Chandra Bhan And Another vs State Of U.P.

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2062 of 1989
Chandra Bhan and another
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.C. Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : D.G.A.
RESERVED
In Chamber
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
(Dictated by Hon. Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)
1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, advocate assisted by Sri Adesh Pal,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA
for the State.
2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment dated 04.10.1989
passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.
190 of 1988 (State Vs. Chandra Bhan) connected with Session Trial No.
256 of 1988 (State vs. Jairam) arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of
1988, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Etawah, whereby learned trial
Court has convicted the accused- appellants Jairam and Chandra Bhan
for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and sentenced each to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304-B IPC and
three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
3. The present appeal has been filed by accused- convicts Chandra Bhan
and Jairam. Accused Chandra Bhan and Jairam were separately tried in
Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1988 and Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1988, and
both were convicted by a common judgment dated 04.10.1989. During
pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant no. 2 Jairam died and this
appeal already stands abated against the appellant no. 2 Jairam vide this
Court’s order dated 16.10.2025. Now this appeal is being heard and
disposed of for surviving appellant no. 1 namely Chandra Bhan.
4. Brief facts of the case are that first informant Sri Mahesh Chandra,
(father of the deceased Munni Devi) had got lodged FIR on 01.03.1988
at 5:45 am against the appellant- accused Chandra Bhan and three others
on the ground that the marriage of his daughter Munni Devi was
performed with the accused Chandra Bhan son of Badri Prasad resident
of village Sakuva, Etawah about 8-9 months ago. He could not give
Scooter in the dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter, hence the
accused Chandra Bhan and his family members used to harass his
daughter. Chandra Bhan visited their residence in October, 1987 with his
daughter, then his daughter told him that her in-laws used to physically
torture her for not giving Scooter and also used to state that either a
Scooter be given or Rs. 10,000/- cash be given else she will face dire
consequences. On 29.02.1988, he has received information that his
daughter Munni Devi was burnt, thus, he came to Etawah at Mohalla
Madhaiyan Khayaliram, Etawah city and it came to his knowledge that
his daughter was burnt to death. Sri Shiv Singh, Din Dayal and other
persons of the said locality informed him that his daughter has died in
Sadar Hospital due to said reason. His daughter was burnt to death by
the accused- appellants including the wife of Sri Prabhu Dayal and Badri
Prasad, who were residing at the time of the incident in a rented house in
Mohalla Khayaliram due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry.
5. In view of above, Sri Mahesh Chandra, first informant has submitted a
written report (Ext.Ka-2) at P.S. Kotwali, District Etawah alleging
therein that the accused- appellants and two others have committed

3
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
dowry death of his daughter. On the aforementioned written information
of the first informant, an FIR was registered on 29.02.1988 as Case
Crime No. 101 of 1988, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali,
District Etawah.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
appellants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken upon same and the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties,
charges were framed under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC against appellants
on 01.02.1989.
7. In order to prove it's case, the prosecution adduced PW-1 Mahesh
Chandra (informant and father of deceased), PW-2 Smt. Vimla Devi
(mother of deceased), PW-3 Head constable Sri Bhola Prasad Pal (chik
writer), PW-4 Dr. S.C. Gupta (who gave fitness certificates before and
after dying declaration), PW-5 Sri Udai Vir Singh (Tehsildar, who
recorded dying declaration), PW-6 Dr. S.K. Srivastava (Autopsy
Surgeon), PW-7 Dr. P.K. Srivastava (who medico legally examined the
2nd
injured and prepared her injury report), PW-8 ( I.O.) Sri Prem Prakash
Srivastava (the then Circle Officer, who conducted the final
st
investigation), PW-9 S.I. Sri Sukhvir Singh (1 I.O.) and PW-10
constable Sri Raj Kumar (G.D. writer). The witnesses adduced by the
prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 25
prosecution papers and 08 material objects, which were marked as
exhibits. The same are tabulated herein below:-
Sl. No. Name Nature of evidence Documents proved
PW-1 Mahesh Chadra First informant &
father of the deceased
Letter of the deceased as Ext.
Ka-1, Written report/ Tehrir as
Ext. Ka-2
PW-2 Vimla Devi Mother of the
deceased and witness
of fact regarding
demand of dowry &
harassment to the
deceased
-

