REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2010
Rajesh Bhatnagar … Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand … Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2010
Mukesh Bhatnagar … Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Learned Second Additional District Judge, Haridwar, vide its judgment
dated 2nd December, 1996 held all the three accused, namely, Mukesh
Bhatnagar, Rajesh Bhatnagar and Smt. Kailasho @ Kailashwati, guilty of an
offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
for causing the death of Smt. Renu motivated by non-payment of dowry
demands and sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment. Against
this judgment, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 14th October, 2009 dismissed the
appeal of all the accused confirming the conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved therefrom, two of the accused
have preferred separate appeals. Criminal Appeal No.851 of 2010 has been
preferred by the accused Rajesh Bhatnagar while Criminal Appeal No.850 of
2010 has been preferred by Mukesh Bhatnagar. As both these appeals arise
from a common judgment, we shall dispose of these appeals by this common
judgment. The prosecution filed a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). After completing the
investigation and examining the witnesses, the investigating officer
presented the charge sheet stating that these three appellants had
committed an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC as together they had
burnt, by pouring kerosene, Renu, the deceased wife of the accused Mukesh
Bhatnagar, as she and her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry.
2. The facts, as they appear from the record of the case, are that Ms.
Renu (deceased) was daughter of Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatnagar, widow of
Rajbahadur, resident of Mohalla Kayasthwada, Sikandrabad, Police Station
Bulandshahar. Vimla Devi had sought a marriage alliance for her daughter
Ms. Renu. Finally, the mother of Ms. Renu and Mukesh’s family had agreed
to alliance of marriage between Mukesh and Renu. When the engagement
(sagai) ceremony was to be performed at the house of Mukesh, family of Ms.
Renu along with their relations, Sanjay Bhatnagar, Shailendera Bhatnagar
and others had gone to the house of Mukesh. At that time itself, Mukesh,
his brother Rajesh and his mother Kailasho (all the accused) demanded a
refrigerator as dowry. The mother and relations of the deceased expressed
their inability to buy a refrigerator but their request brought no results
and the accused family pressurized them to pay Rs.10,000/- for purchasing
the refrigerator then and there. Upon persuasion by their own relations,
the family of Ms. Renu paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Rajesh Bhatnagar for
purchasing the refrigerator, whereafter the ceremony was performed. On
26th May, 1994, the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per
Hindu rites at Roorkee. The family of Ms. Renu had come to Roorkee from
Sikandrabad to perform the marriage at Roorkee to the convenience of the
boy’s family. After performing the marriage, Ms. Renu went to her
matrimonial home while her other family members came back to their house at
Sikandrabad (Bulandshahar). Not even one and a half months of the marriage
had elapsed but Mukesh is stated to have brought Renu to her parental home,
where he informed her family that a television and a cooler had not been
given as dowry in the marriage and these articles should be given
immediately. If this was not done, he would not take Renu back to her
matrimonial home. The members of Renu’s family tried to impress upon
Mukesh not to pressurize them so much, but Mukesh persisted with his
demands. At that time, Ms Renu also informed her family members that all
the accused persons were beating her frequently for not bringing television
and cooler as part of the dowry. However, left with no alternative, the
mother and uncle of Ms. Renu assured Mukesh that everything would be
settled and he need not worry. However, the television and cooler were not
given at that time. The behavior of the accused towards Ms. Renu did not
change and whenever she came to her parental home, she complained about the
behavior of her in-laws and demands of dowry from them. She even wrote
letters to her family from time to time complaining of cruel behavior of
the accused towards her. In May 1995, Ms. Renu gave birth to a male child.
On 18th October, 1995, unfortunately, the father of Ms. Renu expired and
thereafter the family was not able to meet the dowry demands raised by the
accused persons. Sometime in the second week of November 1995, Ms. Renu
came to her parental home at 11.00 p.m. in the night. She was alone and
had not even brought her child with her. Being surprised, her mother had
asked her what had happened. She started crying and informed her mother
and uncle that the accused persons were very unhappy, as the television and
cooler had not been given and they had turned her out of the matrimonial
home, refusing to even give her, her child. The mother and the uncle tried
to pacify Ms. Renu and told her that with the passage of time, things would
get settled and she should go back to her matrimonial home. After 20-25
days, Mukesh came to his in-laws’ house. During their meeting, the mother
and uncle of Ms. Renu told Mukesh to treat her properly and said that the
child should not be kept away from Ms. Renu. They also assured him that as
soon as they could make some arrangement, they would give the television
and cooler to Mukesh. After this assurance, Mukesh took Renu with him to
the matrimonial home. While leaving, Renu told her mother that though they
were sending her to her matrimonial home, her in-laws would kill her and
she may not come back at all.
