Holding

The letter only refers to a demand by the mother‑in‑law for a gold ring and contains no reference to any demand by the husband, so the conviction of the husband under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC is unsustainable.

Summary

The case arose from the death of Anita, who allegedly committed suicide after her husband Vijay and mother‑in‑law Suman demanded dowry. The prosecution relied on a letter (Exhibit 19) written by Anita to her father, which mentioned a demand for a gold ring by the mother‑in‑law. The trial court convicted only the mother‑in‑law under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and acquitted Vijay. On appeal, the High Court read the same letter as also containing a demand for Rs 10,000 by Vijay and consequently convicted him. Vijay appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the letter did not implicate him. The Supreme Court held that the letter makes no reference to any demand by the husband and therefore the High Court’s conviction was erroneous. The Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the trial court’s acquittal of Vijay, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the letter (Exhibit 19) evidences a dowry demand by the husband sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 498A, 304B and 306 IPC
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal of the husband

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 306, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathdowry harassmentSection 498ASection 304BSection 306letter evidenceconvictionappealSupreme Court

Judgment

· ' [2008) 16 ~.C.R. 890
I

F
A VIJAY
v. . . " ,nf~s·rlf1u"
STATE OF·MAHARASH1RA. bm;";.:11oa,
(Critnihal. Appeal· No. 242 2008) ~E noiroti2 of
. . . .(• iU·.·: •.,f\\~::\'
DECEMBER 1, 2008
B ··~ . ~ { . ' ' ~;;~ -ltj 1
·[DR. ARIJIT .PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUND~KAM
·..,, , •, . SHARMAi JJ.] > :1 ,

c· ·:-·
·' PENAL ·CODE,. 1860:
'~.: ~· • ~.,.,.;/,"'··I~\
, ·.
J A,~·'.>.,: ,·~)
'

~'f,
1.

'"
IQ ~.!i'~ ("
.)(~.,£/\
r
:·, ss;"fl98:-A;~306;.and 304-B ~f?rosecution.oMwsband, in--
laws and,brother-in:laws of.bride on thei'al/egatio.f)s. of her:.,
death,due to cruelty and.harassment for~dowry ..::.1Conviction :
of mother-:in-law by trial court,... In State's appeal High Court. t
also convicting the husband...: HELD:: The letter; whereon
D courts below relied;Jndicates nothing against husband,... High •'
Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment of trial. court. ~- l

' . ,, ' '·.' '· ' '' \ ' ' '

.. In .a trial arising· out of the death of the ~daughter of
PW-1, the tri81"court, on interpretation of a' letter (Ext.'19)
E stat~d io· h~ve, been written ·by ~h~ ~ecea·~ed indicati_ng
t~e dema_nd of a gold ring, convicted th~ mother-in-law
(A-3) of the deceased while acquitted her husband (A-1),
father-in-law and two brothers-in-law. The trial court
recorded a finding' that the demand of gold ring and
F cruelty to de.ceased on account of non-satisfaction ofthe
demand was proved only against A~3. It was found that
the 'deceased had ·committed suicide. A-3 filed appeal
challenging her conviction and State filed appeal against
order of ~cquittal of other accused. Jhe High Court on
G interpretation of Ext.19 held thaqhe.dem~~d also .related
to Rs.10,000/- by. th~ hu~band, a~d while dismissing the
appeal of A-3, allowed State's appeal as regards A-1.
Meanwhile A-3 died.

H 890
VIJAY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 891

;.,!
. In the appeal filed by A-1, it was contended that the A
trial court had rightly held that there was nothing in Ext.
19 to implicate him and the High Court erred in directing
his conviction.

Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD: 1. The letter, on which, both the trial court and
\:" the High Court have relied to conclude one way or the
.. other refers to the demand by mother-in-law of a gold ring .
There is no reference to the appellant in the letter nor is
there a reference to any demand of money by him. That c
being so, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the
judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
[Para 5 and 7] [894-B-E-F]
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 242 of 2008.
,..
From the Judgment and final Order dated 28.6.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1993. E

Gagan Sanghi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
~
1- DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to
tfle order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
1
Court, Nagpur Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the State.
By the common judgment two appeals were disposed of. One
was by Suman (hereinafter to be described as 'A-3') while the G
other was by the State. Five accused persons faced trial for
""--. alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC'). Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon
directed acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 5. The present H

..,
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 16 S.C.R.

