STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. GIRIDHARI LAL

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2008

Versus J U D G M E N T This   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the   State   of  Rajasthan   against   the   judgment   and   order   dated   14th  March,   2007   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the  Rajasthan   High   Court,   Jaipur   Bench.   By   the   impugned  judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal  filed   by   the   respondent­Girdhari   Lal,   modified   the  JUDGMENT sentence   and   convicted   him   under   Section   306   IPC  instead of 304B IPC. For the said offence, the Division  Bench   sentenced   him   to   undergo   five   years   rigorous  imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/­, in default he has  to   further   suffer   six   months   rigorous   imprisonment.  Since the respondent­Girdhari Lal had already undergone  imprisonment for a period of more than six years, the  High Court directed to release him forthwith, if not  required to be detained in any other case. Page 1 2 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that: The informant­Jugal Kishore(PW.1) – father of the  deceased   Babita   in   his   written   complaint   on   11th 

years   back.   Her   in­laws   were   harassing   Babita   in  connection with demand for dowry from the initial days  of her marriage.   Earlier also the in­laws of Babita  made attempt to set her ablaze and neighbourers rescued  her.  Later, the in­laws assured her parents that they  will not harass Babita, but she was burnt to death on  10th August, 1998. 3. On the said complaint a case under Section 304B  and   498A   IPC   was   registered   and   investigation   was  commenced.   After   the   investigation   chargesheet   was  filed. In due course, the case came up for trial to the  Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The charge under  Section   304B   IPC   framed   against   the   respondent   was  JUDGMENT denied by him who claimed trial. Altogether 9 witnesses  were   examined   in   support   of   the   case   of   the  prosecution. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.  P.C.,   the   respondent   claimed   innocence.   Two   defence  witnesses   were   also   examined.   The   trial   court   on  appreciation   of   evidence   and   on   hearing   the   parties  convicted the respondent under Section 304­B IPC and  sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Page 2 3 On appeal, as noticed above, the Division Bench of  the High Court partly allowed the appeal, convicted the  respondent under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC 

to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.  4. Learned counsel for the appellant­State submitted  that   the   deceased­Babita   died   within   7   years   of   her  marriage under unnatural circumstances and respondent  did not inform the parents of the deceased regarding  the incident. The burden to prove innocence lies on the  respondent after the prosecution has proved that the  deceased died under the unnatural circumstances within  seven   years   of   marriage.   Further,   according   to   the  learned   counsel   for   the   State,   the   High   Court   has  failed to appreciate that Jugal Kishore (PW.1), Nand  Lal (PW.4) and Smt. Bimla (PW.7) have made statements  regarding harassment and torture by the in­laws of the  JUDGMENT deceased in relation to the demand for dowry which has  been corroborated by the statement of other witnesses  and the documents on record. The aforesaid facts were  not   properly   appreciated   by   the   High   Court   while  converting the conviction from Section 304B IPC to 306  IPC and reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to  five years imprisonment.  Page 3 4 5. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   on  the other hand supported the decision rendered by the  High Court.

7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial, we  notice that Babita died of burn injuries within 5 to 6  years   of   her   marriage   with   respondent­Girdhari   Lal,  thereby the death occurred otherwise than under normal  circumstances.   A   bare   look   at   the   postmortem   report  (Ext.P­6) shows that the deceased died because of the  extensive   burns.   Therefore,   the   question   that   arises  for   determination   is   whether   Babita’s   death   is   an  instance of dowry death or whether she was driven to  commit suicide by her husband?  8. The main ingredient of the offence under Section  304B which is required to be established by the State  is whether “soon before her death” Babita was subjected  JUDGMENT to cruelty and harassment by her husband, “for or in  connection   with   demand   of   dowry”,   to   allege   “dowry  death”. Jugal   Kishore   (PW.1)   is   himself   the   complainant  and   is   the   father   of   the   deceased­Babita.   He   stated  that his daughter was married to Girdhari Lal about 6  or 7 years back. The said statement was recorded on  12th   June,   2000   and   the   incident   occurred   on   10th  August, 1998. Shyam Lal Mahajan, another resident of  Page 4 5 the Village Chhavsari, where the marriage of Babita was  solemnised, by his statement stated that the marriage  of Babita was solemnised with accused Girdhari Lal in 