3. On 17th February, 1996, the uncle of Renu received a call from PW3,
Anoop Sharma, resident of Roorkee, informing him that some accident had
taken place and Renu was not well. He asked them to come to Roorkee
immediately. Mother and uncle of Renu came to Roorkee, where they learnt
and believed that for failing to give television and cooler, Renu’s mother-
in-law, brother-in-law and husband had sprinkled kerosene and set Renu on
fire. Before setting her on fire, accused Mukesh had also beat her and
when Renu attempted to defend herself, even Mukesh received some bruises on
his person. On 17th February, 1996 itself, the mother of the deceased
lodged a complaint with the Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee and case
No.32 of 1996 under Section 304B IPC was registered on that very day.
4. PW5, Sub-Inspector R.P. Purohit and PW7, Deputy S.P., M.L. Ghai,
along with other police officers, reached the place of occurrence, filled
the panchayatnama, Ext.Ka-7, prepared the sketch of the place of occurrence
and took the body of the deceased into custody vide Exts.Ka-8 and Ka-1.
The dead body was sent for post mortem and photographs of the dead body
were taken vide Exts. 1, 3 and 3. The articles found at place of
occurrence, like container containing kerosene, empty container which was
having smell of kerosene, the stove pin, burnt ash, cloth rope, bangles,
cloths of the deceased, one match box, etc. were recovered from the site
and were taken into custody vide Exts. 18 to 27. The post mortem report of
the deceased was Ext. Ka-6 whereafter the dead body was handed over to her
family members. Injuries were also found on the person of the accused
Mukesh and he was subjected to medical examination on 17th February, 1996
at about 12.30 p.m. vide Ext. Ka-22. When M.L. Ghai, PW7, on 17th
February, 1996 before the arrest of the accused persons went to their
house, he found the house open and the accused were absconding. He had
directed that a lock be put on the door of the house, which was later
opened and the site map Ext.Ka-9 was prepared.
5. All the accused faced the trial and were convicted. Their conviction
and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court were confirmed by the High
Court, as already noticed above. This is how the present appeals come up
for consideration of this Court.
6. First and foremost, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants
that in the present case, the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are not
satisfied and as such, they cannot be convicted for that offence. This
contention is sought to be buttressed by the counsel while relying upon the
letters Exts. Ka-2 to Ka-5 (four letters). The argument is that since no
complaint of dowry has been made in these letters, therefore, it must
follow that there was no demand of dowry made by the accused persons. In
absence of such demand, the rigours of Section 304B do not come into play.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of
Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan & Ors. [AIR 1998 SC 774] and Rajesh Tandon
v. State of Punjab [1994 (1) SCALE 816].
7. Before we examine the merit or otherwise of this contention, it will
be useful to state the basic ingredients of Section 304B IPC. The
requirement of Section 304B is that the death of a woman be caused by
burns, bodily injury or otherwise than in normal circumstances, within
seven years of her marriage. Further, it should be shown that soon before
her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her
husband’s family or relatives and thirdly, that such harassment should be
in relation to a demand for dowry. Once these three ingredients are
satisfied, her death shall be treated as a ‘dowry death’ and once a ‘dowry
death’ occurs, such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused
her death. Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative would be
presumed to have committed the offence of dowry death rendering them liable
for punishment unless the presumption is rebutted. It is not only a
presumption of law in relation to a death but also a deemed liability
fastened upon the husband/relative by operation of law. This Court, in the
case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana [(2011) 11 SCC 359], while analyzing
the provisions of Section 304B of the Act, held as under :
“18. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption that the
accused is responsible for dowry death, have to be pressed in
service. The said provisions read as under:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had
been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its
wisdom has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory
application on the part of the court to presume that death had
been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or
harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. It is unlike
the provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act where a
discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been
provided that court may presume abetment of suicide by a married
woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused
to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable
to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and
heavily on the accused. The only requirements are that death of
a woman has been caused by means other than any natural
circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7
years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to
cruelty or harassment by [pic]her husband or any relative of her
husband in connection with any demand of dowry.