4
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
PW-3 Bhola Prasad Pal Scribe of the FIR Chik FIR as Ext. Ka-3
PW-4 Dr. S.C. Gupta Doctor, who examined
the deceased in Sadar
hospital and gave
fitness certificates
before and after dying
declaration
Fitness certificates as Exts.
Ka-5 and 6
PW-5 Uday Veer Singh
(Tehsildar)
Who recorded dying
declaration
Dying declaration as Ext.
Ka-7
PW-6 Dr. S.K. Srivastava Autopsy Surgeon Post mortem report as Ext.
Ka-2
PW-7 Dr. P.K. Srivastava Who examined the
Injury report of deceased as
Ext. Ka-9
deceased in
emergency ward,
Injury report of accused
Chandra Bhan as Ext. Kh-1
and also examined the
appellant Chandra
Bhan
nd
2 I.O. Charge-sheet against Jairam
as Ext. Ka-10 and charge-
sheet against Chandra Bhan
as Ext. Ka- 11
PW-8 Prem Prakash
Srivastava, CO
st
1 I.O. Site plan as Ext. Ka-12, two
quilts as material Ext-I & II,
cane of kerosene oil and
match box as material Ext. III
& IV, recovery memo of
quilts as Ext. K-13, recovery
memo of cane of kerosene oil
and match box as Ext. Ka-14,
Red colour Saree and dhoti as
material Ext. V & VI and its
recovery memo as Ext.
Ka-15, Frock and Stove as
material Ext. VII & VIII and
its recovery memo as Ext.
Ka-16, Panchayatnma as Ext.
-17, Chalan Nash as Ext.
Ka-18, Sample seal as Ext.
Ka-19, Photo Nash as Ext.
Ka-20, Letter to CMO as Ext.
Ka-21, Letter for recording
dying declaration as Ext.
Ka-22
PW-9 Sukhveer Singh,
S.I.
PW-10 Raj Kumar Singh G.D. writer G.D. entry as Exts. Ka-23, 24
& 25

5
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied
the prosecution version and commission of alleged offence. The accused
also claimed their innocence. They stated that prosecution witnesses
have given false evidence against them.
9. By the impugned judgment dated 04.10.1989, trial Court convicted
and sentenced the accused- appellants Chandra Bhan and Jairam of the
charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the
said judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-
convicts.
10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment is
illegal, erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set-aside by this Court. He
further submits that Court below without appreciating the prosecution
evidence has illegally and erroneously, convicted him of the charges. As
such, the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse and therefore liable
to be set-aside by this Court.
11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the
prosecution has failed to prove the very story, which, it set out to prove.
The prosecution story is based solely on the allegation that the deceased
was harassed on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of
dowry, but after appreciation of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no
evidence that the alleged Scooter/ amount was ever demanded and no
specific instance regarding cruelty coupled with persistent harassment
was brought on record, there was no harassment of the deceased on
account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry soon before
death and prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of
Section 304-B IPC, therefore, the trial court has wrongly convicted the
appellant and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by
this Court.

6
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
12. Learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the present
appeal. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by Court below
does not suffer from any illegality of law or fact much less an illegal
error so as to warrant interference by this Court. Court below has
examined the prosecution case in the light of the evidence on record
threadbare without leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. Court
below has thus, rightly convicted the accused persons. Lastly, it has been
argued that no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment is made
out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of the present appeal.
ANALYSIS
13. In the light of above arguments, following questions arise for
consideration in present appeal:-
(I) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that cruelty or harassment to the deceased was
committed in connection with any demand for dowry as
contemplated under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC?.
(II) Whether the prosecution could be able to prove it’s case
against the appellant- convict beyond reasonable doubt?.
ORAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD
14. PW-1, who is father of the deceased Munni Devi, has stated in his
examination-in-chief that Munni Devi was his daughter. About more
than a year ago, he was informed by someone that his daughter Munni
Devi has been burnt at her in-laws' house in Madhaiyan Khayaliram. He
had married Munni Devi to Chandra Bhan. The accused Jairam is
brother-in-law (Jeth) of Munni Devi. At the time of the incident, Munni's
brother-in-law Jairam, sister-in-law Sunita and father-in-law Badri
Prasad resided at her in-laws' house. Munni Devi was married 8-9
months before the incident. After the marriage, Chandra Bhan, Sunita
and Jairam had demanded a Scooter. When he was unable to fulfill their

7
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
demand, they started beating his daughter and accusing her. These
persons also said that if you cannot give a Scooter, then give Rs.
10,000/-. All these things were told by his daughter Munni Devi. A letter
written by his daughter was received by him through post office, which
was produced and proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-1. His daughter had
studied till 4th grade. Upon receiving information about this incident, he
went to Madhaiyan Khayaliram. where, Shiv Singh and Deen Dayal told
that your daughter has been burnt to death.
15. PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that Badri Prasad is his
Samadhi (father-in-law of his daughter). He is 70-80 years old. He is a
resident of village Sabuan, police station Jaswant Nagar. He had five
sons, out of which one has died and four are alive. The son who died was
named Prabhudayal. He was Supply Inspector. Now his wife and three
children are alive. His wife's name is Prago alias Sunita. After her
husband's death, she got Chandra Bhan appointed in the supply office in
place of his brother (i.e. husband of Sunita). Prabhudayal was elder
brother of Chandra Bhan, whose residence is situated in Shanti Colony
at Mainpuri Road. His son-in-law, Chandra Bhan was living with his
daughter in a rented house situated at Mohalla Madhaiyan Khayaliram in
Etawah City. Prabhudayal's house and Chandra Bhan's rented house are
about a mile apart. His daughter's marriage with Chandra Bhan was
arranged by Maniram, who is brother-in-law of Prabhudayal's wife. It
was Chandra Bhan's first marriage. No dowry was fixed at the time of
marriage. His daughter visited his house two or three times after the
marriage and Chandra Bhan also used to visit. His daughter also sent
letters to him. His daughter never wrote to him in any letter that her
husband was demanding a Scooter. This witness himself stated that his
daughter had told him about this verbally. She also didn't mention the
demand for ten thousand rupees and a watch in any letter.
16. PW-1 further stated in his cross-examination that Chandra Bhan sent
a letter to his daughter when she was at her parents' home. In the said
letter also there was no demands for a Scooter or money or a watch.

