Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. - Trial court convicted the accused - High court acquitted the accused - Apex court held that In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. =
By the impugned judgment the High Court
held that unless the prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that
the deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct evidence,
the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply in the case and
acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 498-A,
Section 304-B and Section 306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby
reversing the finding of the Trial Court.=
The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early morning of 8th
April, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the house of the accused Nos.1,
2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could
commence, she died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.=
Since 7th month of
the pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at 6 a.m.
her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch her. Accused insulted
him on account of dowry demands and refused to send the deceased with him.
At 9 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra i.e. elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the
deceased came to the house of parents of the deceased and told them that
their daughter had sustained burns and that she was admitted in Mayo
Hospital. The parents of the deceased immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital.
It was found that their daughter was already dead.=
Trial court convicted the accused - where as High court acquitted the accused=
Apex court held that
From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there was a demand
of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and other house hold
articles. The evidence of torture is also clear from the fact that the
deceased was not provided food and as such she had become weak that too at
the time when she was in the 7th month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304-B IPC relates to dowry death, which reads as follows:
304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The expression “soon before her death” is used in the substantive
Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. No definite period
has been indicated and the expression “soon before her death” is not
defined. The determination of period which can come within the term “soon
before” is left to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this connection one may refer the case of
Yashoda and another vs. State of M.P., 2004 (3) SCC 98.
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act with respect
to dowry death can be raised only on the proof of the following four
essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC 157 [AIR 2003 SC
3828].
26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
113B. 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 has 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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the
same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).
27. In dowry death cases direct evidence may not be available. Such cases
may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Section 304-B IPC read with 113-B
of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an
unnatural death of a married woman occurs within 7 years of marriage in
suspicious circumstances, like due to burns or any other bodily injury and
there is cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death then it shall be
dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to the
abetment to suicide by a married woman, read as follows:
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the
same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]"
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall have the same
meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses
particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8),
Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the
harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her
parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the
deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of
specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A
IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the
deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by
the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that
the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased
is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti
Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra
in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution
successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the
judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated
20th July, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.447 of 2000
holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC. is
upheld but the part of the judgment relating to offence under Section 306
r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 6 stands set aside by the judgment
passed by the High Court. The respondents- accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused
No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-
Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody forthwith to
undergo the remainder period of sentence for offence under Section 498-A
and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2010
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
With
Criminal Appeal No.720 of 2010
(Chandrakanta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th August,
2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court
held that unless the prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that
the deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct evidence,
the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply in the case and
acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 498-A,
Section 304-B and Section 306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby
reversing the finding of the Trial Court.
2. Respondents – accused No.1, Shivpujan and accused No.3, Malti Devi
are husband and wife. Accused No.2, Rajendra, accused No.5, Surendra and
accused No.6, Virendra are their sons. Accused No.4, Anita is the daughter
of accused Nos.1 and 3 and is married to one Satyam Mishra who is in Police
service. Accused Nos.1 and 5 are also in Police service. Accused Nos. 1 to
3, 5 and 6 reside together in Plot No.96, Adarsha Colony, behind Police
Line Takli at Nagpur. Accused No.4 resides in Police Line, Pathrigad
Quarter, Sadar at Nagpur. Accused No.2-Rajendra is the youngest son of
accused Nos.1 and 3. Deceased Ranjana was the wife of accused No.2-
Rajendra.
3. Marriage of deceased took place with accused No.2-Rajendra on 19th
April, 1998. She was the daughter of Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) and
Chandrakanta (PW-8)-the complainant. The deceased was the younger sister of
Ranjit (PW-9). Parents and brothers of the deceased reside at Gandhi Nagar,
Surendergarh, Nagpur. The distance between the house of the accused and the
parental house of the deceased is about 1 km.
4. The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early morning of 8th
April, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the house of the accused Nos.1,
2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could
commence, she died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.
5. The prosecution case is that the husband and the mother-in-law i.e.
accused Nos.2 and 3 used to beat the deceased whereas other accused
together with accused Nos.2 and 3 used to mentally and physically ill-treat
the deceased on account of dowry demand. Accused No.2-Rajendra wanted Hero
Honda Motor Cycle from the parents of the deceased. He always used to press
his demand. The deceased had informed her parents that she was being
subjected to cruelty and that her in-laws behaved with her like animals.
Many a times father of the deceased went to fetch the deceased but accused
used to ask him that he should first bring money for Hero Honda Motorcycle
and then only he can take the deceased along with him. Since 7th month of
the pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at 6 a.m.
her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch her. Accused insulted
him on account of dowry demands and refused to send the deceased with him.
At 9 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra i.e. elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the
deceased came to the house of parents of the deceased and told them that
their daughter had sustained burns and that she was admitted in Mayo
Hospital. The parents of the deceased immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital.