that   the   marriage   of   Babita   was   solemnised   with   the  accused   Girdhari   Lal   about   6   or   7   years   back.  Therefore,   it   is   clear   that   the   death   of   Babita  happened within 7 years of her marriage.  9. The   death   of   Babita   was   caused   by   the   burn  injuries   and   thereby   death   occurred   otherwise   than  under normal circumstances. The statement made by Dr.  J.P. Bugalia (PW.6)   proved the fact that death was  caused due to the burns. He stated that on 10th August,  1998   he   was   working   as   Medical   Jurist   in   B.D.K.  Hospital,   Jhunjhunu.   He   along   with   Dr.   P.S.   Sahu  conducted the postmortem of Babita who was admitted in  the Hospital on 10th August, 1998 at 1.50 p.m. and died  JUDGMENT during   the   treatment   at   4.00   p.m.   There   were   burn  injuries all over her body.  10. So   far   as   the   harassment   and   cruelty   are  concerned, Rajender Prasad (PW.8) stated that Girdhari  Lal   used   to   beat   her   for   dowry.   Jugal   Kishore(PW.1)  has   also   supported   the   fact   that   she   was   being  subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand by  stating   that   Girdhari   Lal   used   to   beat   and   harass  Babita for dowry after her marriage. Once he was asked  Page 5 6 not to do so but he did not mend his ways. He also  stated   that   Girdhari   Lal   earlier   tried   to   burn   her  alive by pouring kerosene by confining her in a room 

Rajender, Jagdish, Neki Ram and Man Roop where Girdhari  Lal and his father begged their pardon for their act of  burning her alive and assured that they will not repeat  the incident. Bimla Devi (PW.7), mother of the deceased  stated in her statement that the accused Girdhari Lal  and Babita came to their village Chhavsari one month  prior to the incident and stayed there for one hour.  Jugal Kishore was not present at the house at that time  and Babita told her mother to send her father to her  in­laws because Girdhari Lal used to harass her. This  statement   clearly   indicates   that   Babita   was   being  subjected   to   cruelty   and   harassment   soon   before   the  death. JUDGMENT 11. Now, the question arises as to whether Babita was  subjected to such cruelty and harassment by her husband  soon before her death for, or in connection with the  demand of dowry. The period which can come within the  term   “soon   before”   cannot   be   put   within   the   four  corners of time frame. It is left to the Court for its  determination   depending   upon   the   facts   and  circumstances of each case.  Page 6 7 In   the   present   case,     Jugal   Kishore   (PW.1)   and  Bimla Devi (PW.7) has made ominous statements regarding  demand of dowry that after the marriage demand of dowry 

12. Section   113B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872  which   deals   with   the   presumption   as   to   dowry   death  reads as follows: 1. Section   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).  JUDGMENT In the present case there is no evidence on record  to come to the definite conclusion that soon before her  death, Babita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by  her husband, Girdhari Lal for, or in connection with  any, demand of dowry. In absence of such ingredient the  presumption   that   Girdhari   Lal   had   caused   the   dowry  death cannot be drawn. The prosecution thereby cannot  Page 7 8 take advantage of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence  Act, 1872. 13. Section   113A   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872 

2. 113A. Presumption as to abetment  of   suicide   by   a   married   women.­ 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 Panel Code (45 of 1860). JUDGMENT In the instant case, it is established from the  ocular   and   documentary   evidence   that   Babita   was  subjected   to   cruelty   and   harassment.   As   a   result   of  such treatment of cruelty and harassment she was driven  to meet the suicidal death. She had committed suicide  within a period of 7 years from her marriage and that  her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Therefore,  Page 8 9 the Appellate Court rightly presumed, having regard to  all other circumstances of the case, that such suicidal  had   been   abetted   by   her   husband   Girdhari   Lal   and 

14. We   find   no   merit   in   this   appeal.   The   appeal   is  dismissed.   ……………………………………………………………………………J.              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) …………………………………………………………………………J.            (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 7,2013. JUDGMENT Page 9