8
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
When this incident occurred, a boy from Madhaiyan Khayaliram came to
inform him. He didn't ask him who had sent him. He doesn’t know the
boy's name. He told him that Munni Devi's in-laws had set her on fire
and burnt her. They had poured kerosene on her. At that time, the boy
didn't reveal any names. He told him that he had left Munni at home.
The boy arrived at his place around 10-11 pm. It takes him 2- 2.5 hours
to reach Etawah from his place. Upon receiving the information,
Harischandra, Suresh Chandra and he left for Etawah. They came by
jeep; the fourth man was the driver. After reaching Etawah, he first
reached Madhaiyan Khayaliram. It was 5:20 in the morning. He met
Shiv Singh and Deen Dayal at Madhaiyan Khayaliram. He spoke to
these two. There were other people as well. They told him that Chandra
Bhan, Jairam, Sunita alias Prago, and Badri Prasad had killed his
daughter by pouring kerosene on her. This conversation took 2-3
minutes. He was told that the girl was at Madhaiyan Khayaliram. Shiv
Singh and Deen Dayal told him at the same time that the girl was in the
hospital. He did not go to the hospital at that time. He reached the
hospital at 6.30 in the morning. He reached the hospital after filing the
report. His wife had come to Etawah at 6.30-7 in the morning and 2-4
women were with her. His daughter already died at that time.
17. In the written report, Ext. Ka-2, there is no mention of burning by
pouring kerosene oil, however, he (PW-1) cannot give any reason for
this. In the written report/ Ext. Ka-2, the names of Prago alias Sunita and
Badri Prasad are not mentioned among those who set the fire, he cannot
give any reason for this. When he went to the police station with his
written report, witness Shiv Singh was not with him. While filling the
Panchayatnama, Harischandra, Vidyaram, he and there may be others too
whose names he does not know, were present. He does not remember
whether his signature was obtained on the Panchayatnama or not. Only
two witnesses Harischandra and Vidyaram from the place where he
lived, were present at the time of Panchayatnama. No one else was from
his place, they must be from Etawah. Chandra Bhan met him in the

9
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
hospital. His hands were burnt, and his face was also burnt. It is wrong
to say that he fabricated this case for blackmailing.
18. At this juncture, Ext. Ka-1 is perused. Ext. Ka-1 is letter dated
29.11.1987, which was written by the deceased to his father i.e.
informant Mahesh Chandra PW-1. In this letter the deceased had stated
nd
that on 2 day after the return of her father from her matrimonial home,
her husband stayed in Shanti Colony and even slept there. The deceased
waited whole night and when her husband did not return in the morning
of next day, then she sent son of his landlord in the office of her
husband, where her husband was present and he returned home in the
evening. She asked her husband that if he has to go anywhere then she
be informed, then he (her husband) stated that who is she to stop him, he
will be visiting daily and will also be sleeping there. Her husband is
daily visiting Shanti colony. She is writing letter at 10 PM and her
husband had yet not returned from Shanti Colony. She even requested
her husband that she be allowed to visit her parental home for a night but
he has bluntly refused.
19. Perusal of this letter clearly reveals that the deceased was much
depressed for the reason that her husband used to visit Shanti Colony
nearly daily and also used to stay there in night. There is not an iota of
inference in this letter that the deceased was being ever harassed on
account of any dowry demand. In this letter the deceased has clearly
written that except above mentioned fact rest everything is alright. It is
thus crystal clear that the deceased had not written any fact regarding
demand of Scooter or cash in lieu thereof. Therefore, as per this letter
dated 29.11.1987, the deceased was not being harassed on account of
any demand of dowry.
20. Smt. Vimla Devi PW-2 is mother of the deceased who in her
examination in chief has stated that she had performed marriage of her
daughter Munni Devi with accused Chandra Bhan. Sunita is sister-in-law
(Jethani) of her daughter. Accused Jairam is brother-in-law (Jeth) of her

10
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
daughter. Her daughter was burnt to death in her in-laws house. She
(deceased) was married 8-9 months before this incident. When her
daughter Munni Devi came to their house then she told her that her in-
laws used to beat her and were demanding a Scooter. She (deceased)
further told that if they cannot give a Scooter then accused were
demanding Rs. 10,000/- in cash. We could not fulfill their demand. At
the time of incident, accused Chandra Bhan, Jairam and Sunita were
residing with her daughter in one common house.
21. In her cross examination PW-2 stated that one man from Etawah
came at her house at 11pm, who told that her daughter had been burnt to
death. Said person also told that Jairam, Chandra Bhan, Badri Prasad and
Sunita had burnt her daughter. It was also told that her daughter was
burnt at 5:00 pm by pouring kerosene oil on her. It was also informed
that her daughter was admitted in the hospital. She does not know who
went to Etawah on this information because she was ill. She was
suffering from fever and was feeling extreme weakness for the last 5-6
days. She was very weak and her fever returned for 4-6 days. Her
husband told everything after returning. She stayed at her house and
continued her treatment. Her husband returned after 2 days from Etawah.
Whenever her daughter came to their house, she used to tell her that
accused Chandra Bhan mostly stayed with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and
sleeps there and rarely sleeps with her (deceased). Her daughter was
absolutely convinced that her husband was having illicit relation with
her sister-in-law Sunita. Her daughter used to tell this fact whenever she
came to their house and also used to write the same to her. Sister-in-law
(Bhabhi of accused Chandra Bhan) was living in Shanti Colony with her
children and also sleeps at the same place, where Chandra Bhan also
used to sleep there.
22. PW-1 stated that his wife come to Etawah at 6:30 – 7:00 am
alongwith 2-4 women. Mother of deceased Smt. Vimla Devi PW-2 in her
deposition has stated that she does not know who went to Etawah on
receiving information that her daughter was burnt at 5am by pouring

11
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
kerosene oil on her. She further stated that she was suffering from fever
and remained at her house and continued her treatment, her husband
returned after 2 days from Etawah. Thus it is clear that PW-2 had not
gone to Etawah.
23. From the deposition of this witness it is clear that the deceased was
convinced that her husband (appellant Chandra Bhan) was having illicit
relation with his sister-in-law/ Bhabhi Sunita and the deceased used to
tell this fact whenever she visited her parental home. The letter dated
29.11.1987 further corroborates this part of deposition of this witness,
however except a general and vague allegation regarding demand of
Scooter or Rs. 10,000/- in cash and beating the deceased for this
demand, no specific instance of cruelty has been narrated by this witness
in her whole deposition.
24. Head constable Bhola Prasad PW-3 is a formal witness, who was
scribe of the FIR of Case Crime No. 101 of 1988, who on oath has stated
that he recorded FIR (Ext. Ka-3). He also made an entry of FIR in GD
No. 12 at 5:45 am on 1.3.1988, which GD entry has been proved by this
witness as Ext. Ka-4.
25. Dr. S.C. Gupta, Medical Officer, District Hospital Etawah has been
examined as PW-4. This witness in his deposition has stated that he
examined Smt. Munni Devi wife of Chandra Bhan in Sadar hospital,
Etawah and found that she was fit to give her dying declaration. He gave
a certificate to this effect before recording her dying declaration, which
certificate has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-5. The victim
remained fully consciousness during her statement and he gave a
certificate to this effect at the end of dying declaration which certificate
has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-6. This witness also
confirmed that aforesaid declaration bears thumb impression of the
victim Munni Devi. In his cross examination this witness has stated that
during victim’s statement, her words were coming clearly. Victim’s
condition was serious at the time of recording of her statement. He

12
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
cannot tell whether she was dying or not because a person who has been
burnt 99% can die any time. He denied the suggestions that the victim
was not fit for giving dying declaration.
26. Udaiveer Singh PW-5 in his deposition has stated that on 01.03.1988
he was posted as Tehsildar, Etawah. On the said day he received
information in night from police petrol jeep that dying declaration of
Munni Devi wife of Chandra Bhan is to be recorded in Sadar hospital,
Etawah. He arrived there and contacted duty doctor who declared Smt.
Munni Devi as mentally fit to give dying declaration.
Thereafter, he recorded the dying declaration of the victim by asking her
a question regarding her burning. Whatever was stated by Munni Devi
he recorded the same as dying declaration of the victim. After recording
her statement in his own handwriting and signature he took thumb
impression of the victim. The victim told her that her sister-in-law
(Jethani) and brother-in-law (Jeth) and Chandra Bhan have burnt her
yesterday evening after pouring kerosene oil over her. At that time it was
about 6:00 pm. Chandra Bhan used to stay 3 days with his sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) and one day at their house. Her sister-in-law (Jethani) is a
widow. After recording the aforesaid statement he narrated the same to
the victim and got her thumb impression. He proved the dying
declaration as Ext. Ka-7. In his cross examination he has stated that the
victim was extensively burnt. Victim was in dying state but was speaking
and her words were clear and audible. She was not speaking like a
healthy person. Whatever she uttered, he wrote the same. He denied the
defense suggestion that the dying declaration of the victim was recorded
after her death on the direction of one leader Ram Nath.
27. Dying declaration (Ext. Ka-7) of the deceased is reproduced
verbatim herein-below:-
“ eqUuh nsoh iRuh pUnzHkku mez 22 o"kZ fuoklh esMS;k [k;kyhjke us vkt ftyk
fpfdRlky; es ejuklUu voLFkk es c;ku fn;k fd eq>s esjh tsBkuh lquhrk o
tsB tSjke o pUnzHkku us dy “kke dks ikap yhVj eVzVh dk rsy esjs Åij