It was found that their daughter was already dead.
6. A.D. No.28/99 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at 10.50 a.m.
on 8th April, 1999 on the basis of report of Police Head Constable Diwakar
from Mayo Hospital Police Booth. The PSI-S.R. Parvekar thereafter visited
the spot of occurrence, prepared spot panchanama (Ext.40) and then
proceeded to Mayo Hospital and prepared inquest panchanama (Ext.43) and
sent the dead body for its postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Ashish Wankhede (PW-10) and report is Ext.62. Thereafter, the report
(Ext.54) was lodged by PW.8, mother of the deceased with the Police Head
Constable Girish Pande (PW-14) upon which FIR (Ext.55) was registered at
7.10 p.m. on 8th April, 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-
A, 306 r/w 34 IPC. Further investigation was carried out by Police Sub-
Inspector, Parvekar. He recorded the statement of the father of deceased
and arrested accused No.2-Rajendra i.e. husband of the deceased on 8th
April, 1999 itself. The further investigation was carried out by Police
Inspector Ravindra Relgudwar (PW.12) and then Police Sub-Inspector,
Dadasaheb Khade (PW.13). In the statements of witnesses i.e. neighbours of
the complainant, brother of the deceased, supplementary statement of the
complainant were recorded. Viscera of the deceased that was preserved at
the time of the postmortem examination, pieces of saree, match box and a
piece of burnt plastic which were seized at the time of drawing the
panchanama were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for examination. The
marriage ceremony of the deceased and accused No.2-Rajendra was shot by a
video shooting. Its video cassette was produced by the complainant before
the Investigating Officer. It was seized (Ext.45). Pursuant to a direction
in Criminal Writ Petition No.168/99 filed by the complainant, offence
punishable under Section 304-B IPC was also added. Other accused were
arrested and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up to
the Court of CJM, Nagpur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Charges for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w 34 IPC
were framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution
produced altogether 14 witnesses. The witnesses against the accused made
their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. (Ext.91 to 96) and submitted
their written statement (Ext.97). Four defence witnesses viz. DW.1-Mohd
Asgar, DW.2-A.S.I., Chandrabhan Osare, DW.3-ASI Pralhad Kaware and DW.4-
Rajesh Soni were also examined. The defence, as how it appears from the
cross-examination of the witnesses etc. is that of total denial with regard
to the alleged cruelty. The stand was that the accused always gave good
treatment to the deceased. They gave jewellery to the deceased and also
invested money in her name in the post office. It was denied that they ever
demanded any dowry from her parents. It is their case that the deceased was
under pressure from her mother. They were disowned knowledge as to how the
deceased died.
7. The Trial Court, as noticed above on appreciation of evidence,
statements of witnesses and exhibits, held the accused guilty for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the
said finding was reversed by the Appellate Court for the reasons mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the
following grounds:
(a) The High Court in the impugned judgment, while quoting some portions
of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not given any cogent
reason for disbelieving the evidence of those witnesses.
(b) The impugned judgment is cryptic, unreasoned and order of acquittal
was passed without discussion and appreciation of evidence.
(c) The High Court recorded completely erroneous finding that prosecution
has not proved suicidal death of Ranjana. In fact, the defence itself came
with the story of suicidal death of Ranjana.
(d) The prosecution has proved the demand of dowry and cruelty for the
said demand. All ingredients for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B
IPC were present. It was presumed that the case was that of a dowry death.
9. The stand of the respondents is that the deposition of prosecution
witnesses after five years was improved version from their version made
during the investigation. They added allegation to attract Section 304B
IPC. Chandra Kanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased and Ranjit (PW-9),
brother of the deceased both improved their version from the version made
during the investigation on material aspect. Same is the situation of
Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-1), father of the deceased. All were related to
the deceased. Thus they were interested witnesses and their credibility is
considerably in question.
10. Chandrakanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased is the complainant. In
her statement she stated that Ranjana (deceased) was married with accused
No.2- Rajendra on 19th April, 1998. At the time of marriage it was decided
that Rs.25,000/- was to be paid, which was given apart from another sum of
Rs.25,000/- given for scooter and Rs.5,000/- in addition to that, a total
amount of Rs.56,000/- was given when the marriage was settled. Prior to 2-4
days of the marriage, accused No.1 and accused No.2 asked for Hero Honda
Motorcycle although the amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid for scooter:
Deceased's family informed that they are unable to pay more than what was
already agreed. The marriage was thereafter performed. At the time of Barat
(procession) the accused had also created chaos when the bridegroom was
about to enter the pandal of the marriage hall and the golden ring was
given to him. In the marriage, religious rites were going on throughout the
night. The accused No1 did not take any meals or food. During the marriage
a golden chain of about 12 gms. was presented to accused No.2. Accused No.2
was refusing to accept the said chain and wanted the chain of 2 tolas (20
gms.) and the golden stick. However, at that time they were convinced. The
deceased had to come back to her parents house after 8-10 days of the
marriage. She disclosed that her in-laws were torturing her throughout the
day for not giving the T.V. set, Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle.
