MANU/SC/1159/2013

Equivalent Citation: 2013(3)AC R3493, 2013XI AD (S.C .) 237, AIR2014SC 378, 2014 (1) ALD(C rl.) 642 (SC ), 2013 (83) AC C 940, 2014 (1) ALT
(C rl.) 267 (A.P.), 117(2014)C LT967, 2014C riLJ546, III(2013)DMC 726, 2014(1)JC C 107, 2014(2)JLJ44, JT2013(14)SC 506, 2013(4)MLJ(C rl)559,
2014(1)MPHT386, 2014(1)N.C .C .40, 2014(1)RC R(C riminal)143, 2013(13)SC ALE552, (2014)2SC C 106, 2014 (1) SC J 627

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2008
Decided On: 11.11.2013
Appellants: Bhupendra
Vs.
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.C. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh, Yogesh Tiwari and
Dharam Singh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: C.D. Singh and Sakshi Kakkar, Advs.
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The question before us is whether Bhupendra (the Appellant) was rightly convicted
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, Madhya Pradesh of having committed an
offence punishable Under Section 498A, Section 304B and Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and whether his conviction was rightly upheld by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion the question must be answered in the
affirmative and therefore we find no merit in this appeal.
The facts
2. Geeta Bai married Bhupendra on 7th June, 1993 and at that time her father PW-1
Bhika Ram gave dowry to Bhupendra and his family according to their means. The
case of the prosecution was that Geeta Bai was harassed by Bhupendra and members
of his family who demanded dowry over and above what was given to them at the
time of marriage. Initially, the demand was for a she buffalo which was met by Bhika
Ram. Then there was a further demand for Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 20th August,
1996. However, since Bhika Ram was unable to meet this demand, and apparently
fearing the worst, Geeta Bai consumed wheat tablets on the evening of 20th August,
1996 at her matrimonial home.
3. Since Geeta Bai had taken unwell, Bhupendra took her to the District Hospital at
Morena for treatment. PW-8 Dr. S.C. Aggarwal informed the Station Officer of Police
Station City Kotwali at about 10.30 p.m. about the incident. Later on, Geeta Bai died
at about 11.25 p.m. and intimation of this was also sent by Dr. Aggarwal to the
Station Officer of Police Station City Kotwali. On the basis of the information
received, a case was registered and investigations commenced by the police.
4 . Separately, Bhika Ram made a complaint on 21st August, 1996 to the
Superintendent of Police and to the District Magistrate at Morena that Bhupendra, his

15-03-2020 (Page 1 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 father Vrindavan and his mother Sheela Devi had caused the dowry death of Geeta
Bai.
5. On the same day, a post mortem examination was conducted on the body of Geeta
Bai and it was opined by PW-7 Dr. Siyaram Sharma (who had conducted the post
mortem examination) that she had two injuries on her body, one on the left forearm
which was caused by a hard, blunt object while the other injury was on the back of
the right hand caused by a tooth bite. Both these injuries were ante mortem. It was
also opined that the cause of death was suspected poisoning.1
6. On these broad facts, a charge sheet was filed against the three accused persons
for offences punishable Under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and
in the alternative for an offence punishable Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Decision of the Trial Court
7 . The Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1996 pronounced judgment on
6th June, 2001. It was held, on an examination of the oral and documentary
evidence, that there was nothing to doubt the correctness and veracity of the
evidence given by Bhika Ram, his wife PW-2 Munni Devi, his brother-in-law PW-3
Munna Lal, the aunt of the deceased being PW-4 Urmila and Bhika Ram's brother PW-
5 Ram Narayan.
8 . It was held, on the basis of their evidence, that apart from the dowry given to
Bhupendra's family at the time of marriage, there was an additional demand for
dowry made by Vrindavan to give him one buffalo. This demand was met by Bhika
Ram but there was a further demand on 20th August, 1996 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
which could not be met by him.
9 . It was also held that due to the inability of Bhika Ram to immediately meet the
demand for additional dowry, Geeta Bai was subjected to harassment and cruelty for
not bringing adequate dowry. She was subjected to beating and was not given proper
clothes to wear about which she had even informed Bhika Ram.
10. Finally, it was held that Geeta Bai had died an unnatural death within 7 years of
her marriage thereby inviting an adverse presumption of a dowry death against all
the accused persons.
11. The Sessions Judge noted that according to the accused, Geeta Bai died due to
food poisoning. He noted that there was no evidence brought forth in this regard and
that no other member of the family had complained of any food poisoning. It was
also noted that Dr. S.C. Aggarwal had stated in his cross examination that the ill
effects of food poisoning are not so intense as to cause the death of a person within
an hour.
12. On the basis of the evidence on record the Sessions Judge found Bhupendra and
Vrindavan guilty of offences punishable Under Section 498A, Section 304B and
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he found that the prosecution had
failed to prove that Sheela Devi had humiliated Geeta Bai or treated her with cruelty
which resulted in her death within 7 years of her marriage under unnatural
circumstances.
Decision of the High Court
1 3 . Feeling aggrieved, by their conviction and the sentence imposed upon them,

