Dowry death sec. 498 A , 304 B of IPC =death was due to asphyxia by throttling = In the present case, we have noticed that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC. Such ingredients having been proved, Section 113­B of the Indian Evidence Act automatically comes into play. In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder Kaur had taken place just within four months of her marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PW­4 and PW­5, parents of the deceased. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for the appellant made an alternative submission and requested to take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife), the appellant got married second time and from his second wife he has three children out of which one son is handicapped and his mother is also paralysed. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, we affirm the conviction under Section 304B IPC and 498­A IPC and reduce the sentence awarded under Section 304B IPC to seven years alongwith the sentence of two years imposed under Section 498­A IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/­ as imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40518
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007
RANJIT SINGH   ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This     appeal   is   directed   against     the   judgment   and
order   dated   17th   January,   2007   passed   by   the   Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   303­DB   of   2006.   By   its   impugned
judgment   the   Division   Bench   while   acquitting   one   of   the
accused­Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased, of the
charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded
by   the   Additional   Session   Judge,   Barnala   against   the
appellant under Section 304­B, 498­A IPC.  
The accused­appellant­Ranjit Singh has been sentenced
to undergo RI for life under Section 304­B IPC and further
sentenced   to   undergo   RI   for     two   years   with   a   fine   ofPage 2
2
Rs.2,000/­,   in   default   thereof   to   go   RI   for   a   further
period of six months under Section 498­A IPC.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal
are as follows:­
The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his
statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police
Station Tapa  to the effect that he had performed marriage
of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,
son   of   Raghbir   Singh,   resident   of   Roorki   Kalan     in   the
month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/­
cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,
etc. as dowry.   In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said
marriage   and   fulfilled   all   the   demands   so   raised   by
Raghbir Singh, father­in­law of his daughter.  After about
7   days   of   marriage,     his   daughter   came   to   her   parents
house,   she   complained   about   the   demand   of   money   as
“Shagun”,   upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/­
to   her   daughter   which   she   handed   over   to   her   husband­
Ranjit   Singh   (appellant   herein).   The   complainant   Bahadur
Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when
his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage
and told about the demand made by her in­laws and pursuantPage 3
3
thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/­   and
sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.
The complainant further stated that even thereafter also
demands   were   made   by   her   daughter's   in­laws   asking   for
articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles
were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur
Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when
his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial
house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated
her about the harassment made by her in­laws on account of
demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she
apprehended   that   she   might   be   killed   by   her­in­laws   and
requested to  take her alongwith her.   However, his  wife
consoled   her   daughter   and   went   back   to   her   house   at
village Kale Ka.   On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,
they   came   to   know   about   the   death   of   their     daughter
Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they
found their daughter  Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the
courtyard   of   her   in­laws   house   with   injuries     on   her
person.   The   complainant     suspected   that   Raghbir   Singh,
father­in­law,   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law,   Raj   Kaur,Page 4
4
sister­in­law   and   Ranjit   Singh,   husband   of   his   daughter
murdered her.
3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60  dated 30th
May,   1996   (Ex.PE)   for   an   offence   under   Section   304­B/34
IPC   was   registered   at   Police   Station   Tapa,   District
Sangrur.
4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW­6) reached
the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead
body of Jaswinder Kaur.   He took the dead body to Civil
Hospital,   Barnala   for   post­mortem   examination   where   Dr.
Bhalinder   Singh(PW­2)   conducted   the   post­mortem
examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as
six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.  
5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW­6)  recorded the statement of
the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were
arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities
of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was   filed   against   Raghbir   Singh,   Baldev   Kaur   and   Ranjit
Singh for trial. In the absence of  any evidence against
Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law   of   the   deceased,   her   case   was
dropped.Page 5
5
6. After commitment of the case,  the Trial Court framed
charges   against   the   accused­appellant   for   commission   of
an   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC   with   the
alternative charges under Section 304­B read with Section
34 IPC and under Section 498­A as well.
7. The   prosecution   in   all,   examined   as   many   as     six
witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW­1,
Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW­2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW­4,
Bahadur   Singh,   Gurmail   Kaur,   father   and   mother   of     the
deceased as PW­4 and PW­5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh
as PW­6.
8. The accused denied the prosecution allegations.  Their
stand was that  the deceased, in a disturbed mental state
committed   suicide   by   hanging   herself.   On   behalf   of   the
defence as many as five witnesses were examined.  Rajinder
Singh, constable as DW­1, Jagtar   Singh @ Avtar Singh as
DW­2,   Gurcharan   Singh   son   of   Harchand   as   DW­3,   Major
Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW­4 and DSP Darshan Singh
as DW­5.
9. The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its
judgment   dated   26.11.1998   convicted   and   sentenced   the
accused Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law, Ranjit Singh, husbandPage 6
6
and Raghbir Singh, father­in­law for commiting an offence
under Section 304­B IPC.   Pursuant to an order passed in
criminal appeal No. 563­DB of 1998 filed by the accused in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Division Bench
by   its   order   dated   1st   February,   2006   set   aside   the
conviction   and   sentence   recorded   by   the   Trial   Court,
remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction
to   proceed   with   the     trials   from   the   stage   of   Section
235Cr.P.C.   and   to   pass   order   afresh   in   accordance   with
law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition
preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were
dismissed   by   the   same   order,     for   having   become
infructuous.
10. Pursuant   to   the   direction   of   the   High   Court,   the
matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during
the   re­hearing   of   the   case   before   the   Trial   Court,
accused Raghbir Singh was reported  to have  died on  19th
April,   2003   and   thereby   the   proceedings   were   abated
against him by order dated 25th March, 2006.
11. Thereafter,   on   appreciation   of   evidence   led   by   the
prosecution,   the   Trial   Court   held   both   Baldev   Kaur,
mother­in­law and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offencePage 7
7
under Section 304­B read with Section 34 and Section 498­A
IPC     and   sentenced   as   noticed   earlier.     On   appeal,   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   impugned   judgment
acquitted   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law   but   affirmed   the
judgment passed by the Trial Court so far as it relates to
appellant­Rajnit Singh, husband of the deceased.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
assailed   the   judgment   mainly   on   the   ground   that   in   the
FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or
harassment   or   cruelty   was   made   against   the   appellant,
Ranjit   Singh,   husband   of   the   deceased.   Even   during   the
trial,   the   demand   for   dowry   was   not   attributed   to   the
appellant.   Neither   the   Trial   Court   nor   the   High   Court
considered   the   defence   evidence   which   appellant   produced
to   rebut   the   presumption.   Further,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   submitted     that
Section 113­B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the
present case.   Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased
has   been   acquitted   considering   the   same   evidence   as   is
available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same
cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty.   It
was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made majorPage 8
8
improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to
notice the defence evidence  which is more probable.
13.Gurjant Singh,PW­1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder
Kaur, daughter of his sister  was married  to Ranjit Singh
at Kaleke in January, 1996. On the date of occurrence i.e.
30th   May,   1996   he   had   gone   to   visit     at   the   house   of
accused   Ranjit   Singh   where   all   family   members   including
Jaswinder   Kaur   were   present   there.   They   were   openly
threatening   Jaswinder   Kaur   since   she   had   not   brought
maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by
Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law   who   took   her   into   a   room   by
holding   her   from   her   neck.   Ranjit  singh,   husband   caught
hold   of   her   legs   and   Raghbir   Singh   ,   father­in­law
exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar
exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sister­in­law and
in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.
On   behalf   of   the   appellant   it   was   contended   that
Gurjant   Singh(PW­1)   is   a   maternal   uncle   of   the   deceased
and,   therefore,   his   statement   was   not   worthy   of   any
credence   as   he   would   not   allow   anybody   to   commit   such
crime in his presence. If he would have present there atPage 9
9
that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or
raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so.