She asked the deceased to convey the accused No.2 that she would somehow
arrange for the motorcycle. After 3-4 months of the marriage they had given
an amount of Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 for Almirah, Cooler and T.V.,
still the torture was continued. The deceased-Ranjana used to come to her.
The deceased was not sent whenever called by her parents. Accused No.2-
Rajendra used to take the deceased to the house of her parents at an
interval of 3-4 days on some pretext or other. Initially, the deceased was
not disclosing freely even accused No.2 used to bring the deceased. He used
to torture the deceased by forcing her to demand for the things and used to
shout at her.
11, She further stated that Ranjana had stayed with her for a span of 3-4
days when she had come after 8-10 days of marriage. Thereafter she was not
sent for residing, however, she was sent in January for 2-3 days. At that
time on enquiry the deceased disclosed that her in-laws are torturing and
harassing her very much. She further disclosed that she was also not
provided food properly and she was treated like an animal. The mother
enquired from the deceased as to who had harassed her to which she
disclosed that her father in-law, husband, brother of husband, sister of
husband and the husband of sister of accused No.2 vexed her.
12. Chandrakanta (PW-8) further stated that her husband (PW-11) had been
to her daughter's materimonial house to bring her on the day of incident
i.e. 8th April, 1999 at 6.30 a.m. Some religious rites were to be performed
but she did not come out. After one hour accused No.5, Surendra came and
inform about the burning incident happened with the deceased and took PW-11
to mortuary. She entered the mortuary and noticed the dead body of Ranjana.
During the cross-examination she accepted that she has not assigned
any reason as to why she has not stated about giving an amount of
Rs.20,000/- after 3-4 months of the marriage for Almirah, T.V. and Cooler
and still the torture continued.
13. Ranjit (PW-9) is the brother of the deceased. In his statement he
stated that at the time of Rakhi (probably in August, 1998) he had been to
the house of accused and disclosed to accused No.1 that he had come to call
his sister Ranjana. Accused No.1 refused to send Ranjana and commented that
he did not want to send beggar’s daughter. At that time accused No.2 also
came and started abusing and caught hold of his collar. He further stated
that 10-15 days thereafter accused No.2 had come to their house along with
the deceased Ranjana. At that time his sister disclosed him that her in-
laws were demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle, Cooler, Almirah and she was
harassed for non-satisfying the demands. He convinced her to the effect
that she will have to pull and there was no purpose in disturbing the
family life.
In the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he made
statement before the Police that after 10-15 days after accused No.2 had
come to their house along with Ranjana, his sister disclosed him that her
in-laws were demanding a motorcycle Hero Honda, Cooler, Almirah and she was
vexed for non-satisfying the demands.
14. Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) is the father of the deceased. In his
statement he stated that her daughter disclosed that the accused and his
family members ill-treated her. Accused No.2 was asking for Hero Honda
Motorcycle. She was physically abused on account of dowry. The accused were
also demanding and asking for refrigerator. He further stated that on 8th
April, 1999 he had been to the house of accused to bring Ranjana for some
religious rites, as she was pregnant of 7 months. He reached the house of
the accused at 6.00-6.30 a.m. All the accused were present in the house.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 enquired from him as to whether he had brought the
amount for Hero Honda Motorcycle. He told that he had not brought the
amount. Thereafter, he wanted to meet Ranjana in case if the accused were
not ready to send Ranjana. At that time accused No.2 had slapped Ranjana.
Thereafter, he returned back. Ranjana was not sent along with him. At about
8.30 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra Shukla came and disclosed that Ranjana had
poured kerosene oil on her and set herself ablaze. During the cross-
examination he accepted that he has not stated before the Police that
accused No.1 and accused No.2-Rajendra were asking him whether he brought
the amount for Hero Honda and he replied that he had not brought the
amount.
15. Rajmani (PW-5) stated that at the time of marriage dowry of
Rs.25,000/-, one golden ring and watch was demanded. At the time of
bethrotal ceremony (Tilak) the accused had also insisted for a scooter and
the total amount of Rs.56,000/- was given to the accused.
16. Santoshbai (PW-6), a neighbour, stated that after the marriage when
Ranjana had come at the time of Kajaltiz in her parents’ house, she went
there. At that time there a telephone call came, Rajana attended the said
call and started weeping. She enquired from her (deceased) as to the cause
of her weeping. She stated that her in-laws were harassing her. So also her
other in-laws were vexing her. She stated that the incident of the
telephone message received by the deceased Ranjana had occurred 2-3 months
prior to her death.
17. Geeta (PW-7), another neighbor, stated that Ranjana when met her at
the time of Kajaltiz after 2-3 months of her marriage she was not appearing
to be happy. At that time, she enquired from Ranjana the cause of
unhappiness, she told that her in-laws were getting the complete work done
from her but murmuring at the time of meals. They used to ask for dowry.
Ranjana had also stated that in case she watched T.V. her-in-laws used to
say that she should have brought the T.V. from her parents.
18. The statement of Chandrakanta(PW-8) that Ranjana had come to him
after 8-10 days of marriage and told that the members of her in-laws were
torturing her throughout the day for T.V., Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda
Motorcycle, is consistent with the FIR. Omission of certain facts does not
make any difference as the same is corroborated by PW-12. Similarly
omission of statement that Rs.20,000/- was given to the accused for
almirah, cooler and TV is corroborated by PW.6. Therefore the said omission
is not fatal to the prosecution.
19. Chandrakanta(PW-8) categorically stated on her examination that the
deceased disclosed that her in-laws were harassing her very much; she was
not provided with food properly. This evidence is un-shattered in the cross-
examination and it is stated in the FIR itself.
20. There is un-shattered evidence of Santoshbai (PW-6) about the dowry
demand and cruelty. That is when she enquired her as to cause for her
weeping she stated that her mother-in-law and the brother of her husband
were very much harassing her. So also her other in-laws were vexing her.
This evidence also corroborates the complainant Chandrakanta(PW-8) about
the payment of money to accused No.2 for purchasing of the house hold
articles.
21. Geeta (PW-7) categorically stated that the deceased told that her in-
laws were getting the complete work done from her. The verbal abuse was
stated to be on account of dowry. She also stated that in case she watched
TV her in-laws said that she should bring TV from her parents.
Prior to one month of her death, she stated that there was no
certainty of her life, this evidence is not shaken in the cross-examination
and there are no improvements in the evidence of PW-6 & PW-7.
22. Ranjit (PW-9) categorically stated in his evidence that after 2-4
days they had received telephonic message from the nurse of the Hospital of
Dr. Kunda Tayade regarding hospitalization of Ranjana. Thereafter, he, his
mother (PW-8) and father (PW-11) had been to Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade
and he noticed that his sister Ranjana was lying on the bed and that too
alone. Ranjana at that time disclosed that since last 2 days she was not
provided food and as such she became weak. At that time they came to know
that Ranjana was pregnant. He further stated that by that time they were
talking with Ranjana, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 came to the same room and
abused them and enquired as to who provided the address of the Hospital and
thereafter his mother and father went and he waited in the hospital. He had
also a talk with accused No.3. He himself paid the amount of Rs.2,000/-
towards the fees of hospitalization of Ranjana.
23. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there was a demand
of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and other house hold
articles. The evidence of torture is also clear from the fact that the
deceased was not provided food and as such she had become weak that too at
the time when she was in the 7th month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304-B IPC relates to dowry death, which reads as follows:
304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The expression “soon before her death” is used in the substantive
Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. No definite period
has been indicated and the expression “soon before her death” is not
defined. The determination of period which can come within the term “soon
before” is left to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this connection one may refer the case of
Yashoda and another vs. State of M.P., 2004 (3) SCC 98.
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act with respect
to dowry death can be raised only on the proof of the following four
essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC 157 [AIR 2003 SC
3828].
26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
113B. 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 has 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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the
same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).
27. In dowry death cases direct evidence may not be available. Such cases
may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Section 304-B IPC read with 113-B
of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an
unnatural death of a married woman occurs within 7 years of marriage in
suspicious circumstances, like due to burns or any other bodily injury and
there is cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death then it shall be
dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to the
abetment to suicide by a married woman, read as follows:
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the
same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]"
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall have the same
meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses
particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8),
Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the
harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her
parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the
deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of
specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A
IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the
deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by
the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that
the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased
is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti
Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra
in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution
successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the
judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated
20th July, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.447 of 2000
holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC. is
upheld but the part of the judgment relating to offence under Section 306
r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 6 stands set aside by the judgment
passed by the High Court. The respondents- accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused
No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-
Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody forthwith to
undergo the remainder period of sentence for offence under Section 498-A
and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
NEW DELHI, (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
JULY 8, 2014.
ITEM NO.IA COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 719/2010
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2010
Date : 08/07/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee ,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. K.L. Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.
Gopala Gowda.
The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in the signed
judgment.
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Usha Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. =
By the impugned judgment the High Court
held that unless the prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that
the deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct evidence,
the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply in the case and
acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 498-A,
Section 304-B and Section 306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby
reversing the finding of the Trial Court.=
The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early morning of 8th
April, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the house of the accused Nos.1,
2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could
commence, she died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.=
Since 7th month of
the pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at 6 a.m.
her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch her. Accused insulted
him on account of dowry demands and refused to send the deceased with him.
At 9 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra i.e. elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the
deceased came to the house of parents of the deceased and told them that
their daughter had sustained burns and that she was admitted in Mayo
Hospital. The parents of the deceased immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital.
It was found that their daughter was already dead.=
Trial court convicted the accused - where as High court acquitted the accused=
Apex court held that
From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there was a demand
of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and other house hold
articles. The evidence of torture is also clear from the fact that the
deceased was not provided food and as such she had become weak that too at
the time when she was in the 7th month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304-B IPC relates to dowry death, which reads as follows:
304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The expression “soon before her death” is used in the substantive
Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. No definite period
has been indicated and the expression “soon before her death” is not
defined. The determination of period which can come within the term “soon
before” is left to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this connection one may refer the case of
Yashoda and another vs. State of M.P., 2004 (3) SCC 98.
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act with respect
to dowry death can be raised only on the proof of the following four
essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC 157 [AIR 2003 SC
3828].
26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
113B. 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 has 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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the
same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).
27. In dowry death cases direct evidence may not be available. Such cases
may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Section 304-B IPC read with 113-B
of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an
unnatural death of a married woman occurs within 7 years of marriage in
suspicious circumstances, like due to burns or any other bodily injury and
there is cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death then it shall be
dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to the
abetment to suicide by a married woman, read as follows:
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the
same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]"
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall have the same
meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses
particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8),
Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the
harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her
parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the
deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of
specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A
IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the
deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by
the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that
the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased
is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti
Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra
in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution
successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the
judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated
20th July, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.447 of 2000
holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC. is
upheld but the part of the judgment relating to offence under Section 306
r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 6 stands set aside by the judgment
passed by the High Court. The respondents- accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused
No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-
Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody forthwith to
undergo the remainder period of sentence for offence under Section 498-A
and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41754
ReportableIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2010
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
With
Criminal Appeal No.720 of 2010
(Chandrakanta vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th August,
2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court
held that unless the prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that
the deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct evidence,
the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply in the case and
acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 498-A,
Section 304-B and Section 306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby
reversing the finding of the Trial Court.
2. Respondents – accused No.1, Shivpujan and accused No.3, Malti Devi
are husband and wife. Accused No.2, Rajendra, accused No.5, Surendra and
accused No.6, Virendra are their sons. Accused No.4, Anita is the daughter
of accused Nos.1 and 3 and is married to one Satyam Mishra who is in Police
service. Accused Nos.1 and 5 are also in Police service. Accused Nos. 1 to
3, 5 and 6 reside together in Plot No.96, Adarsha Colony, behind Police
Line Takli at Nagpur. Accused No.4 resides in Police Line, Pathrigad
Quarter, Sadar at Nagpur. Accused No.2-Rajendra is the youngest son of
accused Nos.1 and 3. Deceased Ranjana was the wife of accused No.2-
Rajendra.
3. Marriage of deceased took place with accused No.2-Rajendra on 19th
April, 1998. She was the daughter of Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) and
Chandrakanta (PW-8)-the complainant. The deceased was the younger sister of
Ranjit (PW-9). Parents and brothers of the deceased reside at Gandhi Nagar,
Surendergarh, Nagpur. The distance between the house of the accused and the
parental house of the deceased is about 1 km.
4. The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early morning of 8th
April, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the house of the accused Nos.1,
2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could
commence, she died at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.
5. The prosecution case is that the husband and the mother-in-law i.e.
accused Nos.2 and 3 used to beat the deceased whereas other accused
together with accused Nos.2 and 3 used to mentally and physically ill-treat
the deceased on account of dowry demand. Accused No.2-Rajendra wanted Hero
Honda Motor Cycle from the parents of the deceased. He always used to press
his demand. The deceased had informed her parents that she was being
subjected to cruelty and that her in-laws behaved with her like animals.
Many a times father of the deceased went to fetch the deceased but accused
used to ask him that he should first bring money for Hero Honda Motorcycle
and then only he can take the deceased along with him. Since 7th month of
the pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at 6 a.m.
her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch her. Accused insulted
him on account of dowry demands and refused to send the deceased with him.
At 9 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra i.e. elder brother-in-law (jeth) of the
deceased came to the house of parents of the deceased and told them that
their daughter had sustained burns and that she was admitted in Mayo
Hospital. The parents of the deceased immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital.
It was found that their daughter was already dead.
6. A.D. No.28/99 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at 10.50 a.m.
on 8th April, 1999 on the basis of report of Police Head Constable Diwakar
from Mayo Hospital Police Booth. The PSI-S.R. Parvekar thereafter visited
the spot of occurrence, prepared spot panchanama (Ext.40) and then
proceeded to Mayo Hospital and prepared inquest panchanama (Ext.43) and
sent the dead body for its postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Ashish Wankhede (PW-10) and report is Ext.62. Thereafter, the report
(Ext.54) was lodged by PW.8, mother of the deceased with the Police Head
Constable Girish Pande (PW-14) upon which FIR (Ext.55) was registered at
7.10 p.m. on 8th April, 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-
A, 306 r/w 34 IPC. Further investigation was carried out by Police Sub-
Inspector, Parvekar. He recorded the statement of the father of deceased
and arrested accused No.2-Rajendra i.e. husband of the deceased on 8th
April, 1999 itself. The further investigation was carried out by Police
Inspector Ravindra Relgudwar (PW.12) and then Police Sub-Inspector,
Dadasaheb Khade (PW.13). In the statements of witnesses i.e. neighbours of
the complainant, brother of the deceased, supplementary statement of the
complainant were recorded. Viscera of the deceased that was preserved at
the time of the postmortem examination, pieces of saree, match box and a
piece of burnt plastic which were seized at the time of drawing the
panchanama were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for examination. The
marriage ceremony of the deceased and accused No.2-Rajendra was shot by a
video shooting. Its video cassette was produced by the complainant before
the Investigating Officer. It was seized (Ext.45). Pursuant to a direction
in Criminal Writ Petition No.168/99 filed by the complainant, offence
punishable under Section 304-B IPC was also added. Other accused were
arrested and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up to
the Court of CJM, Nagpur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Charges for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w 34 IPC
were framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution
produced altogether 14 witnesses. The witnesses against the accused made
their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. (Ext.91 to 96) and submitted
their written statement (Ext.97). Four defence witnesses viz. DW.1-Mohd
Asgar, DW.2-A.S.I., Chandrabhan Osare, DW.3-ASI Pralhad Kaware and DW.4-
Rajesh Soni were also examined. The defence, as how it appears from the
cross-examination of the witnesses etc. is that of total denial with regard
to the alleged cruelty. The stand was that the accused always gave good
treatment to the deceased. They gave jewellery to the deceased and also
invested money in her name in the post office. It was denied that they ever
demanded any dowry from her parents. It is their case that the deceased was
under pressure from her mother. They were disowned knowledge as to how the
deceased died.
7. The Trial Court, as noticed above on appreciation of evidence,
statements of witnesses and exhibits, held the accused guilty for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the
said finding was reversed by the Appellate Court for the reasons mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the
following grounds:
(a) The High Court in the impugned judgment, while quoting some portions
of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not given any cogent
reason for disbelieving the evidence of those witnesses.
(b) The impugned judgment is cryptic, unreasoned and order of acquittal
was passed without discussion and appreciation of evidence.
(c) The High Court recorded completely erroneous finding that prosecution
has not proved suicidal death of Ranjana. In fact, the defence itself came
with the story of suicidal death of Ranjana.
(d) The prosecution has proved the demand of dowry and cruelty for the
said demand. All ingredients for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B
IPC were present. It was presumed that the case was that of a dowry death.
9. The stand of the respondents is that the deposition of prosecution
witnesses after five years was improved version from their version made
during the investigation. They added allegation to attract Section 304B
IPC. Chandra Kanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased and Ranjit (PW-9),
brother of the deceased both improved their version from the version made
during the investigation on material aspect. Same is the situation of
Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-1), father of the deceased. All were related to
the deceased. Thus they were interested witnesses and their credibility is
considerably in question.
10. Chandrakanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased is the complainant. In
her statement she stated that Ranjana (deceased) was married with accused
No.2- Rajendra on 19th April, 1998. At the time of marriage it was decided
that Rs.25,000/- was to be paid, which was given apart from another sum of
Rs.25,000/- given for scooter and Rs.5,000/- in addition to that, a total
amount of Rs.56,000/- was given when the marriage was settled. Prior to 2-4
days of the marriage, accused No.1 and accused No.2 asked for Hero Honda
Motorcycle although the amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid for scooter:
Deceased's family informed that they are unable to pay more than what was
already agreed. The marriage was thereafter performed. At the time of Barat
(procession) the accused had also created chaos when the bridegroom was
about to enter the pandal of the marriage hall and the golden ring was
given to him. In the marriage, religious rites were going on throughout the
night. The accused No1 did not take any meals or food. During the marriage
a golden chain of about 12 gms. was presented to accused No.2. Accused No.2
was refusing to accept the said chain and wanted the chain of 2 tolas (20
gms.) and the golden stick. However, at that time they were convinced. The
deceased had to come back to her parents house after 8-10 days of the
marriage. She disclosed that her in-laws were torturing her throughout the
day for not giving the T.V. set, Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle.
She asked the deceased to convey the accused No.2 that she would somehow
arrange for the motorcycle. After 3-4 months of the marriage they had given
an amount of Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 for Almirah, Cooler and T.V.,
still the torture was continued. The deceased-Ranjana used to come to her.
The deceased was not sent whenever called by her parents. Accused No.2-
Rajendra used to take the deceased to the house of her parents at an
interval of 3-4 days on some pretext or other. Initially, the deceased was
not disclosing freely even accused No.2 used to bring the deceased. He used
to torture the deceased by forcing her to demand for the things and used to
shout at her.
11, She further stated that Ranjana had stayed with her for a span of 3-4
days when she had come after 8-10 days of marriage. Thereafter she was not
sent for residing, however, she was sent in January for 2-3 days. At that
time on enquiry the deceased disclosed that her in-laws are torturing and
harassing her very much. She further disclosed that she was also not
provided food properly and she was treated like an animal. The mother
enquired from the deceased as to who had harassed her to which she
disclosed that her father in-law, husband, brother of husband, sister of
husband and the husband of sister of accused No.2 vexed her.
12. Chandrakanta (PW-8) further stated that her husband (PW-11) had been
to her daughter's materimonial house to bring her on the day of incident
i.e. 8th April, 1999 at 6.30 a.m. Some religious rites were to be performed
but she did not come out. After one hour accused No.5, Surendra came and
inform about the burning incident happened with the deceased and took PW-11
to mortuary. She entered the mortuary and noticed the dead body of Ranjana.
During the cross-examination she accepted that she has not assigned
any reason as to why she has not stated about giving an amount of
Rs.20,000/- after 3-4 months of the marriage for Almirah, T.V. and Cooler
and still the torture continued.
13. Ranjit (PW-9) is the brother of the deceased. In his statement he
stated that at the time of Rakhi (probably in August, 1998) he had been to
the house of accused and disclosed to accused No.1 that he had come to call
his sister Ranjana. Accused No.1 refused to send Ranjana and commented that
he did not want to send beggar’s daughter. At that time accused No.2 also
came and started abusing and caught hold of his collar. He further stated
that 10-15 days thereafter accused No.2 had come to their house along with
the deceased Ranjana. At that time his sister disclosed him that her in-
laws were demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle, Cooler, Almirah and she was
harassed for non-satisfying the demands. He convinced her to the effect
that she will have to pull and there was no purpose in disturbing the
family life.
In the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he made
statement before the Police that after 10-15 days after accused No.2 had
come to their house along with Ranjana, his sister disclosed him that her
in-laws were demanding a motorcycle Hero Honda, Cooler, Almirah and she was
vexed for non-satisfying the demands.
14. Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) is the father of the deceased. In his
statement he stated that her daughter disclosed that the accused and his
family members ill-treated her. Accused No.2 was asking for Hero Honda
Motorcycle. She was physically abused on account of dowry. The accused were
also demanding and asking for refrigerator. He further stated that on 8th
April, 1999 he had been to the house of accused to bring Ranjana for some
religious rites, as she was pregnant of 7 months. He reached the house of
the accused at 6.00-6.30 a.m. All the accused were present in the house.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 enquired from him as to whether he had brought the
amount for Hero Honda Motorcycle. He told that he had not brought the
amount. Thereafter, he wanted to meet Ranjana in case if the accused were
not ready to send Ranjana. At that time accused No.2 had slapped Ranjana.
Thereafter, he returned back. Ranjana was not sent along with him. At about
8.30 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra Shukla came and disclosed that Ranjana had
poured kerosene oil on her and set herself ablaze. During the cross-
examination he accepted that he has not stated before the Police that
accused No.1 and accused No.2-Rajendra were asking him whether he brought
the amount for Hero Honda and he replied that he had not brought the
amount.
15. Rajmani (PW-5) stated that at the time of marriage dowry of
Rs.25,000/-, one golden ring and watch was demanded. At the time of
bethrotal ceremony (Tilak) the accused had also insisted for a scooter and
the total amount of Rs.56,000/- was given to the accused.
16. Santoshbai (PW-6), a neighbour, stated that after the marriage when
Ranjana had come at the time of Kajaltiz in her parents’ house, she went
there. At that time there a telephone call came, Rajana attended the said
call and started weeping. She enquired from her (deceased) as to the cause
of her weeping. She stated that her in-laws were harassing her. So also her
other in-laws were vexing her. She stated that the incident of the
telephone message received by the deceased Ranjana had occurred 2-3 months
prior to her death.