15-03-2020 (Page 2 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 Vrindavan and Bhupendra filed Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2001 in the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh. By judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 the High Court
upheld the conviction of Bhupendra but held that there was no clinching evidence
against Vrindavan and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of doubt and
consequent acquittal.
14. The High Court noted the contentions made on behalf of the convicts on the
merits of the case, namely, that the statements of Geeta Bai's parents were not
reliable and that she had died as a result of food poisoning. It was also contended
that some material witnesses had not been examined by the prosecution.
15. The High Court concluded that virtually from the date of her marriage, Geeta Bai
had been treated with cruelty and subjected to harassment for not bringing sufficient
dowry. In fact Vrindavan had clearly informed Bhika Ram that Geeta Bai would be
killed in case the demand for additional dowry was not fulfilled. Even on 20th August,
1996 Bhupendra had come to Bhika Ram's house and had demanded Rs. 10,000/-
cash as additional dowry. On that occasion, when Geeta Bai was going to her
matrimonial home along with Bhupendra, she told Bhika Ram that she was being
harassed and requested him to fulfill the demand for additional dowry otherwise she
would be killed.
16. The High Court found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Bhika Ram nor did
it find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of other witnesses even though they
belonged to Bhika Ram's extended family. The High Court also concluded that Geeta
Bai was subjected to cruelty and harassment as a result of which she consumed
wheat tablets and died an unnatural death. It was also noted that there were ante
mortem injuries on the body of Geeta Bai.
1 7 . As regards the failure of the prosecution to record the testimony of some
material witnesses, the High Court held that the prosecution had examined witnesses
who gave evidence in detail about the cruelty and death of Geeta Bai and no adverse
inference could be drawn if additional witnesses were not examined.
18. The High Court found that in so far as the conviction of Bhupendra is concerned,
there was adequate evidence to uphold it but the evidence to hold Vrindavan guilty
was insufficient and accordingly he was acquitted.
19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 passed
by the High Court, Bhupendra is in appeal.
Discussion
20. Learned Counsel urged two contentions before us, none of which were raised
before the Sessions Judge or before the High Court. Frankly, we ought not to
entertain these contentions. But, according to learned Counsel there is some lack of
clarity on the issues raised and it is only because of this that we have entertained his
submissions.
21. The first contention was that since there was no chemical examination report of
the viscera, it could not be said that Geeta Bai died because of consuming poisonous
wheat tablets. The second contention was that a conviction could not be sustained
both Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. In this context it was urged that both these sections were
mutually exclusive and a conviction can be founded on either of these sections but
not both.

15-03-2020 (Page 3 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
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 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.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this Sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Absence of a viscera report
22. Normally, the viscera are preserved and submitted for chemical analysis under
the following circumstances: (1) When the investigating officer requests for such an
examination; (2) When the medical officer suspects the presence of poison by smell
or some other evidence while conducting an autopsy on injury cases; (3) To exclude
poisoning, in instances where the cause of death could not be arrived at on post
mortem examination and there is no natural disease or injury to account for it, and
(4) In decomposed bodies.2
2 3 . I n Taiyab Khan and Ors. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
MANU/SC/2153/2005 : (2005) 13 SCC 455 it was urged that the viscera report would
have shown whether the dowry death of the Appellant's wife occurred on account of
consumption of poison. Since the chemical examination report of the viscera was not
received, it could not be said to be a case of death by poisoning. This contention was
rejected by holding that factually the case was one of an unnatural death. Therefore,
since Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code refers to death which occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances, the absence of a viscera report would not make
any difference to the fate of the case. In other words, for the purposes of Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code the mere fact of an unnatural death is sufficient to
invite a presumption Under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
24. The view expressed in Taiyab Khan was reiterated in Ananda Mohan Sen and
Anr. v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/7663/2007 : (2007) 10 SCC 774. In that
case the exact cause of death could not be stated since the viscera preserved by the
autopsy surgeon were to be sent to the chemical expert. In fact, one of the witnesses
stated that the unnatural death was due to the effect of poisoning but he would be
able to conclusively state the cause of death by poisoning only if he could detect
poison in the viscera report. This Court noted that it was not in dispute that the death
was an unnatural death and held that the deposition of the witness indicated that the
death was due to poisoning. It is only the nature of the poison that could not be

