Holding

A person acquitted under Section 3048 can still be convicted under Section 498A if the case for cruelty and abetment of suicide is made out, as the two sections are distinct and not mutually inclusive.

Summary

The appellants, husband and parents‑in‑law of a married woman who died by self‑immolation, were tried for offences under Sections 3048 and 498A of the IPC. The trial court acquitted them of the dowry‑death charge under Section 3048 but convicted them under Section 498A for cruelty that allegedly drove the woman to suicide. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A, rejecting the argument that acquittal under Section 3048 necessitated acquittal under Section 498A. The Supreme Court held that the two provisions are distinct; a person can be convicted under Section 498A even if acquitted under Section 3048, provided the elements of cruelty and the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act are established. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an acquittal under Section 3048 IPC precludes conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Whether the evidence establishes cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A and triggers the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Whether Sections 3048 and 498A are mutually inclusive offences.

Legislation cited

Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113A
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 3048, s. 498A

Subjects

Section 498ASection 3048crueltydowry deathpresumption of abetmentsuicideIndian Penal CodeEvidence Actconvictionappeal

Judgment

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 1005

RAJENDRAN & ANR. .A
v.
STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF POLICE LAW & ORDER
(Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002)
DECEMBER 2, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s.498A and s.3048 - Evidence Act,
1872 - s. 113A - Suicide by married woman - Husband and C
in-laws of deceased charge-sheeted for offence under s.3048
and s.498A - Acquittal under s.3048 but conviction under
s. 498A - Challenged on the ground that since accused were
acquitted for offence under s.3048, courts below ought to have
acquitted accused in respect of offence under s.498A - Held: D
A person charged and acquitted under s. 3048 can be
convicted under s.498A, if such a case is made out - s. 3048
... and s.498A cannot be held to be mutually inclusive -
Presumption under s. 113A of Evidence Act that suicide was
abetted by husband and in-laws was not rebutted by accused E
- Clause (a) of Explanation to s.498A applicable in the facts
of the case - Conviction upheld - Crime against woman.

Prosecution case was that appellants who were
husband and parents-in-law of the deceased tortur.ed the
deceased. She committed suicide by setting fire on
F
herself after pouring kerosene. Appellants were charge-
sheeted and tried for offence under s.3048 and s.498A
IPC. Trial Court held all the appellants guilty under s.498A
IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three'years. The High Court did not G·
accept the plea that since the appellants were acquitted
of the charge punishable under s.3048 IPC, therefore,
High Court ought to have acquitted appellants in respect
of offence under s.498A. It, therefore, held that the
1005 H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A appellants were rightly convicted. Hence the instant
appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Consequences of cruelty which are likely
B to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental ·or
· physical of the woman are required to be established in:
order to bring home the application ofs.498A IPC. Cruelty
has ·been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of
C s.498A. Substantive s.498A IPC and presumptive s.1138
of the Evidence Act, 1872 have been ins.erted in the
respective statutes by Criminal Law (Seccm.d
Amendment) Act, 1983. 5.3048 and s.498A, IPC cannot be
held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with
D two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common
· e~sential to both the Sections and that has to be proved.
The Explanation to s.498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty!.
t
In s.3048 there is no such explanation about the meanin.g ...
of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to
E these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of
'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the
Explanation to s.498A under which 'cruelty' by itself
amounts to an offence. Under s.3048 it is 'dowry death'
.that is punishable and such death should have occurred
F .· within seven years of marriage. No such period is
mentioned in s.498A. A person charged and acquitted
under s.3048 can be convicted under s.498A without that
. charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case
is established, there can be a conviction under both the
G sections. S.498A IPC and s.1138 of the Evidence Act
ii:iclude in their amplitude past events of cruelty. [Para 8]
[1011.-B-G]

Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh AIR (1991) SC 1142 and Ba/want Singh & Ors. v.
H State of H.P. (2008) 10 JT 589, relied on.
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTI. COMMNR. OF 1007
POLICE LAW & ORDER

2. S.498A IPC has two limbs. The first limb of s.498A A
provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to.
cruelty shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in
clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any
willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to B
drive a woman to commit suicide. When there is demand
of dowry, the case comes under clause (b) of the
Explanation to s.498A. Clause (a) of the Explanation has .
definite application to the facts of the present case.
Additionally, effect of s.113A of the Evidence Act cannot c
be lost sight of. Further as per s.113A of the Evidence Act
when the question as to whether commission of suicide
by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any
relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the 0
date of her marriage and that her husband or such
relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the
t court may presume that such suicide had been abetted
by her husband or by such relative of her husband; This
has not been rebutted by the appellants. [Paras 10 and E
11] [1012-8-F]
Case Law Reference:
AIR (1991) SC 1142 relied on Para 8
(2008) 10 JT 589 relied on Para 9 F
CRIMINA~ APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap·peal
No. 53 of 2002.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2001 of the
High Court of.Judicature at Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 6590 of G
1992 in Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 1992.