13
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
fNMd dj tyk fn;k gS ml le; djhc 6 cts “kke FkhA pUnzHkku rhu HkkStkbZ
ds lkFk o ,d fnu ?kj ij jgrk FkkA esjh tsBkuh fo/kok gSA ”
English translation of aforesaid dying declaration is as under:-
“Munni Devi, wife of Chandrabhan, 22 years old, resident of Madiya
Khayali Ram, stated today in dying state at the District Hospital that her
sister-in-law (Jethani), Sunita and brother-in-law (Jeth) Jairam and
Chandrabhan, poured five liters of kerosene oil on her and burnt her
yesterday evening. It was around 6 p.m. Chandra Bhan with his sister-in-
law (Bhabhi) 3 and 1 day resided at his house. Her sister-in-law
(Jethani), Sunita, is a widow.”
28. Dr. S.K. Srivastava PW-6 is autopsy surgeon who has conducted the
post mortem examination of the deceased Munni Devi on 1.3.1988.
Victim died in District Hospital at 5:10 am on 1.3.1988 as per hospital
records. On external examination body of the deceased was average
built, abdomen slightly distended, knee and elbow flexed. He found
following ante mortem injuries on her person:
“99% burn injuries over the body, first to third degree, sparing
both soles and back of right leg, lower 1/3rd scalp hair of private
parts and of body were found burnt and blackened. Black particles
stickes on finger. Line of redness and of vesication seen.”
“On internal examination, membrane of brain, larynx, trachea
lungs were found congested, dark blood was found on the cut of
lungs, abdomen and urine bladder were found empty. Cause of
death was due to shock as a result of ante mortem injuries.”
In cross examination this witness has stated that the deceased
could have spoken after burning and before her death and she also could
not speak.

14
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
29. Dr. P.K. Srivastava, PW-7 in his deposition has stated that on
29.2.1988, he was posted as surgeon in District Hospital, Etawah and
was on emergency duty. On that day at 6:45 pm he medico legally
examined Munni Devi wife of Chandra Bhan who was brought by her
husband. He noted following injuries on her person, “deep to superficial
thermal burns on face, neck, both upper limbs, chest, abdomen, back,
both lower limbs, burnt area in total was around 90%, general condition
was poor, pulse 102 per minute, R/R 22 per minute, dehydrated, urine
not passed, no vomiting, police informed for necessary action and for
dying declaration. “Victim was admitted and her treatment was started,
referred to surgeon, cut open done.” In his opinion, said burns were deep
to superficial burns about 90%. He proved the injury report as Ext. Ka-9.
Thumb impression of Munni Devi was also taken on original register.
The said memo sent by Dr. P.K. Srivastava was received at P.S. Kotwali
Etawah and entry of same was made in GD No. 54 at 7pm on 29.2.1988.
The aforesaid GD has been proved by constable clerk Raj Kumar PW-10
as Ext. Ka-23 and on the same day, one memo regarding burnt condition
of accused Chandra Bhan was also received at Police Station at 7:25 pm
and entry of same was also made in GD which has been proved as Ext.
Ka-24.
30. In his cross examination, PW-7 has stated that he also examined
injuries of accused Chandra Bhan on that day at 7:00 pm and noted
“deep to superficial thermal burns on part of face, part of right knee
joint, part of dorsum of left foot and part of left hand, total area of burn
injuries was about 15%”. In his opinion, his (accused Chandra Bhan)
burn injuries was around 15% thermal burn. He has proved the injury
report as Ext. Kh-1. He also stated that Chandra Bhan could have
sustained these injuries while saving or while pushing, his part of left
and right hand was burnt.
nd
31. Deputy Commandant Prem Prakash PW-8 was 2 IO who in his
deposition has stated that he took over the investigation himself on
10.3.1988 as he was posted at that time as CO City for the reason that it