14. Bahadur   Singh(PW­4)   is   the   father   of   the   deceased,
Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that on 30th May, 1996 at about
3.30P.m., he received information of his daughter's death
at her ­in­law's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along
with   others   visited   the   Village   where   he   found   his
daughter,  Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he
visited Police Station Tapa and lodged  an FIR.  He stated
that   on   demand   of   the   accused­Raghvir   Singh,   father­in­
law,   he   spent   Rs,   1,50,000/­   on   the   marriage   of   her
daughter.   She   was   given   14   tolas   of   gold,   scooter   and
Rs.55,000/­   in   cash.   In   addition   to   it   he   gave   cooler,
fridge,   dressing   table,   etc.   as   dowry   to   his   daughter.
After 7­8days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage
Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused
were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded
the amount of “Shaguns”.   On this, he gave Rs.8,000/­ as
an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter   which she handed
over   to   her   husband­Ranjit   Singh   who   had   accompanied
Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke.   After about 20 days, when he
brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that her­in­Page 10
10
laws were demanding more dowry.  She further informed that
she was being   harassed by the accused. All the accused
including   Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law,   were   demanding   dowry
articles   of   good   quality.     Gurmel   Kaur(PW­5),   mother   of
the deceased went to her daughter’s matrimonial home one
day   prior   to   the   date   of   occurrence   of   death   when   her
daughter   narrated   her   woeful     stories   and   requested   her
mother     to   take   her   back   as   she   was   apprehending   death
from   the   accused.   She   further   informed   that   the   accused
was demanding Maruti Car as dowry.     Gurmail Kaur(PW­5)
assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to
her father and she came back in the evening of the same
day at Village Kaleke.  Bahadur Singh(PW­4) further stated
that   his   brother­in­law   (wife's   brother)   went   to   meet
Jaswinder   Kaur   at   about   12/12.30   P.M.   on   the   day   of
occurrence   and   saw   that   all   the   accused   including   Raj
Kaur, sister­in­law   were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she
had not brought Maruti Car for them.
15. Gurmail Kaur(PW­5), mother of the deceased, deposed
in   her   statement   that   her   daughter   was   married     to
accused­Ranjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the
occurrence of her death.   Sufficient dowry   was given inPage 11
11
the   marriage   as   per   the   demand   of   the   accused.   She   had
gone   to   the   Village   Roorki   Kalan   to   meet   her   daughter
where she told her that she was being maltreated by her­
in­laws as they were demanding Maruti Car and the demand
was   made   by   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law,     Ranjit   Singh,
husband,   Raghbir   Singh,   father­in­law   and   Raj   Kaur,
sister­in­law   of   the   deceased.   She   also   told   her   mother
that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not
bring   Maruti   car.   She   requested   her   mother   to   take   her
back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at
the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and
assured   her   that   she   would   narrate   the   matter   to   her
father.   She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the
entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW­4).   Next day at about
3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had
been killed by her­in­laws.
16. Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW­2) conducted  the post mortem
examination   on   the     dead   body   of     Jaswinder   Kaur   @
Baljinder   Kaur   w/o   Ranjit   Singh   @   Makhan   Singh,   R/o
Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.
The following injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:Page 12
12
1.       Abrasion on the right side of neck 1x.25
cm in size 8cm away from right angle of mouth 0.5
cm  away from right ear. Horozontal in position.
2. Contusion   on   right   side   of   neck   measuring
5x1½cm,   1cm   below   injury   no.   1   and   oblique   in
position.
3. Contusion   on   right   side   of   neck   measuring
5x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 2.
4. Contusion   on   right   side   of   neck   measuring
4x1½cm ½cm below injury no.  3.
5.               Contusion   on   left   side   3x2cm   in   the
middle.
6.        Upper eye­lid of left eye was swollen and
blushed.     On   dissection   of   neck   soft   tissue
ecchomised.
He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured.   Right lung
and left lung were  congested  with punctiform  hemorrhage.
Right   heart   contained   blood   and   left   heart   was   empty.
Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.
17.In his cross­examination, he also stated that there is
a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for
hanging  through ling it would cause ligature marks.
18.Dev Raj (PW­3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the
same.
19.Gurcharan   Singh(PW­6),   ASI,   P.S.   Kotwali,   Barnala   who
was   the     AIO,   recorded   the   FIR   and   stated   that   hePage 13
13
inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot
(Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead
body   was   lying   was   also   taken  into   possession  vide   memo
(Ex.PF).       On   31st   May,   1996,   he   arrested   the   accused;
Baldev Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh.  He recorded
the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW­4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail
Kaur(PW­5)   as   (Ex.DB)   without   any   omission   or   addition.
He noted down the brief according to the facts contained
in the FIR.
It   was   given   in   the   evidence   of   PW­4   that   one   day
before   the   death   of   Jaswinder   Kaur,   Gurmail   Kaur(PW­5)
mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she
expressed   her   apprehension   of   threat   to   her   life   and
requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW­5).
She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car
from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW­5) assured her
daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of
Bahadur   Singh(PW­4),   father   of   the   deceased.   The
statements of PW­4 and PW­3(parents of the deceased) were
duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and
harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and
the event of her visit a day prior to her death.   TheyPage 14
14
were   subjected   to   lengthy   cross   examination.   Apart   from
minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the
case,   their   statements   are   corroborated   on   material
particulars   so   far   as   the   demands   of   harassment   to
Jaswinder Kaur is concerned.       Their statements indict
the   series   of   incidents   forming   part   of   the   same
transaction   which   culminated   in   the   death   of   Jaswinder
Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by her­in­laws right
from the very beginning and from time to time was being
harassed   on   demand   of   dowry.   The   sequence   of   events,
discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on
account of such demands were present till her death.
20. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   laid   much   stress
that   there   is   no   independent   eye   witness   to   corroborate
the statements of PW­4 and PW­5 who are closely related to
the deceased.  The contention is again meritless.  It is,
but   natural,   that   instance   of     cruelty,   harassment   of
demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal
knowledge of   near relations   and they would be the best
persons to depose about the same.  Therefore, the evidence
of  physical and mental torture  of the deceased from thePage 15
15
accused   is   not   to   be   discarded   simply   on   the   score   of
independent corroboration.
21. One   of   the   stand   taken   by   the   appellant   that   no
Panchayat was convened and the matter was not reported to
the police cannnot be the ground to discard the evidence
of PW­4 and PW­5 who are material witnesses.   About the
harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the
matter   is   first   reported   to   the   parents   and   not   to   the
Panchanayat.     It   is   not   necessary   that   such   matter   is
required to be reported to the Panchayat.
22. From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW­2), it is
apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur   was caused by
bodily   injury   which   is   otherwise   than   under   the   normal
circumstances. The death took place within few months of
the   date   of   marriage   i.e.     much   before   seven   years   of
marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected   to   cruelty   and   harassment   by   her   husband   in
connection   with   the   demand   of   dowry.     Therefore,   the
present   case   squarely   falls   within   the   meaning   of   dowry
death   for   the   purpose   to   attract   Section   304­B   IPC.
Section 113­B of the  Indian Evidence  Act deals with the
presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the
Page 16
16
question is whether a person has committed a 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 demand of a dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry
death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective
of the fact whether the accused  had any direct connection
with   the   death   or   not,   he   shall   be   presumed   to   have
committed   the   “dowry   death”   provided   the   other
requirements mentioned above are satisfied.
23. In   the   present   case,   we   have   noticed   that   the
prosecution   has   successfully   proved   the   ingredients
necessary   to   attract   the   Provision   of   Section   304B   IPC.
Such ingredients   having  been proved,    Section 113­B of
the Indian  Evidence  Act automatically comes into play.  
In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder
Kaur   had   taken   place   just   within   four   months   of   her
marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on  the
evidence of PW­4 and PW­5, parents of the  deceased. 
They
have   made   statements   that   even   at   the   time   of   marriage
they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 7­8 days of marriage
when   Jaswinder   Kaur   came   to   their   parents   house   and
Page 17
17
conveyed   that   the   accused   were   demanding   dowry   as   the
amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/­ was given her to
hand­over   to   her   husband   who   accompanied   her.     
Their
statement further suggested that  upon subsequent visit of
their daughter after about 20 days, a sum of Rs.1500 was
spent  by PW­4 for purchase of certain articles, which his
daughter took  to her matrimonial home in a tractor. 