20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death
have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the
court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the
dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention herein that the
expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in
either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the Court has
to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of
the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection
between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and
the death. (Vide T. Aruntperunjothi v. State; Devi Lal v. State
of Rajasthan; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, SCC p. 56,
para 13; Anand Kumar v. State of M.P. and Undavalli Narayana Rao
v. State of A.P.)”
8. Similar view was also taken by this Court in the case of Biswajit
Halder alias Babu Halder & Anr. v. State of West Bengal [(2008) 1 SCC 202].
9. In light of the enunciated principles, now we will revert back to the
facts of the present case. Immediately upon death of the deceased, PW2,
Smt. Vimla Devi, mother of the deceased had lodged the report with the
police where she had given in writing the complete facts, as we have stated
above, and it is not necessary for us to repeat her complaint here. When
her deposition was recorded in the Court, she, again, on oath, reiterated
the complete facts. According to her, the demand of dowry in relation to
various items persisted right from the date of engagement, uptil the death
of the deceased. Firstly, demand was raised in relation to purchase of a
refrigerator, for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given and it was only
thereafter that the engagement ceremony could be completed. Thereafter,
television and cooler were also demanded, for which they had thrown out the
deceased Ms. Renu from her matrimonial home and it was only upon the
assurance given by the mother and the uncle of the deceased that Mukesh and
his family had agreed to take her back to the matrimonial home. It must be
noticed that on 18th October, 1995, the father of the deceased had died,
but despite such death, the demands of dowry persisted from the accused
persons. Not only this, while Ms. Renu was leaving her home for the last
time along with Mukesh, after Mukesh was assured that in future they would
arrange for television and cooler, she had categorically stated that she
apprehends danger to her life and she may not come back to her home. These
circumstances clearly show the kind of threat and fear under which the
deceased was living. PW1 is the uncle of the deceased, who also fully
corroborated the statement of PW2. According to this witness, Mukesh had
climbed up to the roof and said that he would not come down and would not
permit the engagement ceremony to be completed, unless a fridge was
brought. Then Rs.10,000/- was given to his brother Rajesh Bhatnagar,
whereafter the ceremony was completed. There is no contradiction or
variation in the statements of PW1 and PW2.
10. One Anoop Sharma had informed them on 17th February, 1996 that Ms.
Renu had met with an accident. Anoop Sharma was examined by the
prosecution as PW3, and this witness admitted that he had got the marriage
arranged between Renu and Mukesh and when he had gone to meet his aunt, who
lived in Roorkee, while passing by the place situated near the house of
Mukesh, then he saw the gathering of people there and had made the call to
Ms. Renu’s family from the STD booth to Sikandrabad. This is another
circumstance which shows that the accused persons were totally
irresponsible and did not even care to inform the family of the deceased,
about her death. Dr. Vipin Kumar Premi, PW4, along with Dr. R.K. Pande,
had performed the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Renu.
According to the doctor, the whole of the body was burnt up to the stage of
first and second degree burns and the deceased had expired due to ante
mortem injuries and shock. Sub Inspector R.P. Purohit, the Investigating
Officer, (PW5) has testified with regard to the inquest investigation,
recovery of articles from the place of occurrence and recording of
statements of witnesses. In his examination, he specifically denied that
the body of the deceased was handed over to Mukesh and Rajesh after post
mortem. Deputy Superintendent of Police M.L. Ghai, PW-7 had also visited
the spot after complainant Smt. Vimla Devi was examined. He prepared the
site plan and conducted the inquest. This witness clearly stated that when
at 8.00 p.m. on 17th February, 1996, he went to the house of Mukesh, to
make inquiries upon the formal registration of the case, he did not find
the accused persons on the spot and, in fact, they had left the house open
and fled. Therefore, he had got the house locked by a Havaldar of Chowki
Tehsil.
11. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was persistent demand
of dowry by the accused persons and they had killed her by sprinkling
kerosene on her and putting her on fire. There can be no dispute that the
deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Thus,
the ingredients of Section 304B are fully satisfied in the present case.
