BHANUBEN AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 1124, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
~ A 
B 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 1124 
BHANUBENANDANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 
[T. S.THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: s.498A, 306 - Dowry death -
c Allegation that deceased committed suicide by taking poison 
as she was harassed for bringing dowry - Conviction of 
husband and mother-in-law and sister-in-law by courts below 
~ Husband undergof"!e the sentences passed against him :-
Instant appeal by mother-in-law and sister-in-law - Held: 
D Evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial 
evidence makes it amply clear that deceased was subjected 
to cruelty at the hands of her husband and her in-laws which 
had caused her grave mental and physical injury- The same 
had made her run away from matrimonial home several times 
E - Ingredients to constitute offence uls.498A fully satisfied 
against appellants - However, it cannot be said that the 
cruelty meted on the deceased led her to commit suicide or 
that accused had abetted in the commission of the same -
Dying declaration was to the effect that she took poison by 
F 
mistake which was corroborated by the doctor who had 
examined her and declared her stable and conscious to make 
statement -
Thus prosecution failed to prove beyond 
reasonable doubt that accused had abetted the deceased in 
commission of suicide - Conviction u/s. 306 set aside -
G Keeping in view the age of the appellants i.e. mother-in-law 
of'the deceased who is said to be
around 60 years of age 
and sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than 35 years 
of age and having a child to take care of, the sentence is 
H limited to the period of imprisonment ;:if ready undergone by 
them. 
1124
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1125 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court· 
A 
HELD: It is an undisputed fact that the deceased 
was frequently taking refuge at Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh, 
Rajkot, Mahi la Vikas Gruh and Gonda I Bala Ashram and 
that her paternal relatives had pacified her many a times B 
and she was sent back to her in laws' home after 
compromise. The same has been proved by the 
deposition of PW-6 paternal uncle of the deceased and 
PW-7-the wife of PW-6 and PW-9-the brother of the 
deceased. The same has also been further corroborated C 
by PW-19 who is a social worker atAmreli Mahila Vikas 
Gruh. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased had 
filed a complaint against the accused for maintenance, 
which was not paid to her by her husband. She had also 
filed an FIR against the accused under Sections 498A, D 
506(2) 114 of l.P.C and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act, 1961. On several occasions after the 
compromise, the deceased was again thrown out of her 
matrimonial home. These witnesses have also stated that 
the deceased was regularly taunted and mentally· and E 
physically harassed by the accused and she had 
complained about the same to them. It was also deposed 
before the trial court by several other independent 
witnesses who were the neighbours of the accused and F 
live in the same vicinity that they had witnessed heated 
exchanges and quarrel between the accused and the 
deceased which has been corroborated by PW-.8. It was
also noticed that the deceased had spent several days 
sleeping at odd places like, empty buses, etc. as she had G 
nowhere else to go. Further, PW-12 in his testimony had 
stated that the deceased was loitering outside his street 
and had asked for his help, thereby claiming that her 
husband and in-laws were trying to kill her and that is 
why she ran away from their home. She also had burn H
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
marks branded on her hands. Therefore, he had helped 
her and paid her an amount of Rs.200/- for the bus fare. 
The mother-in- law ignored the pleas of the deceased 
by calling her act as "epileptic fits" when the deceased 
• 
had come running out of her house and was calling out 
B to her for help on the day of the unfortunate incidence. 
The reason that the deceased kept coming back to her 
matrimonial home by way of compromise in spite of all 
the cruelty and torture meted against her is because of 
c 
her minor daughter who was living with her husband. 
Thus, the ingredients to constitute the offence under the 
provision of Section 498A of l.P.C. have been fully 
satisfied againstthe appellants. [Paras 17, 19, 20] [1133-
F-H; 1134-A-H; 1135-A-C, F-H] 
D 
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawal 
(2012) 7 SCC 288: 2012 (7) SCR 607 - relied 
on. 