Just
a day before the  death, she informed her  mother Gurmail
Kaur(PW­5)   that   the   accused   were   torturing   her   and
demanding Maruti Car.
24. The   statement   of   the   accused   corroborates   the
materials   particularly   in   relation   to   harassment   and
demand  of dowry and death by  torture. 
The accused being
the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of
Maruti   Car,   we   find   no   reason   to   differ   with   the
conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate
Court that the appellant is guilty   of the offence under
Section 304B IPC.
25. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for   the
appellant made an alternative submission and requested  to
take   a  lenient   view  in   view  of   the   fact  that   after   the
death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife),   the appellant got
Page 18
18
married second time and 
from his second wife  he has three children   out   of   which   one   son   is   handicapped   and  
 his mother   is   also   paralysed.   
Taking   into   consideration   the
aforesaid   fact,   
we   affirm   the   conviction   under   Section
304B IPC   and 498­A IPC and 
reduce the sentence awarded
under   Section   304B   IPC     to   seven   years   alongwith   the
sentence of two   years   imposed under Section 498­A IPC
and fine of Rs.2,000/­ as imposed by the Trial Court and
affirmed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   with
direction   that   both   sentences     shall   run   concurrently.
Bail   bonds   of   the   appellant   are   cancelled   and   he   is
directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the remainder of the sentence.
……………………………........………………..J.
(A.K.PATNAIK)
………........……………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3, 2013.

sec. 302, 498 A = Non - Explanation of LIGATURE MARK by Accused while joining his wife in the Hospital = There was 10 cm long ligature mark of dark brown colour extending from left sternocleide mastoid to the right sternocleide mastoid below cricoids cartilage, reddish brown in colour, abrasion to be on the right side. Ligature mark encircles the neck only on front side. No encircling of the neck on the back and away from sternecleid mastoid. There was ligature of 1.5 cm wide or less than it at places (ligature used was not presented by the police at the time of postmortem examination). It was not with the body either. No abrasion/brusises on the mouth, nose, cheeks, forehead. Lips were blue. Tongue was in drawn, plinching of teeth, on opening base of tongue swollen. No injury to tough, clinching of hands present.= High Court at Shimla, acquitted the accused­respondent by allowing the appeal and set aside the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 498­A IPC with sentence thereunder, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP on 13th June, 2002. = Post mortem report(PW­10/A) prepared by Dr. K.C. Chopra(PW­10) shows that there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. - the ligature mark of 10cm long and 1.5 cm. wide in horizontal position cannot be caused by hanging but could have been caused by strangulation. Medical evidence, therefore, completely falsify the case of accused no. 1(respondent herein). The conduct of the accused no. 1 was also not natural. When he found his wife hanging, he neither made hue and cry nor called the villagers nearby. He along with others brought down the body of the deceased. He, even thereafter, did not report the matter immediately on his own to police.= Therefore, we find that all the findings by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the evidence of Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10) and other material witnesses including Kartar Chand (PW­3) and Prem Chand (PW­5) are clearly unsustainable, whereas those given by the Trial Court accepting the evidence of these witnesses were weighty and sound. Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 16th November, 2004 and convict the accused­respondent under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Vidhya Devi and sentence him to imprisonment for life. We, thereby restore the order of conviction passed against the accused­respondent by the Trial Court. The accused­respondent shall surrender immediately to serve out the remainder of the sentence.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40517
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2007
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH  … APPELLANT
VERUS
JAI CHAND  … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh
against   the   judgment   dated   16th  November,   2004     in   Criminal
Appeal No. 392 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the Division
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, acquitted
the accused­respondent  by  allowing  the  appeal    and  set  aside
the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 498­A
IPC with  sentence  thereunder,    passed  by  the  Sessions  Judge,
Hamirpur, HP on 13th June, 2002.
2. The   respondent(herein)   Jai   Chand,   along   with   two   others
were   tried   for   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   (r/w
Section 34)IPC and Section 498­A IPC.  Learned Sessions Judge,
Hamirpur     found   Jai   Chand,   accused   no.   1  to   be   guilty   under
Page 2
2
Section   302   and   498­A   IPC.
He   was   sentenced   to   undergo
Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­,  in default
of payment of fine,  to undergo imprisonment for one year.  No
separate sentence under Section 498­A IPC was imposed upon the
accused.   The two other accused, namely, Prem Chand and Smt.
Nimmo Devi were acquitted.
3. The   record   reveals   that   accused   no.   1,   Jai   chand
(respondent   herein)   and   accused   no.   2,   Prem   Chand   are   real
brothers whereas accused no.3, Nimmo Devi is their sister­in­
law (Bhabhi), the wife of their  elder brother, Prakash Chand.
4. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial may
briefly be stated as follows:
Smt.   Vidya   Devi   (since   deceased)   was   wife   of   Jai   Chand,
accused no. 1(respondent herein).  She was married to Jai Chand
in   the   year   1996.     On   13th  July,   2001,   Smt.   Vidhya   Devi   was
brought to District Hospital, Hamirpur in serious condition by
accused no. 1 for medical treatment.   The Medical Officer on
duty   had   informed   the   police,   Police   Station   at   Sadar   vide
Rapat No. 3 dated 13th July, 2001(Ex.PW­8/A) that one woman was
brought to the hospital for medical treatment  under suspicious
circumstances.  On  the said information, Sansar Chand (PW­8),
Inspector/S.H.O.  accompanied by other police officials went toPage 3
3
the hospital where he found the dead body of Vidya Devi lying
in the Varanda. Roshan Lal, (PW­1), father of the deceased  was
standing near the dead body.     He made statement (Ex.PW­1/A)
that   his   son­in­law,   Jai   Chand(accused   No.1)   is   a   habitual
drunkard and under the influence of liquor, he was in the habit
of beating and treating his daughter with cruelty.  Prem Chand
(accused no.2) and Smt. Nimmo  Devi (accused no.3) also used to
taunt   and   abuse   the   deceased.   Two   years   ago,   accused   no.   1,
left   the   deceased   at   her   parents’   house.     PW­1   pacified   his
daughter that all this happens in joint families and sent her
back to matrimonial house.  In these circumstances, Vidhya Devi
committed suicide due to mal­treatment and torture by all the
accused   persons.     On   13th  July,   2001   at   about   8.30A.M.   one
Kashmir   Singh,   resident   of     his   Village   Kot,     informed   PW­1
that his daughter Vidhya Devi had been brought to the hospital
at Hamirpur where she expired.   PW­1 alongwith his son, Ajit
Singh(PW­2) went  to the hospital  and  found  Vidhya  Devi  dead.
PW­1 had noticed injuries on her person. The statement of PW­1
(Ex.PW.1/A)   was   forwarded   by   PW­8   (vide   Ex.PW­8/A)   to   the
Police Station for registration of the case.  First Information
Report (Ex.PW­6/A) was recorded by PHC Ramesh Chand( PW­6) P.S.
Sadar Hamairpur, H.P..   Investigation was conducted initiallyPage 4
4
by  PW­8.   He  prepared  inquest  reports  (Ex.PW­2/A)  and  Ex.PW­
2/B).     He   wrote   an   application   (Ex.PW­8/B)   to   the     Senior
Medical   officer,   Zonal   Hospital,   Hamirpur   for   conducting   the
post­mortem   to   the   dead   body   of   the   deceased.     Photographs
(Ex.P­9 to Ex.P­14) of the dead body were also taken.     Jai
Chand (accused no. 1) was present in the hospital and he handed
over ‘dupattas’ (Ex.P­2),‘shirt’ (Ex.P­3) and ‘Salwar’ (P­6) of
the   deceased   to   PW­8   which   were   taken   into   possession   vide
memos;   (Ex.PW­2/C   and   PW­2/D)   respectively.   Thereafter,   PW­8
handed over the file for investigation to Hari Ram (PW­9).  PW­
9 collected the post­mortem repot(Ex.PW­10/A).  On the basis of
the   report,   the   case   was   converted   from   Section   306   IPC   to
under Section 302 IPC.
5.   Jai   Chand,   accused   no.   1   made     the   alleged   disclosure
statement (Ex.PW­5/A) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to
the effect that he alongwith co­accused had hanged the deceased
with ‘Barli’ (a wooden kari placed horizontally on the walls of
the   room).     To   the   same   effect,   disclosure   statements
(Ex.PW.5/B   and   Ex.PW­5/D)   were   made   by   accused   no.   3.   Jai
Chand, accused no. 1 also got recovered one iron bucket  (Ex.P­
7)   which   was   taken   into   possession   vide   disclosure   memo(PW­
5/C).   PW­9   prepared   the   site   map(Ex.   PW­9/A)   depicting   thePage 5
5
place where the accused person had put the face of the deceased
in   the   bucket   filled   with   water   and   pointed   the   place   where
her body was tied with ‘barli’ by accused persons.
6. As per, the disclosure statement of Jai Chand, (accused no.
1)  and Nimmo Devi (accused no. 3),  on the intervening  night
of 12th/13th  July, 2001, Vidhya Devi came out of the room and
went to a place where the cattle were used to be kept.   Her
husband, Jai Chand, accused no. 1 also followed her and asked
his wife to go to bed but she did not respond  thereto.  Both
of them entered into verbal fight.  Accused no. 1 at that time
dipped   the   head   of   the   deceased   in   the   bucket   full   of   water
lying there. As a result thereof, she felt suffocated and the
water entered into her mouth as well as in stomach.   Accused
no. 1 then lifted her from that place and laid her on the cot.
Accused   no.   1   called   accused   nos.   2   and   3.       Accused   no.   3
caught   hold   of   arms   of   the   deceased   whereas   accused   no.   2
caught hold of her legs. Accused no. 1 throttled the deceased
with hands and caused her death.     On finding no movement in
her body,   all the accused hanged the deceased   with dupattas
and thereafter laid the dead body of the deceased  Vidhya Devi
on a cot.  On the following morning,  Jai Chand, accused no. 1
told his mother that   his wife had become unconscious duringPage 6
6
the night and now she is not speaking anything.     Jai Chand,
accused no. 1 then took her wife to the courtyard and laid her
body on a cot lying there.    The residents of the village were
informed about the death of Vidhya Devi.  One Smt. Damodri Devi
brought   some   milk   from   her   house   but   the   deceased   could   not
inhale   the   same.   Thereafter,   accused   no.   1   accompanied     by
Kartar Singh and Deepak Kumar brought the deceased on the cot
to the road side.   Prakash Chand, brother of accused no.1 who
had   gone   to   call   the   doctor,   had   brought   the   taxi   and   the
deceased was thus taken to the Zonal Hospital,  Hamirpur where
she was declared dead.   The body of the deceased was sent for
post   mortem.   PW­10,   Dr.   K.   C.   Chopra   submitted   post   mortem
report   (Ex.PW­10/A).     The   stomach   contents   including   viscera
etc. preserved by the team of doctors has been got analysed and
as per report Ext. PW­8/B, neither the contents of any poison
nor intoxicant could be detected on analysis thereof.  Thus, no
case of poisoning was found.
7.   On receipt of post mortem report (Ex.PW­10/A) and report
of   the   Chemical   Examiner(Ex.PW­8/D),     it   was   found   that   the
deceased had not committed suicide but she was killed by the
accused no. 1 by dipping her face into  a bucket of water and
strangulating her.  
All the three accused were sent for trialPage 7
7
for the office under Section  302 read with Section 34 IPC and
498­A IPC.
8. PW­10, Dr. K. C. Chopra, Medical officer, Zonal Hospital,
Hamirpur, H.P., in his statement stated that he alongwith Dr.
K.S.   Dogra   conducted   post   mortem   of   the   dead   body   of   Smt.
Vidhya Devi, wife of Jai Chand and observed as follows:
“EXTERNAL APPEARANCE:
Dead body was lying in supine with face in the
centre (there was no turning of face to either side).
White leathorty foam seen at both nostrils which was
more on pressing the epigastriun.   No sticky saliva
was present on the angle of the mouth.  No postmortem
staining   was   present   over   the   back   and   legs.     No
petechcial haemorrages seen over the chest or legs.
Two contusions 3x2 cm present on the left upper arm,
reddish blue in colour.  No stretching and elongation
of neck, head inclined to neither side.
LIGATURE MARK
There was 10 cm long ligature mark of dark brown
colour   extending   from   left   sternocleide   mastoid   to
the   right   sternocleide   mastoid   below   cricoids
cartilage, reddish brown in colour, abrasion to be on
the   right   side.     Ligature   mark   encircles   the   neck
only on front side.  No encircling of the neck on the
back  and  away  from  sternecleid  mastoid.    There  was
ligature   of   1.5   cm   wide   or   less   than   it   at   places
(ligature used was not presented by the police at the
time of postmortem examination).  It was not with the
body   either.     No   abrasion/brusises   on   the   mouth,
nose, cheeks, forehead.  Lips were blue.  Tongue was
in   drawn,   plinching   of   teeth,   on   opening   base   of
tongue   swollen.   No   injury   to   tough,   clinching   of
hands present.
Page 8
8
DISSECTION OF NECK
On dissection, there was extra vasation of blood
into   sub­subcutanous   tissue   under   ligature   mark   on
right side present.  Platysma and right sternocloide
mastoid muscle lacerated.  No laceration of sheath of
carotid   artries.     No   fracture   of   hyoid   bone   or
thyroid cartilage.   Epiglottis not cyanosed Trachea
and   larynx   were   congested   and   have   forthy   mucous.
First 2­3 rings of trachea fractured.
ABDOMEN:
Walls and peritoneum were normal. Mouth Pharynx
and   oasophagus   had   whitish   fluid.     Stomach   was
containing   500   cc   of   fluid   mixed   with   mucous   and
small   sticky   material.     Small   Intestine   was
containing   semi­digested   food   but   no   fluid   are
present.     Faecal   matters   were   present   in   large
intestine.  Liver was normal,  it was dark in colour,
on cutting dark fluid came out.  The spleen was dark
in colour and was congested.   Kidney was normal in
size   and   was   congested.     The   bladder   was   empty.
Organ   of   generation   was   normal.     There   was   no
evidence of rape or any injury.
CRANIUM SPINAL CORD
There  was  no   fracture  of   skullbone.     Brain   was
congested and also the membrane.
THORAX:
Walls, ribs, cartilages and pleurae were normal.
Larynx and trachea was congested and  contained white
fluid,   no   sand   or   mud   seen,   no   food   particles
present.   Right   and   left   lung   were   distended,   pale
grey,   indented   by   the   ribs,   heavy   cedemataous,
spongy,   pite   on   pressure.     On   pressing,   frothy
whitish   fluids   came   through   bronchials.     Heart   was
normal, left side was empty and the right was full.
No fracture/dislocation of bones were found.
9. Dr.   K.C.   Chopra   (PW­10)   also   stated   their   opinion   as   to
cause of death of the deceased.  The same is quoted hereunder:Page 9
9
“In   our   opinion   deceased   died   due   to   asphyxia
caused by drowning and strangulation.   The probable
time   between   injury   and   death   was   immediate   and
between death and postmortem within 24 hours.
x x x x x x x x x
    In   our   opinion   as   mentioned   in   Ex.PW­10/A
strangulation   in   this   case   was   not   caused   by
suspending   the   body.     The   chances   of   dupatta   as
ligature mark in the case were minimum,  i.e. dupatta
like Ex P­2 and P­3.  Drowning and strangulation are
possible in this case while putting the face/mouth of
deceased in bucket Ex­P­8 filled with water and with
pressure being applied.”
10. Dr.   K.C.   Chopra   (PW­10)     further   stated   that   the   post
mortem   report   was   written   by   Dr.   K.S.   Dogra   (PW­8)   and   was
signed by both  of them.
