A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta has upheld the conviction of Shakuntla Devi under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment to suicide. The Court reiterated that the offence requires an active act or omission intended to push the deceased into committing suicide, while dismissing the appellant’s challenge to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court affirmed the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the High Court.
Background of the Case
Shakuntla Devi, the appellant, is the mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Kusum, who died on 4 May 1998 at her matrimonial home. Kusum had married Rajendra Kumar, the son of the appellant, on 14 May 1997. On 8 May 1998, Kusum’s father lodged an FIR alleging that his daughter was mentally and physically tortured by the appellant due to demands for additional dowry, specifically ₹25,000 and a gold chain.
It was alleged that on 25 April 1998, Kusum had returned to her parental home complaining of dowry harassment. However, due to her pregnancy and the necessity for her parents to attend a wedding, she was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home on 1 May 1998, accompanied by her younger brother, Sandeep Kumar (PW-3). On 4 May 1998, Kusum died after allegedly consuming poison.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing her to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B, along with concurrent one-year sentences under the other provisions.
High Court’s Decision
The appellant challenged her conviction before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court acquitted her of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, based on the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-3, the High Court found her guilty under Section 306 IPC. Considering her advanced age of about 70 years, the High Court sentenced her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, emphasised that the statement of PW-3, the younger brother of the deceased, was credible and natural. PW-3 testified that on 1 May 1998, he accompanied his sister to her matrimonial home and stayed there. On the day of the incident, the deceased was abused by the appellant over the cooking of rice and subjected to further verbal abuse later in the day. PW-3 stated that after he was sent to call another person, he returned to find his sister had allegedly consumed poison.
The Court noted:
“This young witness of 17 years has narrated the entire facts in a very natural way. This fact has not gone unnoticed by us as well as that PW-3 has given an account of events in a very natural manner that does not seem exaggerated or untruthful in any manner.”
The Supreme Court further observed:
“The offence requires an active act or omission which led the deceased to commit suicide, and this act or omission must have been intended to push the deceased into committing suicide.”
The Court found that the persistent abuse and dowry demands by the appellant caused severe mental trauma to the deceased, which ultimately led her to take the extreme step. It was highlighted that the deceased had earlier sought refuge at her parental home and returned only on the assurance that matters would be resolved.
Additionally, the Court remarked on the fairness and honesty of the prosecution’s case, noting that the allegations were specific and no omnibus accusations were made against other family members:
“It is one of the rare cases where the complainant has displayed honesty while making the allegations and has not unnecessarily implicated other family members of the husband of the deceased by making omnibus allegations against all of them.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction under Section 306 IPC was justified and upheld the High Court’s sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Recognising that the appellant was granted bail during the pendency of the appeal, the Court directed her to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence. If she fails to do so, the Trial Court has been authorised to take coercive measures to ensure compliance.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