2. The point whether the accused had abetted in 
E 
the commission of suicide of the deceased as provided 
under Section 306 of l.P.C. cannot be proved with 
conclusive evidence in the light of the fact that the 
deceased in her dying declaration had clearly stated t~at 
she had consumed the poisonous tablets by mistake. 
F The same was further corroborated by the doctor who 
had examined her and had declared her as stable and 
conscious enough to give a reasonable statement. 
Further, the accused were present inside the house at 
the time thEl deceased consumed the poisonous
tablet 
G and they had taken her to the hospital as soon as they 
realized that she was in a critical condition . .Thus, even 
though the cruelty aspect meted on the deceased was 
proved beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be said 
that the same had led her to commit suicide or that the 
H accused had abetted in the commission of the same, as 
is clear from the facts and circumstances of the present
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1127 
case. Appellant no.1 even though had behaved stoically A 
in the beginning by calling the act of the deceased as 
"epileptic fit", but as soon as she realized the gravity of 
the situation she called her son and they took her to the 
hospital for examination and treatment. This act of the 
accused clearly showed that they did not abet the B 
deceased in the commission of the suicide, if at all it was 
a suicide. [Paras 22, 23] [1136-H; 1137-A-B, F-H; 1138-A] 
Bhola Turha v. State ofBihar (1998) 9SCC15-
relied on. 
C 
3. From the facts and circumstances ofthe'present 
case and upon the examination of the body of deceased, 
it is clear that her death was a result of an accident and 
she had mistakenly consumed the poisonous tablet as o 
the same· was kept with other medicines. Had the 
deceased wanted to implicate the accused, she would 
have revealed their names in the final moments before 
her death, as she had nothing to fear fdr and her 
antecedent showed that she had previously filed a E 
complaint against the accused when they harassed her. 
If the accused had any hand in her death, the same 
would have been revealed in the dying declaration of 
the deceased. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove 
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had F 
abetted the deceased in the commission of suicide as 
provided under the provision of Section 306, l.P.C. Merely 
because an accused was held liable to be punished 
under Section 498A IPC,
it does not follow that O"! the 
same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held G 
guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by 
the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the 
conviction and s~ntence for offence punishable under 
Section 306 read with Section 114, IPC of the present H 
appellants is contrary to the legal evidence on record
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A particularly, the dying declaration of the deceased and 
the conduct of the accused who took the deceased to 
the hospital. [Paras 24 and 26] [1138-C-E, H; 1139-A-C] 
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 
B 
SCC 618: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 - relied on. 
4. Keeping in view the age of the appellants i.e. the 
appellant No. 1-mother-in-law of the deceased who is 
said to be around 60 years of age and appellant No.2-
C sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than 35 years 
of age and having a child to take care of, the sentence is 
limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone 
by them. [Para 28] [1140-B] 
D 
E 
2012 (7) SCR 607 
(1998) 9 sec 15 
Case Law Reference 
relied on. 
relied on. 
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 relied on. 
Para 21 
Para 22 
Para 26 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1209 of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2015 of the 
High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
F 
101 of2010 
. 
Santosh Krishnan, Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook 
Bafaki for the Appellants. 
G 
Hemantika Wahi, Jesal Wahi, Puja Singh for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted.
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1129 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.) 
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the A 
impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2015, passed in 
Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010, by the High Court of 
Judicature of Gujarat atAhmedabad, wherein the High Court 
has dismissed the appeal of the appellants and upheld the 
order of conviction and sentence of the appellants under B 
Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short"l.P.C.") passed by the Fast Track 
· Court, Veraval, Camp Una, in Sessions Case No.9 of 2007 
(hereinafter "the trial court") in its judgment and order dated 
21.11.2009.The appellants have prayed to set aside the same C 
and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by 
the respondent-State, urging various legal grounds. 
3. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to 
appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the D 
· parties: 
The appellant nos. 1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and the 
sister-in-law of the deceased respectively. It is the case of the 
prosecution that the deceased was residing with her husband 
E 
and in-laws in a joint family at Kodinar with a minor daughter. 