11. The accused no. 1 (respondent herein) made a plain denial
of   the   prosecution   case.   In   statement   under   Section   313
Cr.P.C.,   accused   no.   1(respondent   herein)   alleged   that
witnesses   have   falsely   deposed   against   him   being   relative   of
the deceased and due to enmity with him.  In reply to question
no. 26, the accused no. 1 stated as follows:
“Q.26 Anything else you want to say?
Ans. The   deceased   had   illicit   relations   with   my
nephew   Banku   Ram,   S/o   Shri   Rohli   Ram.     On   one
occasion   when   I   came   on   leave   to   the   house,   came
across few love letters written by said Banku Ram to
the deceased; on this I inquired from her about such
relations   and   asked   her   to   discontinue   such
relations.     On this she went to the house of her
parents and stayed there for about 3 months and when
brought   to   my   house   by   her   parents,   she   used   toPage 10
10
remain   depressed.   She   has,   thus   committed   suicide
due to her  own problems and not on account  of the
alleged   torturing   attributed   to   him.   I   am   thus
innocent   and   implicated   falsely   in   this   case.     It
is, however, submitted that those letters were burnt
by   me   with   the   idea   to   maintain   cordial   relations
with   the   deceased   and   also   to   forget   whatever   as
happed in the past.”
12. The Trial Court considered the version of Kartar Chand (PW­
3)   posted   as   Primary   Education   Teacher   in   Government   High
School, Barhi,  an independent witness, Post Mortem Report (PW­
10/A), statement of   Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10), report and   the
testimony   of   PW­1   and   PW­2   and   held   that   “the   circumstances
reveal   that  the  deceased   has   been   done   away  to   death   by  the
said accused and none else”....”The circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence are conclusive in nature and leads to
the only conclusion that it is accused no.1 who has caused the
death to the deceased.”
13. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the evidence
of   the   prosecution   witnesses   for   the   reasons   which   may   be
summed up as below:
(1) Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10) had no experience as a
forensic expert, therefore, his evidence cannot be
read under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
(2) The   Division   Bench   appreciated   the   medical
evidence itself and held that there was no sign of
injuries   suggestive   of   resistance   on   the   part   ofPage 11
11
the   deceased   to   establish   that   the   face   of   the
deceased   was   forcibly   thrust   into   iron   bucket
filled in with water.   Only 500cc of fluid mixed
with mucous and small sticky material was found in
the   stomach.     The   hairs   of   the   deceased   was   not
found wet.  Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10)  found marks of
injuries   on   the   neck   of   the   deceased   but   in   his
cross examination he stated that if the force was
applied, in that event, the bucket which was used
as   ligature   could   touch   both   the   ears.       But   no
injuries were found on the ears of the deceased or
on any part of  her mouth or head.
(3) The conduct of Jai Chand, accused no.1  would
go to show that he tried very hard to save the life
of his wife by taking her to the Zonal Hospital,
Hamirpur for medical treatment.    Had Smt. Vidhya
Devi   been   killed   by   her   husband,     he   would     not
have dare to take  the dead body of the deceased to
the   hospital   to   get   the     medical   opinion   against
himself.
14. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant­State submitted
that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the medical evidence
which clearly established that it was not a case of suicide but
a   case   of   homicide   which   ultimately     has   been   caused   by   the
husband of the deceased.   The High Court also failed to notice
the statement of Jai Chand, accused no. 1 (respondent herein),
husband   of   the   deceased   under   Section   313   which   is   self
explanatory that he had been keeping a hatred attitude towardsPage 12
12
his wife due to her illicit relation with his nephew and which
resulted   in   motive   and   intention   to   kill   her   during   night.
This statement coupled with other circumstantial evidence leave
no doubt that the accused no.1 cannot escape himself from the
commission of offence.   Further according to the appellant as
deceased Vidhya Devi was staying with the respondent and died
unnatural   death,     it   was   for   Jai   Chand   (respondent)   being
husband   to   explain   the   circumstances   under   which   she   died.
Learned counsel also  contended  that the High  Court  failed  to
appreciate that although there is no direct evidence, chain of
circumstances   appeared   on   record   is   so   complete   to   fetch
conviction   to   the   husband   of   the   deceased   if   not   to   all   the
accused.       It   is   on   the   basis   of   disclosure   statement   of
accused no.1 a bucket which is most relevant evidence relating
to  the  medical  evidence is  recovered,  which is  sufficient  to
convict the respondent.
15. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent
referred   to   the   findings   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court in support of the respondent.
16. The principal contention   raised in support of the appeal
filed   on   behalf   of   the   State   is   that   the   medical   evidence
available on record completely supports the prosecution case.Page 13
13
Let us, therefore, have a look at medical evidence available on
record.   Post­Mortem   Report(PW­10/A)   has   already   been   noticed
above. The plea raised  by accused no. 1(respondent herein) was
that   the   deceased   died   due   to   suicidal   hanging   cannot   be
accepted for the reason that her body was not found stretched.
If   she   had   strangulated   herself,   her   body   should   have   been
stretched   and   the   fracture   of   hyoid   bones   and   thyroid
cartilages should have been there. Post mortem Report clearly
shows that there is no such fracture and the testimony of Dr.
K.C. Chopra( PW­10) supports the same. In a death case, by way
of hanging,   the tongue of the deceased should not have been
indrawn as has been noticed   in the post mortem report(Ex.PW­
10/A), but the same should have been out of the mouth.   There
being the evidence of 2­3 rings of trachea fractured, trachea,
larynx, spleen and kidney being congested is also suggestive of
the fact that it was not a suicidal death, but a homicidal one.
The team of doctors after observing so, during the examination,
have   come   to   the   conclusion   that   the   cause   of   death   was
Asphyxia   caused   by   drowning   and   strangulation.     The   probable
time between injury and death had been recorded minimum.   The
death     by   way   of   drowning   and   strangulation   can   be   caused
instantaneously.   Admittedly, it is not the case of either ofPage 14
14
the   parties   that   the   death   is   caused   by   way   of     poisoning,
however, in order to rule out the possibility in this behalf
also,   the   stomach contents including viscera etc. preserved
by the team of doctors got analysed and as per report (Ex.PW­
8/D),   neither the contents of any poison nor any intoxicant
could be detected on analysis thereof.
17. Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10)  is  specific while deposing in his
examination­in­chief   that   strangulation   in   this   case   has   not
been found to be caused by suspending the body.  He also ruled
out the chances of dupattas (Ex.P­2 and P­3) being the ligature
used for strangulation by the deceased and to the contrary, he
specifically   stated   that   drowning   and   strangulation   are
possible in this case by dipping the face/mouth of the deceased
into   the   bucket   (Ex.P­8)   filled   with   water   and     by   applying
force in pressing her mouth therein.
18. Much   stress   was   made   by   learned   counsel   appearing     on
behalf of the respondent that there is no possibility of the
ears   touching   the   top   of   bucket,   even   if   mouth   of   anyone   is
dipped therein and pressed with force.  An effort was thus been
made to discard the testimony of PW­10.  However, in our view,
it   is   not   so   relevant   as   to   whether     the   bucket   used   as   a
ligature was  touching the ears or not.  Page 15
15
19. It   is   true   that   post­mortem   report(PW­10/A)   is   not   a
substantive piece of evidence.  But the evidence of such doctor
cannot be insignificant.  This Court in State of Haryana v. Ram
Singh, (2002)2 SCC 426 held  as under:
“1. While it is true that the post­mortem report by
itself  is  not  a substantive piece  of  evidence,  but
the evidence of the doctor conducting the post­mortem
can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The
significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis­
à­vis   the   injuries   appearing   on   the   body   of   the
deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor
and   it   would   then   be   the   prosecutor’s   duty   and
obligation   to   have   the   corroborative   evidence
available   on   record   from   the   other   prosecution
witnesses.”
20.In   the  present   case,   the   post­mortem   was   conducted   by     a
team of doctors, namely, Dr. K.C. Chopra   and K.S. Dogra.   In
cross­examination,   no   suggestion   was   made   on   behalf   of   the
defence that they were not competent or that   Dr. K.C. Chopra
and Dr. K.S. Dogra have not expertised to perform post mortem
of a body. The viscera test was done by forensic expert (PW­8),
who submitted the report.