15
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
was dowry death. After recording post mortem report in the case diary he
searched for other accused, however, they could not be traced, he also
recorded discharge slip of accused Chandra Bhan in case diary. He
recorded statement of constable who brought the dead body as well as
statement of witnesses of inquest. He also recorded dying declaration of
the deceased Munni Devi in case diary. Remaining accused could not be
traced, therefore, he concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet
against the accused Chandra Bhan and Jairam. He proved charge-sheet
filed against these accused as Ext. Ka-10 and 11. In his cross
examination this witness has stated that accused Chandra Bhan was
discharged from hospital on 15.3.1988 as per his discharge slip.
st
32. Sub Inspector Sukhbir Singh PW-9 was 1 IO who received
investigation of this case on 1.3.1988. He inspected the spot and
prepared site plan which has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-12.
He prepared recovery memo which has been proved by this witness as
Ext. Ka-13. He proved 2 quilts as material Ext. 1 and 2, 5 liter cane of
kerosene oil with its cover lid and match box as material Ext. 3 and 4.
Recovery memo of quilts has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-13,
recovery memo of 5 liter cane and match box has been proved as Ext.
Ka-14, one red colour Saree and Dhoti as material Ext. 5 and 6 and its
recovery memo as Ext. Ka-15, recovery of one frock of girl having
blackening and stove has been proved by this witness as material Ext. 7
and 8 and its recovery memo as Ext. Ka-16. Thereafter, he recorded
statement of Mahesh Chandra, Shiv Singh, Deen Dayal, Vidyaram
Maurya, Smt. Hardevi, Mohan Lal and others. Accused Chandra Bhan
was admitted in hospital at that time, therefore, he submitted a report for
taking him into police custody and also recorded his statement. He
deposited all recovered items in police Station Kotwali vide GD No. 37
at 3:40 pm on 2.3.1988. He received post mortem report of the deceased
Munni Devi and arrested the accused Badri Prasad. He also recorded
statement of some other persons on 3.3.1988. Thereafter, investigation
was taken over by the Circle Officer. SI Ram Singh also went on the spot
with this witness who conducted the inquest proceedings of the deceased

16
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
Munni Devi. He proved the inquest report in secondary evidence as Ext.
Ka-17, Chalan Nash as Ext. Ka-18, Sample Seal as Ext. Ka-19, Photo
Nash as Ext. Ka-20, Letter to CMO as Ext. Ka-21, by identifying
signature of Sub Inspector Ram Singh. He also proved the report signed
by P.S. Srivastava, the then CO City which was sent to Superintendent,
Copying Centre for recording of dying declaration in secondary evidence
as Ext. Ka-22. In his cross examination this witness has stated that none
of the recovery memos or in the case diary recorded by this witness,
there is mention that there was smell of kerosene oil. He deposited
recovered articles on 2.3.1988 at 3:40 pm. For the delay in depositing the
recovered articles this witness stated that as he recorded statement of
other witnesses, inspected the spot, prepared recovery memos and
thereafter copied the recovery memos in the case diary and that’s why he
could not deposit those articles on 1.3.1988.
33. Constable Raj Kumar Singh PW-10 in his deposition has stated that a
memo from District Hospital, Etawah was received regarding recording
of dying declaration of Munni Devi. He made an entry of same in GD
No. 54 at 7pm on 29.2.1988. He proved aforesaid GD as Ext. Ka-23. On
that day at 7:25 pm he also received a memo regarding burnt condition
of accused Chandra Bhan. He made an entry of same in GD No. 55
which GD has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-24. On 1.3.1988 at
5:15 am he received a memo from District Hospital Etawah regarding
death of Munni Devi. He made an entry of same in GD No. 11 on
1.3.1988 which GD has been proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-25.
NO DELAYED F.I.R.
34. A perusal of written report (Ext. Ka-2) reveals that the informant
Mehesh Chandra PW-1 received information that his daughter Munni
Devi was burnt on 29.2.1988 and on receiving this information, he came
to the house of in-laws of his daughter, which was situated at Mohalla
Madhaiya Khayaliram, Etawah. The informant Mahesh Chandra PW-1
has affirmed this fact as narrated in his written report, in his oral

17
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
deposition. PW-1 in his cross examination has specifically stated that he
came to Etawah by Jeep and he reached the house of in-laws of his
daughter at 5:20 am, however, it has come in his deposition that he was
informed by a number of persons that his daughter had been killed by
pouring kerosene oil on her, however, he did not go to the hospital
immediately at that time, but reached the hospital at 6:30 am after filing
his report. The informant received information on 29.2.1988 at his
residence and as per his deposition, he arrived at Etawah at 5:20 am on
30.2.1988, however, FIR has been promptly lodged on 1.3.1988 at 5:45
am, meaning thereby that there is no delay in registration of FIR.
Question No. 1.
Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that cruelty or harassment to the deceased was committed in
connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC?.
35. While dealing with an appeal against conviction for dowry death, the
Supreme Court in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine
214, has observed as under:-
"5. Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read thus:
"498-A IPC- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty- however, 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 purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any willful 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.
"304-B IPC- Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances

18
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
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 purpose 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."
6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily
injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry.
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a
dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be,
shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party
to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either
party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage
or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or
before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the
said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 304-B of IPC."
In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court also found that PW-6 has not deposed to
any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the appellant, which was an
essential ingredients of Section 304-B thus, offence was not made out from
the evidence of PW-6.
36. While setting aside the judgment of conviction, it has also been
observed in the above mentioned judgment that the presumption under
Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, will apply when it is established
that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry by the
accused. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution
must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment

19
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death by
the accused. Unless the said burden is discharged by the prosecution, the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be
invoked.
BASIC PROSECUTION STORY
37. The basic prosecution story as it emerges from the written report
(Ext.Ka-2) is that the deceased Munni Devi was being harassed by her
in-laws for additional demand of dowry. In-laws of the deceased were
demanding either Scooter or Rs. 10,000/- and she was being harassed for
non fulfilling this additional demand of dowry. When aforesaid demand
of appellant was not fulfilled then she was burnt to death by pouring
kerosene oil over her.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
38. To prove demand of additional dowry and harassment of deceased on
account of non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, prosecution
has examined informant as PW-1 and his mother as PW-2. We have
carefully perused the statements of informant PW-1 and PW-2, as
referred to in the impugned judgment to find out that whether as per the
depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the necessary ingredients of the charging
Sections are borne out/satisfied or not.
39. The brief prosecution story, as unfolded in the first information
report, is that within 8–9 months of the marriage of deceased with
appellant Chandra Bhan, she was burnt to death on account of non-
fulfillment of demand of scooter or Rs.10,000/- in cash. It has been
specifically stated in the first information report that the informant could
not give scooter in the dowry at the time of marriage, therefore, the
accused-appellant Chandra Bhan and his family members started
harassing the deceased. It has specifically come on record that the
deceased on her visit to her parental home in the month of October, 1987
told the informant regarding this as well as her beating by her in-laws for

20
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
not giving the scooter in the marriage. Thereafter, the informant, on
29.02.1988, received an information regarding her daughter being burnt
by the appellants. However, the informant Mahesh Chand P.W.1 has
clearly stated in his deposition that his Samdhi i.e. father-in-law of his
daughter had five sons and out of them his son Prabhu Dayal died, who
was working as Supply Inspector. Prabhu Dayal was married to co-
accused Sunita @ Prago and was having three children out of this
wedlock. Co-accused Sunita @ Prago got appointed the accused-
appellant Chandra Bhan in the Supply Office in place of her deceased
husband Prabhu Dayal. The co-accused Sunita @ Prago was residing in
the house of Prabhu Dayal, which was situated in Subhash Colony on
Mainpuri Road. However, son-in-law of the informant namely, Chandra
Bhan was living with his wife (daughter of the informant) in a rented
house in Etawah City and both these house were about a mile apart.
Therefore, it is clear that co-accused Sunita @ Prago was living
separately with her three children and accused-appellant Chandra Bhan
was living separately with his wife i.e. the deceased. P.W.1 has also
clearly stated that demand of scooter or Rs.10,000/- cash and harassment
of her daughter in the shape of beating was told by her daughter to the
informant. Meaning thereby, that none of the accused ever personally
demanded any additional dowry from the informant or his wife and the
informant or his wife had also not seen any incident of harassment or
beating of their daughter at the hands of accused persons. Informant and
his wife in their depositions have also not stated that they ever saw any
mark of injury on the body of their daughter, whenever she visited her
parental home. Therefore, the knowledge of demand of additional dowry
and harassment as per deposition of informant and his wife is based on
the statement of the deceased made to these witnesses in her parental
home.
40. In written report Ext. Ka.-2, the informant (PW-1) has clearly stated
that his daughter lastly visited him in the month of October, 1987 when
she narrated about her torture and harassment on account of non-
fulfillment of demand of scooter or Rs.10,000/-, else she will face dire

21
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
consequences. However, no report whatsoever was lodged by either the
informant or her daughter regarding this. Even no complaint whatsoever
was made by them in this regard. There is no evidence given by this
witness (PW-1) that after the month of October, 1987 to the date of death
of her daughter i.e. 01.03.1988 the deceased ever informed him again
regarding her continuous harassment on account of aforesaid demand of
scooter or cash. Surprisingly, the informant P.W.1 has proved a letter
dated 29.11.1987 as Ext. Ka.-1, which was written by the deceased to the
informant and the aforesaid letter was written after the month of
October, 1987 and in Ext. Ka.-1, there is no mention whatsoever
regarding any demand of dowry or demand of scooter or cash in lieu
thereof. The aforesaid letter Ext. Ka.-1 actually belies the very basic
prosecution story put forth by the informant by way of his written
report / tehrir Ext. Ka.-2. In Ext. Ka.-1 it is specifically stated by the
deceased that her husband accused-appellant Chandra Bhan used to
regularly visit the house of co-accused Sunita @ Prago and he also used
to stay at nights at her residence and this was the reason that the
deceased was much depressed. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that
it was the co-accused Sunita, who got appointed accused-appellant
Chandra Bhan in place of her deceased husband Prabhu Dayal.
Therefore, it was not only the moral duty of the accused-appellant
Chandra Bhan but was also his social and statutory obligation to
maintain the family members of his brother late Prabhu Dayal including
Prabhu Dayal’s wife Sunita and their three minor children, because he
got appointment in place of his deceased brother Prabhu Dayal in dying
in harness. The deceased was annoyed because of her husband’s
maintaining / taking care of the wife and children of his late brother
Prabhu Dayal.
41. Informant (PW-1), in his cross-examination, has clearly stated that
there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. It is also clear
that there was no demand of dowry even prior to marriage. The
informant has clearly admitted when his daughter sent him letter, but in
none of her letters there was ever mention of demand of Scooter. The