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2003.
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A ·shekhar Naphade, Anil Kaushik, Jaspreet Aulakh,
Meenakshi Thareja, A. Santhakumaran, Gopal Singh Chavan,·
Shiv Prakash Pandey, K.V. Vishwanathan, Deepak Jain, Judy
James, Subra Rai, T". Raja and S. Thananjayan fo_r the
appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These two appeals are )- ~
interlinked
.
and have their matrix on a judgment of the Ma~ras
.
High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld
c-the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC'). Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. The conviction was imposed by
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, and
D appeal was preferred by the appellants questioning conviction;
and· the sentence imposed. Originally, .the accused persons
were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under 1
Se~tion 498A and 304. B IPC. The Trial Court after considering ....
the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of
E offence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for
offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Appellant-Rajendran, was married to Shanthi (hereinafter
F referred to as the 'deceased'). The other appellants are the
parents of Rajendran. On 1.12.1989, the deceased Shanthi got -r---
·.married. to appellant-Rajendran. Since there was torture at the
hands of the appellants, the deceased Shanthi committed
suicide on 7.3.1991 at 10.30 AM. by setting fire on herself after
G pouring kerosene.
On the complaint of Ganesan (PW-1 ), the father of the J.._

.. deceased, a case was registered in Crime No. 99 of 1991 for
suspicious death by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.9).

H After-examination of witnesses and recovery of material
-. I
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTT. COMMNR. OF -1009
POLICE LAW & ORDER [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

objects, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (PW-11) filed a
charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.3.1992 for the
A

offences under Section 498(A) and 304(8) IPC.

During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws
1 to 11 were examined, Exs. P1 to P16 were filed and M.Os. B
1 to 4 were marked.
;i The trial court on completion of trial, concluded that all the
appellants were gurlty of offence under Section 498 A IPC and
convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years. Same was challenged before the c
High Court.

The appellants in the appeal before the High Court
submitted that in the absence of any dying declaration or
suicide note or any evidence relating to dowry torture the trial .D
court ought not to have convicted the appellants for offence ~
~ punishable under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted that
... since the appellants were acquitted of charge punishable under
Section 3048 IPC, consequentially the trial court ought to have
acquitted the appellants in respect of other offence. The High
E
Court did not accept this plea. It held that on going through the
evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 it was clear that there was no offence
relating to dowry torture but there are materials to show that
deceased was being tortured by the appellants.

The High Court also referred to the evidence of F
-i
independent witness Dhanam (PW 3) who was a neighbour.
She had specifically stated about the ill-treatment by the
appellants'. The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants
were rightly convicted. The stand taken before the High Court
____. was reiterated in this appeal. G
~1--
3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
supported the judgment.

4. One of the reasons for ill-treatment to the deceased was
that the deceased gave birth to a female child, which was H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A considered to be inauspicious and after the birth of the said
female child, the Rajendran's broth.er's wife died a11d th~
appellants thought that the birth of the said female child was
the reason for various debacles in the family and consequently,
she was tortured by the appellants.
B
5. It is also clearly stated by P.W.1 that on 28.2.19~1, PW-
1 went to the house of the appellants to take both the first
appellant-Rajendran and the deceased to attend a function at
their 'Kula Theivam' temple. But the appellants allowed only the
deceased to go along with PW-1 to attend the function.
C Admittedly, Rajendran did not accompany the deceased to the
function.

6. On 7.3.1991 atabout10.30 AM., PW 2 the brother of
the deceased, took the deceased and left her in the house of
D the appellants. At that time, the 3rd appellant abused her. After
having pacified the deceased, PW2 came back. Then at 1~.30
PM, PW 1 received message from the first appellant that the
deceased Shanti was not well. At that time, the first appellant ..
did not informihim as to what really happened.
E
7. Section 498A reads as follows:

"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband _or
the relative of the husband ofa woman, subjects such
F woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may. extend to three years and shall also .be
liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose qf this section 'cruelty'
G means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to coh1mit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
.H
RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. STATE ASSTI. COMMNR. OF 1011
POLICE LAW & ORDER [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is A
.-i . 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 such demand."
B
8. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
"'i to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman
are required to be established in order to bring home the
application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined !n
the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A. Substantive
c
Section 498A IPC and presumptive Section 1138 of the lndia,n
Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act') have been inserted
in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Seconl:J
Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 3048
and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These D
provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty
-; is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be
..,/ proved. The Explanation to Section 498A 9ives the meaning
of 'cruelty'. In Section 3048 there is no such explanation about
the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common E
background to these offences it has to be taken that the
meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed
in the Explanation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself
amounts to an offence. Under Section 3048 it is 'dowry death'
that is punishable and such death should have ~ccurred within F
seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in
,i
Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section
3048 can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge
being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is
est?blished, there can be a conviction under both the sections. G
(See Akula Ravinder and others v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and Section
1138 of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events
of crl1elty. Period of operation of Section 1138 of the Evidence
Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A committed suicide within a period of sev~n years from the date
of marriage. ~.
:-
9. The above position
. was highlighted .in Ba/want Singh .'
· & Ors. v. State of H.P. [2008(10) JT 589].
.9 10. Section 498A IPC has two limbs: The first limb of
Section 498A provides that whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
}- ~
cruelty shall be punished. 'Cruelty' has been defined in clause
(a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct
c which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide. When there is demand of dowry, the case comes under t
clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A. Clause (a) of
the Explanation has definite application to the facts of/ the
present case. Additionally, effect of Section 113 A of the Indian
D Evidence Act cannot be lost sight of.

11. Further asper Section 113 A of the Evidence Act when
the question as to whether commission of suicide by a woman ~-
had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband ...
and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period
E
of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the court may presume that such suicide had been
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. This
has not been rebutted by the appellants.
F J
12. Above being the position we find no merit in these
appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.
y··

D.G. Appeal dismissed.