A appellant was A-1. The trial Court directed conviction of ..... '

accused Suman who in the meantime died. The appeal fil~d
by the State was admitted only against the acquittal of present
appellant. High Court allowed the appeal and convicted
appellant for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B
B and 306 IPC. . . '

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
--+
t
Shrirang (PW-1) S/o Yashwant Rautand Sou. Vimal W/o
Shrirang Raut resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a
c ~ I
son. Nirmala (PW-3) w/o. Subhas~ Marine is their elde.r
daughter and Anita (hereinafter referr~d to as 'deceased') was
their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused No.1
Vijay S/o Pralhad Ghodke on 14.2.1990. After their marriage,
Anita went to stay with her husband at Khamgaon. Accused
D No.3 Suman is the mother-in-law, accused No.4 Pralhad S/o
. Rangnath Ghodke is the father-in-law ahd accused no.2 Raju
S/o Pralhad Ghodke and accused no.5 Pappu S/o Pralhad
~
Ghodke are the brothers-in-law of Anita. All of them were
residing jointly.
E
During Diwali of 1990, Anita went to her parental house
at Bhusawal af')d stayed there for about 4-5 days, During her
stay Anita told her parents that her husband (accused No.1-
Vijay) was demanding Rs.10,000/- and her mother-in-law
(accused No.3 Suman) was demanding gold ring. The parents
F of Anita expressed their inability to satisfy the demand.
-l'
On 7.2.1991 Shrirang (PW-1) received a letter (Exh. 19)
of Anita reiterating the demand of gold ring and money. After t-
receiving the letter, PW-1 Shrirang (P-W-1) went'to the
G matrimonial house of Anita and asked her husband and mother-
in-law to send Anita with him. However, they did not send her.
So he went back. On 10.4.1991 the parents of Anita received f
message that Anita died due to burning. Hence they rushed to
Khamgaon where they had to attend the funeral of Anita. Then
H Shrirang (PW-1) lodged report with Police Station, Khamgaon.-

,.
;
VIJAY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 893
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

_,/ Since no action was taken, he moved Superintendent of Polic~. A
Buldana (Vide Exh. 20). On the direction of Superintendent Qf
Police, Buldana Crime No, 118/1991 under Sections 498-A
and 304-8 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was
registered at Police Station, Khamgaon on 14.4.1991 again~t
the accused persons. After investigation the accused person$ B
we.re charge sheeted. The defence of the accused person$
..,. was of denial.
.\

In order to establish the accusations the prosecution
examined six witnesses including Shrirang (PW-1) the fath.er
of the deceased, Vimal (PW-2) the mother of the deceased and c I

Smt. Nirmala (PW-3) the elder sister of the deceased. The trial
Court found that the demand of gold ring by A-3 and cruelty to
deceased on account of non satisfaction of the demand was
proved only against A-3. It was found that Anita had committed.
suicide. Accordingly, A-3 was convicted as afore-noted and rest D
of the accused persons were acquitted. As noted above,
? Suman challenged the conviction whereas the State challenged
> the acquittal of rest of the accused persons.
The High Court found that the case of prosecution E
depended upon the interpretation of Exh.19 i.e. the letter written,
by the deceased to PW-1. The trial Court found that the letter
only referred to the demand of gold ring by A-3 and there was
nothing to implicate the present appellant. The High Court,
however, felt that on reading of Exh.19 it is crystal clear that the, F
same also related to the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the present ·
appellant. Accordingly, as noted l:l.bove, while dismissing the·
appeal filed by A-3 the State's· appeal in respect of present
appellant was allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the. appellant submitted that the trial G
Court had rightly held that in Exh.19 there was nothing to
'"" implicate the present appellant. Therefore, his acquittal was
correct, but the High Court on erroneous reading of the
document has directed conviction.
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 16 S.C.R.

A 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
supported the order.

5. In the letter on which both the trial Court and the High
Court have. relied upon to conclude one way or the other,
8 reference is made to several earlier letters. It specifically refers
to the demand by mother-in-law of a gold ring. There is no
refer~nce to the present appellant in the letter.

6. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is also relevant. PW-
1 has stated that except Exh.19 he had not received any letter
C and the statement in the letter to the effect that the deceased
had earlier sent 2/3 letters is correct. If on one hand he says
that he had not received any letter, the question of not replying
to them does not arise. Similarly, PW-2 has stated that she
cannot say whether there was any demand of Rs.10,000/- in
D Exh.19. PW-3 has accepted that deceased had written to her
father that mother-in-law Suman was demanding gold ring in
the letter (Ext.19).

7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is
E some reference to money'in the letter. The sentence is being
read out of context. The deceased had written in the letter that
she may have to get a gold ring but wherefrom will she get the .
money for jbuying it. Therefore, there is 110 reference to any
demand of money by the present appellant. That being so, the
F High Court was not justified in upsetting .the judgment of the ~,rjal
Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set a,side
and that of the trial Court is restored.

8. The appeal is allowed.

G R.P. Appeal allowed

J ' ·v

( ..