Holding

The conviction under Section 498‑A IPC is unsustainable as the prosecution failed to establish an unlawful demand for property or valuable article; therefore, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside.

Summary

The husband (appellant) was convicted under Section 498‑A of the IPC for the death of his wife by burn injuries, the prosecution alleging a dowry demand. The trial court also convicted the mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law under the same provision and the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the High Court acquitted the mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law and upheld the husband’s conviction under Section 498‑A. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredient of an "unlawful demand for property or valuable article" required by Section 498‑A. The Court held that the letters produced as evidence did not contain any demand for dowry or any other property, and there was no other evidence of such a demand. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the offence under Section 498‑A, and the conviction was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the bail bonds were discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the element of an unlawful demand for property or valuable article under Section 498‑A IPC in the present case.
Whether the letters exhibited can be interpreted to show a dowry demand sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 498‑A.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4, s. 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498-A

Subjects

Section 498-Adowry demandunlawful demandcrueltyDowry Prohibition Actburn injuriesconviction set asideappeal

Judgment

:
A SHIV ANAND MALLAPPA KOT!
,.
v. 1

THESTATEOFKARNATAKA

JUNE 5, 2007

B [DR. ARlJIT PASA VAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Penal Code, I 860:

Section 498-A-Death of a married woman by burn injuries allegedly
c for unlawful demand of money-Husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law
prosecuted under Sections 302, 498-A /PC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act-Conviction of mother-in-law by trial court of all the
charges-Husband and brother-in-law convicted under Section 498-A /PC
and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act-High Court affirming
D conviction of husband under Section 498-A and acquitting remaining two
accused of all the charges-Held: prosecution has failed to establish its case
under Section 498-A-Conviction set aside-Ingredients of Section 498-A
explained.
,
_....

Appellant (A-2), his mother-in-law (A-1) and brother (A-3) were
E prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution
case was that the deceased, the wife of the appellant, told her father PWl that
when she was cooking, A-1 came behind her and lit fire to her Saree. The
reason for the alleged killing was the demand of dowry and to substantiate
this, three letters were brought on record as Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4. The
F trial court convicted A-1 under Section 302 and 498-A IPC and under Sections
3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused A-2 and A-3 were convicted
,,,
under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-1 and A-3 of all the charges, but
convicted A-2, the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved, A-2 filed
G the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of a dowry demand.
It speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles. The word
I-I 930
SHIVANANDMALLAPPA KOTI "·STATE OF KARNATAKA [PASAYAT,J.) 931

' )
"cruelty" under the Explanation deals with two types of circumstances. Clause A
(a) refers to wilful conduct leading to suicide or grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health which can be either mental or physical of the woman.
Clause (b) relates to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable or is on
account of failure to meet such demand.
(Para 8 and 91 (933-H; 934-A-BI B
1.2. In the instant case, as regards the alleged demand in terms of
Section 498-A IPC, even in the letters, on which prosecution placed heavy
reliance, there is no reference to any demand of dowry or for that matter of
any nature. In fact in Ex. P-2, the deceased had written to her mother that C
she had promised to pay for some articles which the mother-in-law i.e. A-1
had purchased. She had stated that she was embarrassed that her parents
were not paying the money, though A-1 had never asked for it. This was not
a case of any demand for property or valuable article. To similar effect was
letter Ex. P-3. It is evident from the evidence on record that half of the marriage
expenses were borne by the accused-appellant and his family. Even Ext. P-4 D
on which the prosecution placed strong reliance does not speak of any demand.
It only speaks of an apprehension of a second marriage. Besides, this letter
was also written three years prior to the occurrence.
(Para 101 [934-C-EI

1.3. The prosecution has failed to establish its accusations so far as E
Section 498-A IPC is concerned to hold the accused-appellant guilty. The
conviction is, accordingly, set aside. (Para 11 I (934-F-GI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 145 of
2002.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2001 of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 1997.

Rajani K. Prasad and T.V. Ratnam for the Appellant.

