High Court Upholds Section 306 Conviction and Directs Three-Year Rigorous Imprisonment for Mother-in-Law

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by the sole accused challenging the Allahabad High Court's order which had converted earlier convictions and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, but had convicted her under Section 306 IPC and sentenced her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The question before the Court was whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's conduct amounted to abetment of her daughter-in-law’s suicide.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that the prosecution had proved the necessary link between repeated dowry-related harassment and the deceased’s suicide, and found the testimony of the younger brother of the deceased to be credible. The Court noted the High Court had taken the appellant’s age as a mitigating factor in awarding a reduced sentence and declined to interfere with that exercise of discretion. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is settled that 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 facts of the case make it abundantly clear that the deceased was repeatedly tortured and abused by the accused on account of dowry demand to the extent that the deceased had to return to her parental home seeking refuge. It was only on the assurance of her parents that the deceased went back to her matrimonial home hoping that the events would take an upturn once her parents have returned from the wedding and settle the matter of dowry with the appellant-accused. However, the abuses hurled at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident, i.e. 04.05.1998, unfortunately acted as a straw that broke the camel’s back and led her to committing suicide. Therefore, given the factual matrix, the guilt of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

Background

The accused-appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased, Kusum, who died on 04.05.1998 at about 22 years of age. The FIR, filed on 08.05.1998 by the deceased’s father, alleged repeated mental and physical cruelty and dowry demand by the mother-in-law; it claimed the deceased had on 25.04.1998 returned to her parental home and thereafter, after assurance from her parents, went back to the matrimonial home on 01.05.1998. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced her to concurrent imprisonment terms, including seven years for dowry death. On criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and the DP Act but convicted her under Section 306 IPC on the basis of the testimony of PW‑3, the deceased’s younger brother, and sentenced her to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, considering her advanced age as a mitigating factor.

Before the Supreme Court, the key evidence was PW‑3’s account of events preceding the death; the witness was aged about 17 at the time and stated he had been present in the days leading up to the incident. The Trial Court and the High Court recorded that PW‑3 narrated facts “in a very natural way” and the Supreme Court endorsed that credibility, noting “There is an element of honesty and fairness in PW‑3’s statement throughout which lends it much credibility.” The Court applied settled principles governing abetment to suicide, held that active acts or omissions intended to push the deceased to suicide had been proved by the prosecution, and concluded that conviction under Section 306 was sustainable. The appellant had been granted interim bail by this Court on 06.09.2018; the Supreme Court directed that she surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence and permitted the Trial Court to take coercive measures if she failed to surrender. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned High Court order was upheld.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl. Appeal No. 1131 of 2018 (Citation: 2025 INSC 581) Case Title: Shakuntla Devi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment