cannot be brushed aside. He was totally an
. independent witness and there was no reason for him to cook
up any false story.
"
c 27. Similarly, the statement Ext.Ka.16 made to the
Investigating Officer .also seems to be correct, consistent and J/lr
corroborated by the other two statements made before the
Tehsildar/Magistrate PW13 and Dhani Ram P\1'{1. The High
Court gravely erred in setting aside a well reasoned judgment . ~

D of the trial court and coming to the different findings which are
totally unsustainable on proper analysis of the entire record.

28. In any criminal case where statements are recorded
after a considerable lapse of time, some inconsistencies are
bound to occur. But it is the duty of the court to ensure that the
E
truth prevails. If on material particulars, the statements of
prosecution witnesses are consistent, then they cannot be /•
discarded only because of minor inconsistencies. While
appreciating the evidence, the courts must also consider the
fact carefully as to why would the father of the deceased falsely
F implicate only one of the members of the family and let go the
real culprit? At that juncture, usual anxiety is to ensure that the
real assailant must be punished.

29. The court in this case ought to have considered what
G was the interest of the Tehsildar/Magistrate to have wrongly
recorded the statement of the deceased. Similarly, when the ire
statement Ext. Ka 16 recorded by the Investigating Officer gets
full corroboration from the other two dying declarations, there
is no justification in discarding the testimony of the investigating
H officer.
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 119
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

-\
30. We have carefully examined all the three dying A
declarations. The guilt of the accused Santosh Kumar of
committing murder of the deceased Sunita is fully and clearly
made out. In our considered opinion, no other view is possible
in the light of the three dying declarations. The High Court
erroneously set aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial court B
and acquitted the respondent and other _accused. The High
Court's finding that when the charge under section 304-8 IPC

- could not be proved, then conviction under section 498-A IPC
and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act also cannot be
sustained. This approach of the High Court is wholly erroneous c
and unsustainable.

31. In order to correctly appreciate the legal position, it is
necessary to examine ingredients of these sections.
...... Section 304-B IPC reads as under:
D
"304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or E
any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry
death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death."
'
F
32. On analysis of the section, the following essential
ingredients of section 304-8 IPC emerge and they are set out
as under:

"Essentials
G
(i) That the accused caused death of a woman;

(ii) that the accused was husband, or any relative of the
husband of that woman;

(iii) death of such woman, H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (a) was caused by any burns, or bodily injury, or }-

(b) occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances;

(iv) such death was caused within seven years of the
B marriage of that woman;

(v) soon before her death such woman was subjected
to cruelty, or harassment;
(vi) the accused had subjected such woman to such
c cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any
demand for dowry."

33. Section 498-B IPC reads as follows:
ir-
D "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
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
E liable to fine."

34. The following are the essential ingredients of Section
~·
498-A IPC: .

"Essentials
F
(i) That there was a married woman;
(ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty;
(iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of
G such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to
commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger .
~
to her life, limb or health, whether mental or
physical; harassment of such woman where such
harassment was - with a view to coercing such
H woman or any person related to her to meet any ·
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 121
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
unlawful demand for any property or valuable A
-j
security, or on account of failure by such woman,
or any person related to her to meet the unlawful
demand in able and the woman was subjected to
such cruelty by- the husband of that woman; or any
relative of the husband of that woman. n B

35. The High Court gravely erred in coming to the finding
that once the charge under section 304-8 IPC could not be
)
proved, then conviction under section 498-A IPC and sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Act also cannot be recorded. In State of
Kamataka v. Balappa 1999 Cri LJ 3064 (Kant), at pages 3068,
c
3069 and 3070, the court has dealt with in great detail that even
if the charge under section 304-B IPC is not made out, the
conviction under section 498-A IPC can be recorded. Sections
...., 304-B and 498-A IPC are both distinct and separate offences .
,. The 'cruelty' is a common essential ingredient of both the D
offences. Under section 304-8, it is the 'dowry death' that is
punishable and such death should have occurred within seven
years of the marriage. In the statute, no such period is
me.rtioned in section 498-A IPC. The husband or his relative
would be liable for subjecting the woman to 'cruelty' any time E
after the marriage.

,~
36. The legal position is absolutely clear that a person
charged and acquitted under section 304-8 can be convicted
under section 498-A IPC. This court in Smt. Shanti & Another F
v. State of Haryana (1991) 1 SCC 371 has taken the same
view.

37. The demand of dowry is an essential ingredient to
attract section 304-B IPC, whereas under section 498-A IPC
the demand of dowry is not the basic ingredient of the offence. G
Therefore, even if there is acquittai under section 304-B IPC,
still conviction under section 498A can be recorded under the
law.

38. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act read as under: H

..
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14' (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A "3 - Penalty for giving or taking dowry - (1) If any person, ' r-
after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or
abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen
B thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry,
whichever is more:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five
c years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage ,.,.
D
to the bride (without any demand having been .....
made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this
E Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage
to the bridegroom (without any demand having ""·
been made in that behalf):
F
Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this
Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made
G by or on behalf of (he bride or any person related to the
bride, such presents arc of a customary nature and the
value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial
status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such
presents are given."
H
STATE OF U.P. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 123
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~ "4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands, A
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be,
any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than six months, but which may'
extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten B
thousand rupees:

> Provided that the court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months."
c
39. Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving
and taking of dowry. The scope and ambit of section 3 is
..., different from the scope and ambit of section 304-B IPC .
D
40. Section 4 of the Dowr}t Act deals with penalty for
demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or
other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the
case may be. The object of section 4 is to discourage the very
demand for property or valuable security as consideration for E
a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the
t demand for 'giving' property or valuable security which demand,
,,.... if satisfied, would constitute an offence under section 3 read
with section 2 of the Act.

41. Thus, the ambit and scope of sections 3 and 4 of the F
Dowry Act is different from the ambit and scope of section 498-
A IPC.

42. The incorrect understanding of law has led to the
erroneous judgment consequently leading to grave miscarriage G
"";\ of justice.

43. As far as conviction of respondent Santosh Kumar
under section 302 IPC is concerned, there is no discussion in
the impugned judgment of the High Court. The High Court failed
to find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court which H

..
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A persuaded the High Court to set aside the trial court judgment.

44. All three dying declarations made by the deceased are
totally consistent and lead to only one conclusion that the
respondent Santosh Kumar had poured kerosene oil on. the
B deceased and lit the fire. The fact is clearly corroborated from
the testimonies of Dhani Ram PW1, the Investigating Officer
Shiv Kumar Tyagi PW8 and the Tehsildar/Magistrate Rajesh
(
Kumar Shrivastava PW13. The respondent is clearly guilty of
offence under section 302 IPC.
c 45. The High Court without assigning any cogent reason
set aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial court and
acquitted the resP,ondent under section 302 IPC. The impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
~-
•
D 46. This Court has always been slow in reversing the order
of acquittal, particularly in a case where the other view is
possible or plausible. We are fully conscious of our bounden
obligation and duty that we are dealing with app.eal against
acquittal by the High Court. Unfortunately, in ti·1e instant case,
on proper analysis of all three dying declarations, no other view
E
is possible and the view taken by the High Court is perverse
and unsustainable in law.
.......
47. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court
F is restored as far as the sentence of the respondent under
section 302 IPC is concerned. ·The accused Santosh Kumar
is directed to surrender in order to serve out the remaining
sentence.

G 48. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.
t
R.P. Appeal disposed of.