However, within 2 years of marriage, the deceased was 
allegedly tortured by her husband and her in-laws for not 
bringing dowry and not working properly. The deceased was 
also allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home and was F 
forced to stay at Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh at Rajkot.
4. The deceased informed the complainant, who is her 
paternal uncle about the harassment and that her husband and 
in-laws were demanding an amount of Rs.20,000/- from her. 
G 
The maternal uncle of the deceased persuaded her to 
. compromise with her in-laws and sent her back to her 
matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased was kept well for 
·a month but she was later allegedly beaten up and driven out 
of her matrimonial home. A case was registered against them H
1130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A before the Amreli Nari Surakhsha Gruh. After 2 months, the 
husband and the father-in-law of the deceased brought her 
back after making a settlement. After a month of her return to 
her matrimonial home, the deceased was again allegedly 
beaten up and thrown out of her home. The deceased then 
S filed a complaint against her in-laws before the Sabra Police 
Station and a maintenance application was fried before the 
Sabra Court. The husband of the deceased brought her back 
home again after making a settlement before the Court but 
she was again allegedly beaten up by her in-laws against which 
C she filed a case before theAmreli Mahila Vikas Gruh, where 
her maintenance was fixed at Rs.1,000/~ p.m. but the same 
was not paid by her husband. 
5. The deceased then stayed at.the Gonda! SalaAshram 
D (orphanage) and from there she again went back to her in-
laws place at Kodinar to meet her daughter whose custody 
was with her husband as part of a compromise between herself 
and the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that 
on 12.11.2006 at about 11.30 hours when the complainant was 
E on his way to work he received an information that the deceased 
had consumed poison and later came to know through his 
daughter that the deceased had passed away. 
6. The complainant then filed a complaint being l.C.R. 
F No.172 of 2006 before the Kodinar Police. Station against the · 
appellants and the husband of the deceased.
Thereafter, further 
investigation was carried out, the panchanama of the scene 
was drawn, the statements of1he witnesses were recorded 
and the accused were arrested. 
G 
7. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses and on perusal of the dying declaration 
of the deceased and on consideration of the same, convicted 
and sentenced the present appellants and the husband of the 
H deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
1131 
and 306 read.with Section 114of1.P.C. The accused were to A 
undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of 
Rs.5000/- and in default, further simple imprisonment of six 
months for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 
114 of the l.P.C. For offences punishable under Sections 306 
and 114 of the l.P.C. the accused were ordered to undergo 10 B 
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.12,000/-each 
and in default, further simple imprisonment of one year. The 
accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under 
Section 3048 read with Section 114 of the I. P. C. and Section 
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
c 
8. Being aggrieved by the same the accused filed an 
appeal before the High Court of Gujarat which dismissed the 
same holding that it has been well established that the accused 
have instigated the deceased and thereby they abetted the D 
deceased in committing suicide. The High Court further held 
that the accused and his family members caused mental and 
.. physical cruelty and therefore, the deceased was put in a critical 
condition and consumed poison and ended her life. It further 
held that on perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court it E 
was impossible that the deceased could have consumed 
poison by mistake and therefore, the learned trial court has 
rightly convicted the accused as they are guilty of the above 
mentioned offences. The High Court has thus
upheld the order F 
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against all 
the accused persons. It is stated that the husband of the 
deceased has already undergone the period of sentences . 
passed against him and has been released from jail. The 
present appeal has been filed by the C!PPellants-the mother-
G 
in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased praying to set aside 
their conviction and sentence and for their enlargement on bail. 
9. It has been contended by the learned counsel on behalf 
of the appellants that the guilt or even the involvement of the 
H
1132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A appellants in the commission of the offence has not been rightly 
pointed out by the courts below as there are no independent 
evidence/witnesses against them. Thus, the case against the 
appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
B 
10. It has been further contended by him that the trial 
court did not find any incriminating material evidence against 
the accused so as to punish them under the aforementioned 
offences. In the present matter, the only evidence adduced 
before the courts below was the deposition of the relatives of 
C the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined. 