21. From   the   aforesaid   evidence,   it   is   clear   that   Dr.   K.C.
Chopra   (PW­10)   conducted   the   post   mortem   and   the   forensic
expert   (PW­8)   conducted   the   viscera   test.   The   High   Court
proceeded on erroneous premise to hold that  “Dr. K.C. Choopra
might have acquired  some experience as Medical Officer but hePage 16
16
is not a forensic expert to give the level of an expert witness
examined in the Court.”
22. The High Court was thus, clearly in error, in formulating
its own opinion based on conjectural premises and deciding the
case   on   the   basis   of   that,   discarding   the   opinion   of   the
medical experts regarding the nature of the injury and cause of
death. The conclusions are not sustainable otherwise also .
23. It is true that PW­1, father of the deceased, PW­2, brother
of   the   deceased   and   PW­5   Prem   Chand     belong   to   the   same
village. However   they being related to each other and being
residents   of   the   same   place   is   not   fatal   to   the   prosecution
case, because they have deposed about the facts which are not
in   controversy   save   and   except   that   the   deceased   was   being
tortured by the accused persons. However, the present case is
not a case of suicidal death of the deceased on being fed­up
with   the   torture   of   the   accused   persons,   but   a   case   of
homicidal death  and  as such, the version of PWs. 1 and 2 in
this behalf is not so material.
24. The recovery of bucket(Ex.P­8) has been proved  as the same
has been produced by accused no. 1(respondent herein) himself
before the police as recorded in memo (Ex.PW­5/C) recorded at
his instance in the presence of   Prem Chand (PW­5)   and PyarePage 17
17
Lal. As a matter of fact, the bucket was lying in the courtyard
where it is identified by accused no. 1(respondent herein) and
thereafter,   was   taken   into   possession   by   the   police.     The
reference in this  behalf can be made to the statement of Prem
Chand(PW­5) who stated that accused no. 1 had shown the bucket
to   the     police   which   was   sealed   in   a   parcel   and   thereafter
taken   into   possession   vide   recovery   memo   ((Ex.PW­5/C).     Not
only   this,   he   even   identified     the   bucket(Ex.P­8)   to   be   the
same.    The recovery of  an incriminating article from a place
which  is  open  and  accessible  to others, alone  cannot  vitiate
such   recovery   under   Section   27   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act.
Thus,  the present is the case where there is no difficulty in
holding that the bucket(Ex.P­8) is the same which was used by
the respondent(herein) for drowning and strangulating his wife,
Vidhya Devi.
25. Kartar   Chand(PW­3)   is   an   independent   witness.     In   his
testimony, he deposed that on his way to school   on 13th  July,
2001 from his village, when he reached Village Ulehra, (native
place   of   the   accused)   around   7.15   A.M.,  he   met    accused  no.
1(respondent) and Deepak carrying the deceased on the cot   to
the road side for  carrying her to the hospital and it was the
accused no. 1(respondent herein) who told   Kartar Chand(PW­3)Page 18
18
that   as she was ill, hence being taken to the hospital.   The
accused no. 1 has thus, misrepresented the  factual position to
PW­3 which shows guilty intention on his part.   No doubt, in
reply to question no. 11,  he denied having represented  so to
Kartar Chand(PW­3) and   as per his version, the said witness
was told that  deceased had strangulated herself,  but there is
no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW­3, as a matter of
fact, PW­3 is an independent witness.     Reply to question no.
11 shows that accused no. 1 also accepted that  PW­3 met him on
the spot in the early morning.     Therefore, it cannot be said
that the PW­3 was   interested   in the case of either of the
parties.   Not only this, as per version of PW­3, the deceased
at that time was silent and there was no movement in her  body,
meaning thereby that she was already dead in the house itself
and   in   order   to   mislead   the   village   folks   and   to   create
evidence  that he made efforts to save his wife’s life he took
her dead body to the hospital.  Such conduct on his part amply
demonstrates that it is the accused no. 1 (respondent herein)
alone who caused the death of his wife, Vidhya Devi.
26. Post   mortem   report(PW­10/A)   prepared     by   Dr.   K.C.
Chopra(PW­10) shows that there was ligature mark on the neck of
the deceased.  The opinion of the doctor is clear and definite
Page 19
19
that   the   ligature   mark   of   10cm   long   and   1.5   cm.   wide   in horizontal position cannot be caused by hanging but could have been   caused   by   strangulation.    
 Medical   evidence,     therefore, completely   falsify   the     case   of     accused   no.   1(respondent herein).     
The   conduct   of   the   accused   no.   1   was     also   not natural.   
When he found his wife hanging, he neither made hue and cry  nor called the villagers nearby.  
He along with others brought down the body of the deceased.   He, even thereafter,
did not report the matter immediately on his own to police.
27. The act of bringing his wife, Vidhya Devi to the hospital
cannot absolve the guilt of accused no. 1(respondent herein) of
an offence committed by him. He was the best person who could
have explained the reasons for the horizontal ligature mark of
10 cm. x 1.5cm.  on the neck  of the deceased and as to why he
did not inform the matter to the villagers before bringing down
the body of the deceased.
28. Therefore, we find   that all the findings by the Division
Bench of the High Court,   rejecting the evidence of Dr. K.C.
Chopra   (PW­10)   and   other   material   witnesses   including   Kartar
Chand (PW­3)  and  Prem Chand (PW­5) are clearly unsustainable,
whereas those given by the Trial Court  accepting the evidence
of these witnesses were weighty  and sound.  Page 20
20
29. Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order
of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Himachal   Pradesh     on   16th  November,   2004   and   convict   the
accused­respondent under Section 302 IPC for the murder of  his
wife,  Vidhya  Devi  and  sentence  him  to  imprisonment  for  life.
We, thereby restore the order of conviction passed against the
accused­respondent by the Trial Court.   The accused­respondent
shall surrender immediately to serve out the remainder of the
sentence.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
(A.K. PATNAIK)
…………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3,2013

Section 106,113 A,113 B of Evidence Act, 498 A 304 B and 210 /34 = When prosecution proved death with in 7 years due to dowry harassment, the burden shift on accused to prove his innocence, else court can draw presumption under sec. 113 B of Evidence Act = Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation then the Court can draw a different inference. 16. The ingredients necessary for application of Section 304­B IPC and the applicability of Section 113­B of the Evidence Act was discussed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, (2008)12 SCC 51. In the said case, this Court held as follows: “11.The ingredients necessary for the application of Section 304­B IPC are: 1. that the death of a woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; 2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage; and 3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. 12. Section 113­B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before her death a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person who is accused of causing her death then the court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. The presumption under Section 113­B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients mentioned therein it becomes the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 13. A conjoint reading of Section 304­B IPC and Section 113­B, Evidence Act shows that in order to prove the charge of dowry death, prosecution has to establish that the victim died within 7 years of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for dowry. 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 whether there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.” In the present case, the prosecution proved that the death of Santosh Kaur has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Such death has occurred within a period of 9 months of her marriage i.e. much before seven years. The statements of PW­2 and PW­3 are trust­worthy and they stated that Santosh Kaur was subjected to harassment by her husband and other accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry just prior to death. The prosecution having established essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused dowry death. In the present case, the accused has failed to explain as to why he was in a hurry to cremate the deceased in the early morning of 24th January, 1993 while she died in the mid night of 23rd/24th January, 1993 i.e. within few hours. The village of deceased's parents was just 17­18kms far from the village of the accused but the reason as to why they were not informed about the incident on the same day and why the accused had not waited for them to come is not explained. The accused has also failed to explain as to why according to the F.S.L. Report, an Organo Phosphorus Pesticide was found in the vomiting of the deceased. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly drew an inference that the accused­appellants were guilty of the offence for which they were charge.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40516
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2007
RAJINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA     ...RESPONDENTS
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2007
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
These two appeals are directed against  the common
judgment dated 9th December, 2005 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh in two separate Criminal Appeal Nos. 392­SB
of 1995 and 151­SB of 1995, whereby the learned Single
Judge   dismissed   the   appeals   preferred   by   the   accused
and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the
Additional Session Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
2.The   appellants   were   tried   for   offences   under
Sections   498­A  ,  304­B  and  201/34  IPC  and  after
hearing the parties the learned Additional Session
Judge,   Jagadhri     by   its   judgment   dated   22nd
February,   1995   convicted   the   appellant   Rajinder
Page 2
2
Singh for the offences under Sections 498­A , 304­
B   and   201   IPC  whereas   other   appellants,   namely,
Surinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Gurvinder Singh were
convicted   for   offences   under   Section   201/34IPC.