We are least satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, that merely because the letters on record do not
specifically mention the dowry demands, such letters have to be construed
by themselves without reference to other evidence and rebutting the
presumption of a dowry death, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
These letters have to be read in conjunction with the statements of PW1 and
PW2. It is difficult for one to imagine that these letters should have
been worded by the deceased as submitted on behalf of the accused. She
never knew with certainty that she was going to die shortly. The letters
clearly spell out the beatings given to her, the cruelties inflicted on her
and reference to the conduct of the family. The evidence has to be
appreciated in its entirety. Neither the letters can be ignored nor the
statements of PW1 and PW2. If the letters had made no reference to
beatings, cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and not
demonstrating the grievance, apprehensions and fear that she was
entertaining in her mind, but were letters simpliciter mentioning about her
well being and that she and her in-laws were living happily without
complaint against each other, the matter would have been different. In the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, it
has specifically been recorded that the letters produced in those cases had
clearly stated that relations between the parties were cordial and there
was no reference to any alleged cruelty or harassment meted out to the
deceased by any of the accused in that case. On the contrary, in the
letters, it was specifically recorded that the deceased was happy with all
the members of the family. The oral and documentary evidence in those
cases had clearly shown that the deceased was never subjected to any
cruelty or harassment. In those cases, there was no evidence of demand of
dowry and cruelty to the deceased, which certainly is not the case here.
In the case before us, there is definite ocular, expert and documentary
evidence to show that the deceased died an unnatural death, she was
subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was demand of dowry of
specific items like refrigerator, television and cooler and she died within
seven years of her marriage.
12. Then the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the accused Mukesh had suffered 12 injuries on his person in attempts to
rescue the deceased and there was no proximity between the demand of
refrigerator and the occurrence. Therefore, the accused cannot be held
guilty of the offence charged. According to him, in any case, the courts
ought not to have awarded the punishment of life imprisonment to the
accused persons keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the fact
that both the accused were young persons while their mother was an aged
lady. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Hemchand v. State of Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 727]. These contentions again
are without any substance. No doubt, as per the statement of the doctor,
there were nearly 12 injuries found on the body of the accused Mukesh.
Question is, how did he suffer these injuries? No doubt the accused had
suffered number of injuries. PW8, Dr. D.D. Lumbahas explained the injuries
on the body of the accused Mukesh as follows :
“(1) Abraded swelling 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right upper eyelid.
(2) Abraded swelling 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right side face, just
below right eye.
(3) Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.2 cm, left side neck, front middle
past.
(4) Three abrasions in an area of 6.0 cm x 3.5 cm, each
measuring 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, 0.6 cm x 0.4 cm, and 0.8 cm x
0.2 cm, right upper arm inner side lower past.
(5) Two faint contusions 2.0 cm apast, each measuring 1.5 cm x
0.5 cm and 2.0 cm x 0.8 cm right chest, front, upper past.
(6) Faint contusion 2.5 cm x 0.4 cm, left side chest, front
upper past.
(7) Abrasion 1.4 cm x 0.3 cm, left side chest outer side 9.0
cm below armpit.
(8) Two abrasion 1.5 cm apast, each measuring 5.0 x 0.5 cm and
6.0 x 0.5 cm, left upper arm outer side, middle past.
(9) Abrasion 0.8 x 0.2 cm, left upper arm, back, lower past.
(10) Abrasion 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm, right back upper past.
(11) Two abrasion 2.0 cm apast, each measuring 3.0 cm x 0.3 cm
and 6.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right back outer site/at to the right
armpit.
(12) Abrasion 13.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right upper arm back outer
upper 2/3.”
13. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to how
and when the accused Mukesh suffered the injuries. According to the
accused, he had suffered these injuries when he was trying to break open
the door of the kitchen with the intention to save the deceased, because it
was projected by the defence that the deceased had died because of an
accident of stove fire while cooking the food. This entire gamut of
projections by the defence counsel are not only afterthoughts but, in fact,
nothing but falsehood. This aspect has been well considered by the Trial
Court, which recorded the following reasons for rejecting this theory
propounded on behalf of the defence :
“(1) On the spot, a pin of stove was opened, however, the stove
was not burning. The switch of heater was also off and it
was also not found on.
(2) There was no cooked food.
(3) On the spot the empty container was found which contained
kerosene oil smell. Besides this, the one container
containing kerosene oil was found.
XXX XXX XXX
(5) From the body of deceased and from earth, kerosene oil
smell was coming.
(6) The deceased was not wearing synthetic clothes. No half
burnt cloth was found.
(7) About 12 injuries were found on the person of accused
Mukesh on different parts of the body. On the spot, the
broken bangles of deceased were found. All these things go
to prove that deceased was fighting for her life. No
explanation was given by Mukesh for his injuries.
