Munni Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2026 INSC 136 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).532 OF 2021

MUNNI DEVI APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellant challenges her conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B and Section 316 of the Indian

Penal Code1. She has been sentenced to imprisonment of seven

years.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant’s son, Rahul

was married with one Alka @ Pooja on 02.12.2010. As per the

brother of Alka, Anil Singh Tomar who has lodged the First

Information Report on 03.08.2011, it was alleged that his sister

was being harassed by her husband, her mother-in-law – the Signature Not Verified

appellant, her brothers-in-law as well as her sisters-in-law who Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.02.09 16:56:45 IST Reason: 1 For short, Penal Code

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 1 of 10 were demanding an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and a Car in dowry.

This demand of dowry by the family members from her

matrimonial home was informed to the informant. The relatives of

Alka had repeatedly talked to the members of her matrimonial

home but they did not stop their demand. On 03.08.2011 at about

05:30 A.M. the informant received information that his sister had

been murdered. Accordingly, the First Information Report was

lodged on the same day at 08:40 A.M against the husband of the

deceased, her mother-in-law, her brothers-in-law as well as her

sisters-in-law.

3. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was

submitted and the appellant including the other accused were

charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Section 316 of the Penal

Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

19612. The accused having denied the charges were accordingly

tried. The prosecution examined about nine witnesses to support

the aforesaid charges. The accused examined one witness. At the

conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by

his judgment dated 10.08.2018 was pleased to convict the

husband-Rahul, his brother-Chetan and his mother-the appellant

2 For short, the Act of 1961

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 2 of 10 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code along with

Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. They were sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the

offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Penal Code, seven

years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- for the

offence under Section 316 of the Penal Code, in default, additional

rigorous imprisonment of one year. They were also sentenced to

undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, in

default, additional imprisonment of six months. They were also

sentenced to two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for

the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961 and in default

of payment of fine to undergo three months additional

imprisonment. All sentences were to run concurrently. The other

accused came to be acquitted.

4. All the three convicted accused preferred separate appeals

challenging their conviction. The learned Single Judge of the

Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Chetan, the

brother of the husband and acquitted him from all the charges.

Insofar as the appeal of the husband-Rahul was concerned, his

conviction under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 3 of 10 1961 came to be set aside. His conviction under Sections 304-B

and 316 of the Penal Code came to be confirmed. However, his

sentence was reduced to the period undergone by him which was

about nine years and six months. It may be stated that Rahul had

preferred Criminal Appeal No.748 of 2021 challenging his

conviction before this Court. However, during pendency of the said

appeal, he expired and hence, his appeal has been dismissed today

by a separate order as having abated. Insofar as the appellant is

concerned, her conviction has also been upheld under Sections

316 and 304-B of the Penal Code. Her sentence was however

reduced to seven years. She was acquitted from the charges under

Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. It is against

this conviction under Sections 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code

that the appellant has come up in appeal.

5. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellant

submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever on record to

sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B of the

Penal Code. According to him, to sustain a conviction under the

said provision it was necessary for the prosecution to have brought

on record evidence that would indicate beyond reasonable doubt

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 4 of 10 connection with any demand for dowry. Notwithstanding the fact

that the death occurred within a year of the marriage of the

appellant’s son with the deceased, there was no evidence to

indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment

at the hands of the appellant. He submitted that though the

informant referred to a registered letter dated 07.04.2011 to

support his stand that a complaint had been made with regard to

the harassment of his sister, there was no reference of writing such

letter in the First Information Report nor was a copy of that letter

produced during the trial. Except for a few general allegations that

there was a demand for dowry by the appellant and other relatives,

the same was not sufficient to bring home the charge under

Section 304-B of the Penal Code. Insofar as the appellant’s

conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code is concerned, it

was submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate

that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the unborn

child. The cause of death of the deceased was on account of suicide

with which the appellant could not be connected. The High Court

having set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 498-A of

the Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961,

coupled with the fact that there was no evidence on record to

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 5 of 10 indicate any cruelty or harassment being caused by the appellant

to the deceased in connection with any demand for dowry, the

appellant’s conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code was

also unsustainable. It was thus submitted that the appellant was

entitled to be acquitted from all the charges.

6. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent supported the judgment of the High Court and

submitted that since there was an allegation of cruelty and

harassment being meted out to the deceased shortly after her

marriage which led her to commit suicide, the presumption under

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was attracted.

There was a presumption that it was the appellant who had caused

the dowry death on account of the cruelty and harassment inflicted

by her. The evidence led by the prosecution including that of the

relatives of the deceased clearly established that there was a

constant demand of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and a Car

towards dowry. As the family of the deceased could not satisfy such

demand, the deceased was led to commit suicide. There was

sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was

pregnant at the time of her death with a fetus of thirty-four weeks.

The Trial Court as well as the High Court were therefore justified

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 6 of 10 in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 304-B and 316 of the Penal Code. She, therefore,

submitted that there was no case made out to interfere with the

concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. The appeal was

therefore liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length

and with their assistance we have also gone through the records

of the case. At the outset we may note that though the appellant

was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961, the High Court while

maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304-B

and 316 of the Penal Code has set aside her conviction under

Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1961. As per

Section 304-B (1) it would be necessary for the prosecution to show

that the death was caused otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of the marriage and that soon

before the death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment

by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection

with any demand for dowry. In the present case the death of the

appellant’s daughter-in-law has occurred otherwise than under

normal circumstances in view of the fact that it was a case of

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 7 of 10 suicide. The death occurred within seven years of the marriage. It

would therefore be necessary to examine whether any evidence has

been led to prove beyond reasonable doubt that soon prior to

committing suicide, the appellant’s daughter-in-law was subjected

to cruelty or harassment by the appellant. This is for the reason

that the appellant’s conviction is under Section 304-B of the Penal

Code.

8. If the deposition of the informant – PW2/Anil Singh Tomar

who is the brother of the deceased is perused, it can be seen that

except for general statements about mental and physical

harassment being inflicted on his sister by the members of her

matrimonial family, there is not a single instance specifically

attributed to the appellant. Except for using the expression

“mental and physical harassment” the witness has not deposed

about any specific instance narrated to him by the deceased that

could indicate that his sister was subjected to cruelty or

harassment specifically by the appellant. His deposition is in

general terms without giving any specific details of any instance of

cruelty or harassment meted out to his sister by the appellant. The

other witnesses examined including PW3 and PW4 are also

members of the family of the deceased but they have also not

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 8 of 10 referred to any specific instance of cruelty or harassment being

caused by the appellant to the deceased. It is one thing to make a

demand for dowry and another thing to inflict cruelty or

harassment in connection with such demand for dowry. For

sustaining the conviction under Section 304-B of the Penal Code,

it would be necessary for the prosecution to bring on record at least

some instance of cruelty or harassment being caused to the

woman in connection with any demand for dowry that results in

her death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances

within seven years of the marriage. Such evidence, however, is

missing in the present case. It is to be noted that the High Court

acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Act of 1961 and 498A of IPC which acquittal has attained finality.

9. Coming to conviction under Section 316 of the Penal Code, it

is not in dispute the deceased was carrying a fetus of thirty-four

weeks when she committed suicide. However, when the charge

against the appellant under Section 304-B of the Penal Code has

not been proved by the prosecution, there would be no basis

whatsoever to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 316

of the Penal Code. It is also to be noted that the appellant was not

present at her son’s matrimonial home when the death took place

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 9 of 10 on 03.08.2011. This fact stands admitted by PW2/Anil Singh

Tomar. We, therefore, find that there is no material whatsoever to

sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 316 of the Penal

Code.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 304-B

and 316 of the Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt. Hence, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the

impugned judgment dated 02.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.5108 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is

acquitted of the charges under Sections 304-B and 316 of the

Penal Code. She be released forthwith, if not required in any other

case. In case the appellant has been enlarged on bail during

pendency of the appeal, her bail bonds would stand discharged.

..………………………..J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

.…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 29th, 2026.

Cr. Appeal. No(s).532 of 2021 Page 10 of 10