17. Geeta (PW-7), another neighbor, stated that Ranjana when met her at
the time of Kajaltiz after 2-3 months of her marriage she was not appearing
to be happy. At that time, she enquired from Ranjana the cause of
unhappiness, she told that her in-laws were getting the complete work done
from her but murmuring at the time of meals. They used to ask for dowry.
Ranjana had also stated that in case she watched T.V. her-in-laws used to
say that she should have brought the T.V. from her parents.
18. The statement of Chandrakanta(PW-8) that Ranjana had come to him
after 8-10 days of marriage and told that the members of her in-laws were
torturing her throughout the day for T.V., Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda
Motorcycle, is consistent with the FIR. Omission of certain facts does not
make any difference as the same is corroborated by PW-12. Similarly
omission of statement that Rs.20,000/- was given to the accused for
almirah, cooler and TV is corroborated by PW.6. Therefore the said omission
is not fatal to the prosecution.
19. Chandrakanta(PW-8) categorically stated on her examination that the
deceased disclosed that her in-laws were harassing her very much; she was
not provided with food properly. This evidence is un-shattered in the cross-
examination and it is stated in the FIR itself.
20. There is un-shattered evidence of Santoshbai (PW-6) about the dowry
demand and cruelty. That is when she enquired her as to cause for her
weeping she stated that her mother-in-law and the brother of her husband
were very much harassing her. So also her other in-laws were vexing her.
This evidence also corroborates the complainant Chandrakanta(PW-8) about
the payment of money to accused No.2 for purchasing of the house hold
articles.
21. Geeta (PW-7) categorically stated that the deceased told that her in-
laws were getting the complete work done from her. The verbal abuse was
stated to be on account of dowry. She also stated that in case she watched
TV her in-laws said that she should bring TV from her parents.
Prior to one month of her death, she stated that there was no
certainty of her life, this evidence is not shaken in the cross-examination
and there are no improvements in the evidence of PW-6 & PW-7.
22. Ranjit (PW-9) categorically stated in his evidence that after 2-4
days they had received telephonic message from the nurse of the Hospital of
Dr. Kunda Tayade regarding hospitalization of Ranjana. Thereafter, he, his
mother (PW-8) and father (PW-11) had been to Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade
and he noticed that his sister Ranjana was lying on the bed and that too
alone. Ranjana at that time disclosed that since last 2 days she was not
provided food and as such she became weak. At that time they came to know
that Ranjana was pregnant. He further stated that by that time they were
talking with Ranjana, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 came to the same room and
abused them and enquired as to who provided the address of the Hospital and
thereafter his mother and father went and he waited in the hospital. He had
also a talk with accused No.3. He himself paid the amount of Rs.2,000/-
towards the fees of hospitalization of Ranjana.
23. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there was a demand
of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle and other house hold
articles. The evidence of torture is also clear from the fact that the
deceased was not provided food and as such she had become weak that too at
the time when she was in the 7th month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304-B IPC relates to dowry death, which reads as follows:
304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
The expression “soon before her death” is used in the substantive
Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. No definite period
has been indicated and the expression “soon before her death” is not
defined. The determination of period which can come within the term “soon
before” is left to be determined by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this connection one may refer the case of
Yashoda and another vs. State of M.P., 2004 (3) SCC 98.
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act with respect
to dowry death can be raised only on the proof of the following four
essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC 157 [AIR 2003 SC
3828].
26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:
113B. 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 has 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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the
same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).
27. In dowry death cases direct evidence may not be available. Such cases
may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Section 304-B IPC read with 113-B
of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an
unnatural death of a married woman occurs within 7 years of marriage in
suspicious circumstances, like due to burns or any other bodily injury and
there is cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in
connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death then it shall be
dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with presumption as to the
abetment to suicide by a married woman, read as follows:
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the
same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]"
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall have the same
meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads as follows:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses
particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8),
Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the
harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her
parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the
deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of
specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A
IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the
deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by
the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that
the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased
is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been
proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti
Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra
in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution
successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6
are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the
judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the
part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated
20th July, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.447 of 2000
holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC. is
upheld but the part of the judgment relating to offence under Section 306
r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 6 stands set aside by the judgment
passed by the High Court. The respondents- accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused
No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-
Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody forthwith to
undergo the remainder period of sentence for offence under Section 498-A
and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
NEW DELHI, (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
JULY 8, 2014.
ITEM NO.IA COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 719/2010
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2010
Date : 08/07/2014 These appeals were called on for judgment today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee ,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. K.L. Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.
Gopala Gowda.
The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated in the signed
judgment.
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Usha Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