Accused­Appellant Rajinder Singh  was sentenced to
undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/­ for offence under Section 498­A
IPC,   in   default   of   payment   of   fine,   he   had   to
undergo   further   RI   for   six   months;   for   offence
under   Section   304­B   IPC   he   was   sentenced   to
undergo RI for a period of seven years and for the
offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentence to
undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/­ in default of payment of fine, he
was   to   undergo   further   RI   for   a   period   of   six
months. The other accused, namely, Surinder Singh,
Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh were sentenced to
undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a
fine   of   Rs.500/­   each   for   the   offence   under
Section 201/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine
they   were   to   undergo   RI   for   a   period   of   six
months. Accused, Madan Lal had been acquitted by
that judgment.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court,   appellant­Pritam   Singh   died   and   his   case   got
Page 3
3
abated. Thus the case was confined   to  rest of   the
accused.
3. The case of the prosecution against the accused­
appellant­   Rajinder   Singh   is   that   Santosh   Kaur,
daughter   of   Nahar   Singh   was   married   with   the
accused­appellant on 22nd April, 1992.  Sufficient
dowry   articles   were   given.     On   11th   December,
1992, accused­appellant left his wife Santosh Kaur
in   her   parents   house   for   one   month   when   Santosh
Kaur told her father­ Nahar Singh that her father­
in­law;   Pritam   Singh,   husband­Rajinder   Singh,
brother­in­laws;   Gurvinder   Singh   and   Surinder
Singh and Madan Lal, brother­in­law of her husband
has   been   harassing   her   for   bringing   less   dowry.
She   also   told   that   they   were   demanding
Rs.25,000/­     and   asked   her   to   bring   that   amount
when she came back to her in­law's house on Lohri.
Nahar   Singh   was   not   in   a   position   to   pay   the
amount demanded and assured his daughter that he
might arrange some money when she would go back to
her­in­law's house.   On 15th January, 1993, when
Sukhbir Singh, brother of Santosh Kaur, was taking
her to her­in­law's house, his father­Nahar Singh
told him to make the accused understand that some
money would be sent by 20th January,1993  and that
they should not harass her. He also informed  this
Page 4
4
fact   to   Sucha   Singh,   Sarpanch   of   the   village.
Finally,   money   could   not   be   arranged   by   20th
January, 1993. On 24th January, 1993, one Pritam
Singh   came   to   the   house   of   Nahar   Singh   and
informed   him   that   his   daughter­Santosh   Kaur   had
died   during   the   intervening   night   of   23rd/24th
January,   1993   and   she   had   also   been   cremated   in
the   morning   of   24th   January,   1993.   On   25th
January, 1993, Nahar Singh,   Sucha Singh, Sukhbir
Singh   and   some   other   family   members   went   to
Mamliwala   to   the   house   of   the   accused   and   after
verifying the facts, lodged a report before Police
Station, Chhachhrauli.   A case was registered and
accused were sent for trial.
4. After trial, case was found to be proved against
Rajinder Singh for the offence under Sections 498­
A,304­B   and   201   IPC   and   against   Surinder   Singh,
Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh for the offence
under   Section   201/34   IPC;   hence   they   were
convicted   for   the   same   whereas   Madan   Lal   was
acquitted.
5. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that
no demand of dowry and threat was ever made to the
deceased   or   her   family   members.     In   fact   no
complaint   in   this   regard   was   ever   made     by   the
complainant or the deceased or by anybody else to
Page 5
5
the police.  No letter was written by the deceased
about the demand of dowry or cash. Therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant   further
submitted that the Court below failed to consider
the   fact   that   the     cremation   was   never   done
secretly.   Cremation   ceremony   was   attended   by
persons very much close to the complainant family.
The   deceased­   Santosh   Kaur   never   complained   to
anybody   at   neighborhood   about   her­in­laws   or
about torture or harassment or demand of dowry or
cash by them.   Therefore, the present case was a
false and concocted story made by the prosecution.
Further,   according   to   him   PW­2,   Nahar   Singh,
father   of   the   deceased   in   his   deposition   stated
that his daughter after marriage never complained
about the accused­appellant.
7. Learned   counsel   for   the   prosecution   per   contra
relied   upon   the   evidence   and   submitted   that   the
ingredients   necessary   for   the   application   of
Section   304­B   IPC   were   established   beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption under
Section   113­B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act   arises
and hence it is proved  that the accused­appellant
caused the dowry death.Page 6
6
8. The admitted position in the present case is that
the   deceased   was   married   with   the   accused­
appellant   on   22nd   April,   1992.   She   died   in   the
night intervening by 23rd/24th January, 1993.  The
cremation of the dead body was done in the morning
of   24th   January,   1993   without   waiting   for   the
parents   of   the   deceased.     Pritam   Singh(PW­7)
stated   in   his   deposition   that   about   about   12.00
noon,   he   was   standing   on   the   bus   stand   of
Khizrabad and was talking with  some people. Then
he came to know that Santosh Kaur, daughter­in­law
of   Pritam   Singh   had   died   and   was   cremated.   Then
he told this fact  to Nahar Singh(PW­2), father of
the deceased who stayed in the Village Kotian. On
the   next   day,     PW­2   alongwith   Sucha   Singh   and
other   persons   went   to   Village   Mamliwala   and
verified the fact that Santosh Kaur had died and
has also been cremated. The distance between the
villages Mamliwala and  Kotian was not so much and
it was only about 17­18 kms. It was winter season;
month of January   but it has not been made clear
why     the   accused­appellant   cremated   the   body   of
the deceased in the early morning of 24th January,
1993   without   even   calling   the   parents   of   the
deceased   which   shows   that   there   was   something
which the accused­appellant wanted to conceal.
Page 7
7
9. As   per   statement   of   Nahar   Singh(PW­2),   Sukhbir
Singh(PW­3) who were the father and the brother of
the   deceased,   accused­appellant   Rajinder   Singh
left deceased in her parents' house for about one
month   in   December,   1992.   PW­2   stated   that   her
daughter­Santosh Kaur told him that her father­in­
law;   Pritam   singh,   husband,   Rajinder   Singh,
brother­in­laws;   Gurvinder   Singh   and   Surinder
Singh and Madan Lal, brother­in­law of her husband
were   harassing   her   for   bringing   less   dowry.   She
also   told   that   they   were   demanding     Rs.25,000/­
and told her to bring that amount when she came
back on Lohri.   Nahar Singh(PW­2)   was not in a
position to meet the said demand at that stage. He
assured   his   daughter   that   he   would   arrange   some
money and give her by the time she leaves back to
her matrimonial house. On 15th January, 1993, his
son Sukhbir Singh took Santosh Kaur to her­in­laws
house.  He told him to make the accused understand
that   they   would   pay   some   money   by   20th   January,
1993 and they should not harass her. This fact was
also   informed   to   Sucha   Singh,   Sarpanch   of   the
village.   But the money could not be arranged by
20th January, 1993 and after about  3­4 days, i.e.
on 24th January, 1993, Pritam Singh (PW­7) came to
PW­2   and   told   about   the   death   of   Santosh   Kaur
Page 8
8
whose   death   took   place   during   the   intervening
night of 23rd/24th January, 1993.
10. Sukhbir Singh (PW­3), brother of the deceased also
corroborated   the   statements   made   by   his   father   Nahar
Singh(PW­2). He stated that the deceased told them that
her husband Rajinder Singh, brother­in­laws; Gurvinder
Singh and Surinder Singh, father­in­law; Pritam Singh
and   Madan   Lal,   brother­in­law   of   her   husband   were
harassing   her   for   not   bringing   sufficient   dowry.   He
further   told   that   they   were   demanding     Rs.25,000/­.