D 
He has further submitted that as per the provisions under 
Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the abetment 
on the part of the accused has not been proved by the 
prosecution. 
11. He has further contended that the courts below have 
not considered the dying declaration of the deceased and the 
deposition made by the doctor who had examined her that 
were recorded by the Executive Magistrate do not mention 
E any allegation against the accused. 
12. On the other hand, it has been contended by Ms. 
Hemantika Wahi, the. learned counsel on behalf of the 
respondent that the trial court and the High Court after 
F appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions 
made on behalf of the parties have rightly convicted and 
sentenced the accused for the afore- mentioned offences. 
13. She has submitted that the
ingredients under 
G Sections 498A, 306 and 3048 of l.P.C. are established beyond 
all reasonable doubt against the accused. She has further 
submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses, it has been 
clearly established that the appellants were mentally and 
physically harassing the deceased and even had driven her 
H out of her matrimonial house several times.
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
1133 
14. She has further submitted that the presumption as A 
to the abetment of suicide as per Section 113A of the Indian 
Evidence Act, 1872, has been clearly proved and the appellants 
are responsible for abetting her in the commission of suicide 
which is the concurrent finding on fact and the appellants have 
not made out a case for interference of this Court. 
B 
15. On the b~sis of the rival legal contentions urged on 
.behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, the following 
questions would arise for our consideration: 
1) 
Whether, the Courts below have rightly convicted 
and sentenced the accused for the offences 
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 
Section 114 of l.P.C.? 
2) 
What order? 
16. Before arriving at an irrefutable conclusion, we have 
c 
D 
to first determine as to whether the deceased was tortured 
and meted with cruelty by the accused or not? To find out the 
same, we have perused the evidence placed on record by the 
E 
prosecution viz., the deposition of witnesses.and the dying 
declaration of the deceased. 
17. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was 
frequently taking refuge at Kanta stri Vikas Gruh, Rajkot, Mahila 
F 
Vikas Gruh and Gonda! Bala Ashram. It is also an undisputed 
fact that her paternal relatives had pacified her many a times 
and she was sent back to her in laws' home after compromise. 
The same has been proved by the deposition of PW"6 paternal
uncle of the deceased at Exh.69 before the trial court and PW-
G 
7-the wife of PW-6 and PW-9-the brother of the deceased. 
The same has also been further corroborated by PW-19 who 
is a social worker atAmreli Mahila Vikas Gruh at Exh.135. It is 
also an undisputed fact that the deceased had filed a complaint 
H
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
against the accused for maintenance, which was not paid to 
her by her husband. She had also filed an FIR against the 
accused on 14.02.2006 under Sections 498A, 506(2) 114 of 
I. P. C and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
On several occasions after the compromise, the deceased 
B was again thrown out of her matrimonial home. The 
abovementioned witnesses have also stated that the deceased 
was regularly taunted and mentally and physically harassed 
by the accused and she had complained about the same to 
the above mentioned witnesses. 
c 
18. It has also been deposed before the trial court by 
several other independent witnesses who are the neighbours 
of the accused and live in the same vicinity that they had 
witnessed heated exchanges and quarrel between the accused 
D and the deceased which has been corroborated by Ravibhai 
Dodia (PW-8) in his testimony at Exh.80 before the trial court. 
Further, another independent witness, Smt. Savitaben (PW-
10), has also deposed before the trial court at Exh.84 that the 
deceased had sat on "Otla" of her house for 2 consecutive 
E days as the accused had locked up their house and gone 
somewhere and came back only when they received a call 
from their neighbours about the deceased sitting there. It has 
also been noticed that the deceased had spent several days 
F sleeping at odd places like, empty buses, etc. as she had 
nowhere else to go. 