15-03-2020 (Page 4 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 identified. In view of this, the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code was upheld, there being no charge Under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code.
25. In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy MANU/SC/0633/1999 : (1999) 8
SCC 715 the accused and the victim had coffee at a friend's house. Soon thereafter,
the accused launched a murderous assault on the victim with a chopper. It was
pleaded by the accused that if they actually had coffee at the friend's house, it would
have shown up in the stomach contents. This Court dismissed the contention as "too
puerile". It was held that there was no need for the doctor to ascertain whether there
was coffee in the stomach contents of the victim. This is because the case was not
one of suspected death by poisoning.
26. These decisions clearly bring out that a chemical examination of the viscera is
not mandatory in every case of a dowry death; even when a viscera report is sought
for, its absence is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution when an
unnatural death punishable Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code or Under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code takes place; in a case of an unnatural death
inviting Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (read with the presumption Under
Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872) or Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(read with the presumption Under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872) as long as
there is evidence of poisoning, identification of the poison may not be absolutely
necessary.
27. That apart, we find on facts from the evidence adduced in this case that the
cause of death of Geeta Bai was clearly a result of consumption of poison. Dr.
Siyaram Sharma had stated in his testimony that the death of the deceased was
caused due to suspected poisoning. This particular statement was not challenged by
Bhupendra.
28. Similarly, Dr. Aggarwal had mentioned in his intimation on 20 th August, 1996 at
10.30 p.m. to Police Station City Kotwali, Morena that Geeta Bai had been brought to
the hospital because she had consumed a wheat tablet.3
29. Even DW-1 Ram Naresh Sharma, in his statement before the Court stated that the
brother-in-law of Bhupendra told him that Geeta Bai had consumed some poisonous
pills in the house of the Appellant and was admitted in the hospital.
30. All this evidence clearly suggests that there was no doubt that Geeta Bai had
died an unnatural death and that her death was due to consumption of some
poisonous substance. What exactly is the poison she consumed pales into
insignificance even on the facts of the case and the evidence on record.
31. We therefore reject the first contention advanced by learned Counsel both in law
as well as on merits.
Mutual exclusivity of Sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code
32. The second contention is also without any substance. In Satvir Singh and Ors.
v. State of Punjab and Anr. MANU/SC/0588/2001 : (2001) 8 SCC 633 this Court
drew a distinction between Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code in the following words:
Section 306 Indian Penal Code when read with Section 113A of the Evidence
Act has only enabled the court to punish a husband or his relative who
subjected a woman to cruelty (as envisaged in Section 498A Indian Penal

15-03-2020 (Page 5 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 Code) if such woman committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is
immaterial for Section 306 Indian Penal Code whether the cruelty or
harassment was caused "soon before her death" or earlier. If it was caused
"soon before her death" the special provision in Section 304B Indian Penal
Code would be invocable, otherwise resort can be made to Section 306
Indian Penal Code.
33. It was held that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is wide enough to take
care of an offence Under Section 304B also. However, an offence Under Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code has been made a far more serious offence with imposition
of a minimum period of seven years imprisonment with the sentence going upto
imprisonment for life. Considering the gravity of the offence it is treated separately
from an offence punishable Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On this
basis, this Court rejected the contention that if a dowry related death is a case of
suicide it would not fall within the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code
at all. Reliance in this regard was placed on Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/0507/1991 : (1991) 1 SCC 371 andKans Raj v. State of Punjab and
Ors. MANU/SC/0296/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC 207 wherein this Court held that a suicide
is one of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code.
34. I n Shanti this Court was concerned with a death that had occurred "otherwise
than under normal circumstances" as mentioned in Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code. It was held that an unnatural dowry death, whether homicidal or suicidal,
would attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. This expression was also
considered in Kans Raj where it was held that it would mean death, not in the
normal course, but apparently under suspicious circumstances, if not caused by burns
or bodily injury. In Kans Raj the conviction of the husband of the deceased was
upheld both for offences punishable Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code also.
35. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is
much broader in its application and takes within its fold one aspect of Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code. These two sections are not mutually exclusive. If a
conviction for causing a suicide is based on Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, it
will necessarily attract Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the converse
is not true.
36. Consequently, we reject the second contention urged by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant.
Conclusion
37. We see no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
38. The bail bond of Bhupendra is cancelled and it is directed that he should be
taken into custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence.

1 Though the viscera of the deceased were sent for chemical examination, the
examination report had not been received when the witness was examined on 13th
August, 1999.
2 Parikhs's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; Fourth edition, 1985
at page 90.

15-03-2020 (Page 6 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

 3 A wheat tablet is used by farmers for killing insects in the wheat crop and is said to
be commonly found in a village house.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

15-03-2020 (Page 7 of 7) www.manupatra.com Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University