Amit Kumar Chawla (for Sanjay R. Hedge) for the Respondent. G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. In the present appeal, challenge is to a
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The appellant faced trial along with two
others, i.e. his mother arid brother for offences punishable under Sections 302,
498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short
the 'D.P. Act'). The trial Court had acquitted the present appellant and his
B brother of the charges under Section 302 IPC. Latter is described as A-3 while
former is referred to as A-2. Mother of the accused (hereinafter referred to
as A- I) was separately convicted under Section 302 IPC. The State had also
filed an appeal questioning the acquittal, as noted above.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
c The appellant was married to one Shobha (hereinafter referred to as the
deceased). She was the daughter of PW-I, a School Teacher. PW-2 was her
mother, PW-17 her brother and PW-15 her younger sister. PW-6 is the wife
of PW-17. According to the prosecution, PW- I received information that she
caught fire and was at the hospital. On his asking as to how she received
D the injuries, she said that while she was cooking, A- I came behind her and
lit fire to her saree. The allegation was that for not fulfilling the demand of
dowry, she was killed by her mother-in-law and other accused persons. To
substantiate the plea of demand of dowry, three letters were exhibited, which
are Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. The occurrence took place on 25.9.1993. As
E noted above, the prosecution version rests primarily on the statement
purported to have been made by the deceased before her death to her father
in the presence of other relatives. The Trial Court placed reliance on the
evidence of PW-I and the letters and accordingly directed conviction and
imposed sentence, as aforesaid. It, however, acquitted A-2 and A-3 of some
charges.
F
3. Three appeals were filed before the High Court, two by the accused
persons and one by the State, as noted above.

4. The High Court found that the evidence was insufficient to
substantiate the allegations levelled against A-1. It also noted that there was
G no evidence to show any demand of dowry. Therefore, it directed acquittal
of A- I so far as charges relating to Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and
6 of the D.P. Act are concerned, but placing reliance on the letters, Ex.P2 to
P-4, held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
Interestingly, the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 498-A was held
to be not sustainable by the High Court.
H
SHIV ANAND MALLAPPA KOTI ''·STATE OF KARNATAKA [PASAYAT,J.) 933

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted A
that ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not established. In any event, after
having directed acquittal from the charges relatable to Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the D. P. Act, on the self same evidence, the High Court should not have held
the appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC. The letters on which the Trial
Court and the High Court placed reliance do not, in any event, show demand B
of dowry or any valuable.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that
in the last letter of July, 1990, Ex.P-4 there was a clear reference of the
intention of appellant for contacting a second marriage because the deceased
had not brought enough dowry. With reference to the evidence of PW- I and C
other relatives, it was submitted that A- I was making a grievance that she
could have got more dowry as her son, meaning thereby, the appellant was
in government service.

7. Undisputedly, the High Court has held so far as A-I and A-2 are
concerned, that the accusations relatable to Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P D
Act have not been established as no demand of dowry has been proved.
••· 1 Seetion 498-A, IPC reads as follows:

"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 punished with E
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this Section, Section, "cruelty"
means-
F
(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

(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 G
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."

8. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of a dowry demand. It
speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles.
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 9. Section 498-A IPC was enacted by the Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) 1983 with effect from 25.12.1983. The word "cruelty" has been
explained in Section 498-A; so also harassment. "Cruelty" under the Explanation
deals with two types of circumstances. Clause (a) refers to wilful conduct
leading to suicide or grave injury or danger to life, limb or health which can
be either mental or physical of the woman. Clause (b) relates to harassment
B with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable or is on account of failure to meet such
demand.

I 0. There is no evidence on record on this aspect of any such demand.
C Even in the letters, on which prosecution placed heavy reliance, there is no
reference to any demand of dowry or for that matter of any nature. In fact
in Ex. P-2, the deceased had written to her mother that she had promised to
pay for some articles which the mother-in-law i.e. A-1 had purchased. She
had stated that she was embarrassed that her parents were not paying the
money, though A-1 had never asked for it. This was not a case of any
D demand for property or valuable security. On the contrary, the deceased had
objected to her parents not paying for something which the A-1 had spent
the money. To similar effect was letter Ex.P-3. It is evident from the evidence
\
on record that half of the marriage expenses were borne by the accused- •
appellant and his family. Even Ext. P-4 on wliich learned counsel for the State
E placed strong reliance does not speak of any demand. It only speaks of a
apprehension of a second f!larriage. Though, he submitted that the demand
of dowry is in the background and has to be inferred, the plea is clearly
unacceptable in the absence of any material to substantiate that plea. This
letter was also written three years prior to the occurrence.
'

F I I. Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the
prosecution has failed to establish its accusations so far as Section 498-A IPC ,le

is concerned to hold the accused-appellant guilty. The conviction is,
accordingly, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed for
release of the appellant on bail shall stand discharged.

GRP. Appeal allowed.