19. Further, the
deposition of the witness Hirakumar 
Kanabhai Goh ii (PW-12) in his testimony at Exh.95 had stated 
before the trial court that the deceased was loitering outside 
G his street and had asked for his help, thereby claiming that her 
husband and 
in-laws were trying to kill her and that is why 
she had run away from their home. She also had burn marks 
branded on her hands. Therefore, he had helped her and paid 
H her an amount of Rs.200/-for the bus fare. We have also taken
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
1135 
note of the fact that the mother-in- law ignored the pleas of the A 
deceased by calling her act as "epileptic fits" when the 
deceased had come running out of her house and was ca]ling 
out to her for help on the day of the unfortunate incidence. 
20. There is no other material evidence or fact brought B 
before this Court to show that the deposition of the above 
mentioned witness is unreliable and this Court has no reason 
to believe the same to annul the finding of conviction on the 
charge against the appellants. Therefore, in the light of the 
above mentioned depositions made and based on the facts C 
and circumstances of the case, it has been aptly held by the 
. courts below that the prosecution has established by adducing 
cogent and convincing evidence that the deceased had been 
tortured by her in-laws and her husband. The reason that the 
deceased kept coming back to her matrimonial home by way D 
of compromise in spite of all the cruelty and torture meted 
against her is because of her minor daughter who was living 
with her husband. Thus, the ingredients to constitute the offence 
under the provision of Section 498Aof l.P.C. have been fully 
satisfied in the present case against the appellants. The E 
relevant provisions of Section 498A read thus: 
"498A. 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 pun-ished 
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 
three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, 
"cruelty" means-
(a) 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 woman; or 
F 
G 
H
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
(b) harassment of the woman where such 
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 
B 
such demand." 
21. The deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands 
of her husband and her in-laws and the evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial evidence makes 
C it amply clear that she was harassed beyond limits by her in-
laws, which had caused her grave mental and physical injury. 
The same had made her run away from matrimonial home on . 
several times and had ultimately resulted in her death. On the 
issue that the above mentioned witnesses are interested 
D witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted by this Court 
as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants 
is also rejected in the light of the decision of this Court in the 
case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath 
Agrawaf', wherein this Court has held thus: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"39 ....... In a matrimonial dispute, it would be 
inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and 
depose. The family members and sometimes the 
relatives, friends and neighbours are the most 
natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is 
to be tested on objective parameters and not to be 
thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses 
are related to either of the spouse. Exception
has 
been taken by the courts below that the servants of 
the house should have been examined and that 
amounts to suppression of the best possible 
evidence ....... " 
22. Now, coming to the point of determining whether the 
1 (2012) 7 sec 288
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
1137 
accused had abetted in the commission of suicide of the A 
deceased as provided under Section 306 of l.P.C., the same 
cannot be proved with conclusive evidence in the light of the 
fact that the deceased in he~ dying declaration had clearly 
stated that she had consumed the poisonous tablets by 
mistake. The same was further corroborated by the doctor who B 
had examined her and had declared her as stable and 
conscious enough to give a reasonable statement. Reliance 
has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in the 
case of Bhola Turha v. State of Bihar, wherein this Court 
has held thus: 
C 
"2. The conviction of the appellant is based solely 
upon the d}'ing declaration. It has been found to be 
reliable. It was made by the deceased within about 
two hours from the incident and a few hours before 
his death. In his dying declaration, he has clearly 
explained how he came to be injured by the 
appellant. After carefully scrutinising the dying 
declaration, both the courts have come to the 
conclusion that it contains a truthful version as 
regards the manner in which the injuries were 
caused to him." 
23. Further, the accused were present inside the house 
D 
E 
at the time the deceased consumed the poisonous tablet and 
F 
they had taken her to the hospital as soon as they realized that 
she was in a critical condition. Thus, even though the cruelty 
aspect meted on the deceased has been proved beyond
all 
reasonable doubt, it cannot be said that the §ame had lead 
her to commit suicide or that the accused had abetted in the G 
commission of the same, as is clear from the facts and 
circumstances of the present case. The appellant no.1 herein 
even though had behaved stoically in the beginning by calling 
2 (1998) 9 sec 1s 
H
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
the act of the deceased as "epileptic fit", but as soon as she 
realized the gravity of the situation she called her son and they 
took her to the hospital for examination and treatment. This 
act of the accused clearly shows that they did not abet the 
deceased in the commission of the suicide, if at all it was a 
B suicide. 