(8) The entrance of kitchen was not having any door and the
statement given by defence that the door of the kitchen was
closed and he had to open the door by pushing it from his
hands and chest, is a false statement.
(9) Before the death, deceased has discharged faecal matter
and there was rigor mortis on her dead body, which
indicates that deceased was afraid of her death. This fact
goes to prove that occurrence had not taken place as has
been said by accused persons.
(10) The dead body was having first degree and second degree
burn injuries and it goes to prove that kerosene oil was
sprinkled on the body. It completely rules out the death
of accident.”
14. The above reasoning given by the Trial Court deserves acceptance by
us. Furthermore, the entire conduct of the accused is such as to lead to
only one plausible conclusion, i.e., all the accused together had caused
the death of the deceased. The arguments of the defence are strange
because if the accused had attempted to save the deceased, then he would
have suffered some burn injuries. But as per the above details of
injuries, there was not even a single burn injury found on the body of the
accused Mukesh. These injuries were such that one could suffer only if he
was struggling or fighting with another person, as then alone could he
suffer such bruises or minor cuts. Absence of any cooking material in the
kitchen is another very important circumstance which would belie the stand
of this accused. An accused who raises a false plea before the Court would
normally earn the criticism of the Court leading to adverse inference.
This Court in the case of Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328]
has held as follows :
“21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put in
an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of
enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in
the evidence against him. It follows as a necessary corollary
therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the
evidence against the accused is required to be put to him
specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so
amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is
shown that the accused was prejudiced.
22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a
direct dialogue between the court and the accused. If a point
in the evidence is important against the accused, and the
conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and
proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter
and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific
question has been put by the trial court on an inculpatory
material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the
trial. Of course, all evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of
course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused
miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed
a similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) while
dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1898
(corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non-indication of
inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial court to
the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case.
Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not
a purposeless exercise.”
15. As far as the contention of the accused that there was no proximity
or nexus between the alleged demand of refrigerator and the death of the
deceased and the accused is, thus, entitled to benefit of acquittal is
concerned, it requires to be noticed only for being rejected. The demand
for refrigerator was the first demand of dowry, that too, at the time of
engagement. This demand was instantaneously fulfilled by the family of the
deceased under compulsion and threat that the engagement ceremony would not
be performed if the refrigerator or money was not given. The demand of
dowry raised by the accused persons later for television and cooler could
not be satisfied by the family of the deceased for financial limitations
upon the death of father of the deceased. As a result, the deceased was
treated with cruelty and physical assault. In fact, it ultimately led to
her brutal murder at the hands of the husband and his family members. Not
only this, the conduct of the accused prior to and immediately after the
occurrence clearly shows that they were not innocent. Otherwise, there was
no occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased was handed
over to her relations. These circumstances, along with the circumstances
stated by the Trial Court, are inconsistent with their innocence and
consistent only with hypothesis that they had killed the deceased by
setting her on fire. No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation,
has been rendered by the accused persons in their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the trend of cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses and explanations given by the defence for accused
Mukesh having suffered injuries on his body are patently false and not
worthy of credence.
16. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the
accused are not entitled to any benefit, much less acquittal, from this
Court. We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC
684] where, under somewhat similar circumstances, the Court rejected the
plea of the innocence of the accused taking into consideration the conduct
of the accused and his failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation.
17. Now we are left with the last contention of the counsel for the
appellant that this is a case where the Court may not uphold the sentence
of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below. We see no mitigating
circumstances in favour of the accused which will persuade us to take any
view other than the view taken by the Trial Court on the question of
quantum of sentence. Even in the case of Hemchand (supra), relied upon by
the appellant, this Court had said that it is only in rare cases that the
Court should impose punishment of life imprisonment. When the offence of
Section 304B is proved, the manner in which the offence has been committed
is found to be brutal, it had been committed for satisfaction of dowry
demands, particularly, for material goods like television or cooler and
furthermore the accused takes up a false defence before the Court to claim
that it was a case of an accidental death and not that of dowry death, then
the Court normally would not exercise its judicial discretion in favour of
the accused by awarding lesser sentence than life imprisonment.
18. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in the appeals.
Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly.
.…................................J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
.…................................J.
[Ranjan Gogoi]
New Delhi
May 10, 2012