PW­3     then   told   her   sister   that   they   would   pay   the
amount by 20th January, 1993.   Then on 15th January,
1993 he took her sister to the house of her­in­laws and
came back next day after telling his sister that the
amount of 25,000 will be paid by 20th January, 1993.
PW­3   further   stated   that   the   accused   were   harassing
his sister even prior to 11th December, 1992. He also
stated  that on hearing about her death,  he alongwith
his father, Pritam Singh (PW­7), Sucha Singh, Sarpanch
of the village, went to the village Mamliwala.   They
found   the   accused   weeping   and   it   was   found   that   the
dead   body   of   his   sister   had   already   been   cremated
before they reached there.   Then his father reported
the matter to the police.
11. Pritam   Singh(PW­7)   stated   that   on   24th   January,
1993  he came to Khizrabad to see his  brother­in­law.
Page 9
9
At   12.00   noon   while   standing   on   the   bus   stand   of
Khizrabad, he heard some people talking that Pritam's
Singh   dauther­in­law   Santosh   Kaur   died   and   had   been
cremated.     Therefore,   he   told   this   fact   to   Nahar
Sing(PW­2) at Kotian. Then on next day he came to the
village Mamliwala alongwith 10 other persons where they
came to know that Santosh Kaur had been cremated.  Then
all   of   them   went   to   Police   Station   and   lodged   the
report.
12. Nar   Singh   (PW­9),   SHO,   Police   station
Parakhpur,   stated   that   on   25th   January,   1993   he
was   posted   as   SI/SHO   of   Police   Station,
Chhachhrauli. On that day, complainant (PW­2) came
to police station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P.B.). He
recorded   statement,   inspected   the   spot   and   the
place of occurrence and took into possession the
clothes   of   the   deceased   vide   memo(Ex.P.E.)   which
was   stained   with   “vomiting   and   latrine”.   Clothes
were sealed  into a parcel with the seal of the 6­
B.R., which was handed over to Sucha Singh(PW­4).
Ex.P.E.   was   attested   by     Sucha   Singh(PW­4)   and
Sukhbir   Singh(PW­3).   Thereafter   he   went   to   the
place   of   cremation   and   prepared   the   rough   site
plan of the cremation ground (Ex.P.M.).   The ash
and bones were taken into possession vide recovery
memo   (Ex.P.E.)   which   was   also   attested   by     PW­4
Page 10
10
and   PW­3.     Statements   of   PW­3   and   PW­4   were
recorded (Ex.P.N.). He arrested the   accused. The
parcel   of   clothes   and   ash   &   bones   were   sent   to
forensic laboratory.
No contradiction could be found during the cross
examination of prosecution witnesses.
13. The accused in their examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C. admitted the factum of marriage but denied the
allegation relating to demand of dowry.   In reply to
question no. 14, accused­Rajinder Singh stated that his
wife Santosh Kaur died a natural death on account of
heavy vomiting and loose motions.  He also stated that
they neither demanded  any dowry nor pressurized her to
bring Rs.25,000/­ from   her father and that they were
falsely implicated in the case.
14. Admittedly,   Santosh   Kaur   died   in   the
intervening   night   of   23rd/24th   January,   1993   and
she   was   cremated   in   the   early   morning   of   24th
January,   1993.   The   distance   between   Village
Mamliwala and Kotian was not much  and it was just
17­18kms. It was the month of January and winter
season, the necessity of the accused­appellant to
cremate the dead body   within few hours of death
in the early morning of 24th January, 1993 without
informing the parents of the Santosh Kaur has not
been   explained.   The   Police   took   into   possession
Page 11
11
the   ash   and   bones   from   the   cremation   ground   and
clothes of the deceased and sent the same to the
Deputy Director­cum­Assistant Chemical Examiner to
the Government of Haryana, F.S.L. Madhuban. As per
report   an   “Organo   Phosphorus   Pesticide”   was
detected   on   the   salwar   stained   with   dirty   brown
material,   one   printed   lady's   shirt   stained   with
dirty brown material and one green coloured woolen
shawl of the deceased. As per report of F.S.L. (Ex
P.L.1), the bones were found of the human being.
Therefore,   it   is   clear   that   Santosh   Kaur   died
other   than   under   normal   circumstances.   The
accused­appellants have also failed to explain the
presence   of   an   “Organo   Phosphorus   Pesticide”   in
the vomiting of the deceased.
15.Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve
the   burden   of   prosecution   to   prove   guilt   of   the
accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt   but     where   the
prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from
which   a   reasonable   inference   can   be   drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts and
the   accused   by   virtue   of   special   knowledge
regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation
then the Court can draw a different inference.  
16. The   ingredients   necessary   for   application   of
Section 304­B IPC and the applicability of Section
Page 12
12
113­B   of   the   Evidence   Act   was   discussed   by   this
Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, (2008)12
SCC   51.  In   the   said   case,   this   Court   held   as
follows:
  “11.The   ingredients   necessary   for   the
application of Section 304­B IPC are:
1.  that   the   death   of   a   woman   has   been
caused   by   burns   or   bodily   injury   or
occurs   otherwise   than   under   normal
circumstances;
2. that such death has been caused or has
occurred   within   seven   years   of   her
marriage; and
3.  that soon before her death the woman
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her   husband   or   any   relative   of   her
husband in connection with any demand for
dowry.
12. Section 113­B of the Evidence Act lays
down   that   if   soon   before   her   death   a
woman   is   subjected   to   cruelty   or
harassment for, or in connection with any
demand   for   dowry   by   the   person   who   is
accused   of   causing   her   death   then   the
court shall presume that such person has
caused   the   dowry   death.   The   presumption
under   Section   113­B   is   a   presumption   of
law and once the prosecution establishes
the   essential   ingredients   mentioned
therein it becomes the duty of the court
to   raise   a  presumption   that   the   accused
caused the dowry death.
13.  A conjoint reading of Section 304­B
IPC and Section 113­B, Evidence Act shows
that   in   order   to   prove   the   charge   of
dowry death, prosecution has to establish
Page 13
13
that   the   victim   died   within   7   years   of
marriage and she was subjected to cruelty
or   harassment  soon   before  her  death  and
such cruelty or harassment was for dowry.
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   whether   there   is   any
proximate   connection   between   the   demand
of   dowry,   the   act   of   cruelty   or
harassment and the death.”
17. In the present case, the prosecution proved that
the death of Santosh Kaur has occurred otherwise than
under   normal   circumstances.   
Such   death   has   occurred
within a period of 9 months of her marriage  i.e. much
before seven years. 
The statements of PW­2 and PW­3 are
trust­worthy   and   they   stated   that   Santosh   Kaur   was
subjected   to   harassment   by   her   husband   and   other
accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry
just prior to death. 
The prosecution having established
essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the Court
to raise a presumption   that the accused caused dowry
death.
18. In  the  present  case,    the accused has failed  to
explain   as   to   why   he   was   in   a   hurry   to   cremate   the
deceased   in   the   early   morning   of   24th   January,   1993
while she died  in the mid night of 23rd/24th January,
1993 i.e. within few hours.  The village of deceased's
parents was just 17­18kms far from the  village of the
accused but the reason as to why they were not informed
Page 14
14
about the incident on the same day and why the accused
had not waited for them to come is not explained. The
accused has also failed to explain  as to why according
to   the   F.S.L.   Report,   an   Organo   Phosphorus   Pesticide
was found in the vomiting of the deceased.  Therefore,
the   Trial   Court   rightly   drew   an   inference   that   the
accused­appellants were guilty of the offence for which
they were charge.
19. Hence,   we   find   no   merit   in   these   appeals.
These are accordingly, dismissed.   Bail bonds of
the appellants are cancelled. They shall surrender
within   a   period   of   two   weeks   to   undergo   the
remaining sentence.
………………………………………………………………………………J.
(A.K.PATNAIK)
………………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3,2013.