Rare Case Where Complainant Has Not Unnecessarily Implicated Other Family Members: Supreme Court Upholds Mother-In-Law’s Conviction For Abetment To Suicide

The appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the sole accused against the order of the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Appeal wherein the appellant’s conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was converted into that under Section 306 of the IPC with sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “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.”

Advocate Nilakanta Nayak represented the Appellant while AOR Shaurya Sahay represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The accused-appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, who was aged about 22 years and was married to the son of the accused-appellant in the year 1997. The wife died in the year 1998 at her matrimonial home. An FIR was filed by the deceased's father against the appellant under the aforementioned sections, alleging that he had been informed numerous times by the deceased that her mother-in-law, i.e. the appellant, used to mentally and physically torture the deceased for getting a lesser amount of dowry. It was due to this maltreatment that the deceased had come to her parental house and informed her parents that the appellant had 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 convinced her and sent her back to her matrimonial house along with her younger brother on the assurance that the complainant father would resolve the issue of dowry with the appellant.

However, when the parents of the deceased returned to their home, they were informed that their deceased daughter had died. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced her 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. The High Court, however, convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC and awarded a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, considering that she was about 70 years of age at the time. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the relevant statement for consideration was that of PW-3, the younger brother of the deceased, who was aged around 17 years at the time of the incident and was with the deceased in the days leading up to the incident. It was stated by him that on the day of the incident, his deceased sister had cooked rice, and the appellant abused the deceased about the way the rice was cooked and also threw the food cooked by the deceased. Thereafter, on the same day, the appellant-accused abused the deceased. He was sent to call one Raju, and when the brother came back, he saw that the accused was shouting that her daughter-in-law, i.e. the deceased, had consumed something. Moreover, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, the brother was asked to stay back.

The Bench stated that the Trial Court noted that this young witness of 17 years had narrated the entire facts in a very natural way and had also given an account of events in a very natural manner that did not seem exaggerated or untruthful in any manner. He had also been very honest about his lack of knowledge regarding the administration of poison to his sister and had clearly stated that he was not an eyewitness to the exact act and, thus, 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”, it said.

On a conjoint reading of the statements of the witnesses as well as the FIR, the Bench noticed that the family members of the deceased had been very precise in their allegations against the appellant.

Coming to the jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, the Bench reaffirmed 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. In the matter at hand, 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. The abuses hurled at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident, unfortunatel,y acted as a straw that led her to commit suicide. Therefore, he guilt of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Bench also upheld the view of the High Court in considering the ground of old age of the appellant as a mitigating factor and awarding her a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench upheld the order of the High Court and ordered, “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.

Cause Title: Shakuntla Devi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 581)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Nilakanta Nayak, Amit Yadav, AOR Shishir Deshpande

Respondent: AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocates Aditya Kumar, Ruchil Raj

Click here to read/download Judgment