24. From the facts and circumstances of the present 
case and upon the examination of the body of deceased, it is 
clear that her death was a result of an accident and she had 
C mistakenly consumed the poisonous tablet as the same was 
kept with other medicines. Had the deceased wanted to 
implicate the accused, she would have revealed their names 
in the final moments before her death, as she had nothing to 
fear for and her antecedent showed that she had previously 
D filed a complaint against the accused when they harassed her. 
If the accused had any hand in her death, the same would have 
been revealed in the dying declaration of the deceased. Thus, 
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt 
that the accused had abetted the deceased in the commission 
E of suicide as provided under the provision of Section 306, l.P.C. 
25. In view of the above observations made, it is amply 
clear that even though the accused had tortured and harassed 
the deceased because of which she was constantly running 
F away from her matrimonial home and had also filed a number 
of complaints against
the accused, the same cannot be said 
to be the reason for her death in the light of the facts and 
circumstances of the present case and the dying declaration 
made by her. 
G 
26. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed 
reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in the case 
of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3 at paragraph 
22 wherein it is held that Sections 498A and 306 IPC are 
H independent and constitute different offences. Merely because 
3 (2001 )9 sec s1 s
BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
1139 
an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section A 
498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he 
must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the 
commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 
IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence 
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the B 
I PC of the present appellants is contrary to the legal evidence 
on record particularly, the dying declaration of the deceased 
and the conduct of the accused who took the deceased to the 
hospital. This fact has been grossly ignored by the courts below 
while convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid C 
offences. Therefore, .the conviction and sentence for the 
aforesaid offence is erroneous and accordingly it is liable to 
be set aside. 
27. After evaluation of evidence on record and concurrent D 
· finding of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, · 
the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under 
Section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. The 
accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under 
Section 3048 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. and Section 4 of E 
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as they did not find any 
' 
evidence on record to bring home the guilt of appellants for 
the offences punishable under Section 306 as there is no 
cogent evidence in this regard in the finding of fact.
Therefore, 
F 
the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under 
Section 498A of I. P. C. with regard to cruelty is held to be proved 
by the courts below. The same is accepted by us and they are 
required to be convicted and sentenced for the offence 
punishable under Section 498A, l.P.C. The conviction and G 
sentence passed by the High Court forthe offence punishable 
under Section 306 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. is liable to 
. be set aside, accordingly, we set aside the same. 
28. Since, we have upheld the conviction for the offence H 
punishable under Section 498A l.P.C., it is to be carefully
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
examined by us taking into consideration the facts and 
circumstances of the case as to what sentence is required to 
be imposed upon the appellants. Keeping in view the age of 
the appellants i.e. the appellant No. 1-mother-in-law of the 
deceased who is said to be around 60 years of age and 
B appellant No.2-sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than 
35 years of age and having a child to take care of, we deem it 
fit and proper to limit the sentence to the period of imprisonment 
already undergone by them. 
C 
29. We partly set aside the impugned judgment and order 
dated 23.02.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad 
in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010. 
We confirm the conviction on the charge under Section 
o 498Aof l.P.C. and having regard to the facts and circumstances 
referred to above we direct that the period already undergone · 
by the appellants in custody is the sentence. We modify and 
reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already 
E 
undergone by them. 
30. Since, we have stated that period already undergone 
is the sentence which we have modified in this judgment for 
the conviction under Section 498Aofthe l.P.C. and in pursuant 
to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the 
F - appellants have surrendered to undergo the imprisonment. 
G. 
Presently, they are undergoing sentence imposed by the High 
Court and therefore, we direct the Jail Superintendent, Rajkot 
Central
Prison, Rajkot, Gujarat to release them forthwith, if not 
required in connection with any other criminal case. 
31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid 
extent. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal partly allowed.