22
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
informant also fairly conceded that accused-appellant Chandra Bhan also
sent a letter to his daughter that his daughter was residing at his
residence, but there was no demand for a scooter or money or a watch in
the said letter by Chandra Bhan. Thus, there is no mention of demand of
Scooter or anything else in the letters written by the daughter of
informant.
42. The mother of deceased Smt. Vimla Devi P.W.2 in her deposition has
although stated that in-laws of her daughter used to beat her and were
demanding a scooter or cash of Rs.10,000/- in lieu thereof. However, in
her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that whenever her daughter
came to their house, she (the deceased) used to tell her that accused
Chandra Bhan mostly stayed with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and sleeps
there and rarely sleeps with her. She further stated that her daughter was
absolutely convinced that her husband was having illicit relations with
her sister-in-law (bhabhi) Sunita. She further stated that her daughter
used to tell this fact whenever she came to her house and also used to
write the same to her. The aforesaid part of deposition of this witness is
strengthened by the letter dated 29.11.1987 (Ext.Ka.-1) written by the
deceased to her father.
43. Informant Mahesh Chandra PW-1 and Vimla Devi PW-2 both in their
oral deposition have supported the prosecution version as put-forth in the
written report (Ext. Ka-2) and have deposed that the accused were
demanding Scooter or Rs. 10,000/- in cash and the deceased was being
harassed and torture for this additional demand of dowry. None of these
witnesses in their deposition have stated that when the deceased told this
specific fact of additional demand of dowry and her (deceased)
harassment on account of this, both these witnesses have not specified
any date, time and place of last alleged harassment and even no specific
instance of harassment or cruelty to their daughter Munni Devi has been
narrated by these witnesses in their oral deposition. Notwithstanding of
the fact that the death occurred within a year of the marriage of the
appellant alongwith the deceased, there is no evidence to indicate that

23
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of the
appellant. For the reason that except for a general and vague allegation
that there was a demand for scooter or Rs. 10,000/- as additional dowry
by the appellant and his relatives and harassment of the deceased on
account of this demand, there is not a single instance specifically
attributed to the appellant regarding mental and / or physical harassment
of the deceased on a particular date, time and place. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to bring on record atleast some specific instance
of cruelty or harassment being caused to the deceased in connection with
any demand for dowry. Moreover, none of the appellants has ever
demanded anything directly from these witnesses. Admittedly, there was
no demand of dowry prior to marriage or even at the time of marriage.
The letter written by the deceased to her father Ext. Ka-1 also does not
support this part of the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry.
There is no evidence on record regarding any physical harassment to the
deceased on account of alleged demand of dowry. As the prosecution has
failed to prove any specific instance of cruelty or harassment, therefore,
in our considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
that there was any demand of dowry from the side of appellants, as
alleged by the prosecution, after the marriage of the deceased and before
her death. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the cruelty or harassment to the deceased was
committed in connection with any demand for dowry and Question No.
1 is, therefore, accordingly decided in negative.
Question No. 2
Whether the prosecution could be able to prove it’s case against
the appellant- convict beyond reasonable doubt?.
44. As the prosecution has failed to prove any demand of dowry or
harassment of the deceased on account of non fulfillment of demand of
dowry, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the very basic
ingredients of dowry death, even otherwise the informant and his wife
allegedly got information of harassment of their daughter in the month of

24
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
October, 1987. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1, has explained the phrase “soon
before”. In para 15, 16 and 38.3 which are reproduced herein-below:-
15. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation
would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to
deduce that when the legislature used the words, “soon before” they did not
mean “immediately before”. Rather, they left its determination in the hands of
the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case.
Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical,
verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket
formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exactly the
phrase “soon before” entails.
16. The aforesaid position was emphasised by this Court in Kans Raj v. State
of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
935] , wherein the three-Judge Bench held that : (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15)
“15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to be considered
under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be
laid down by fixing any time-limit. … In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased
are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of
conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. … Proximate
and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand
of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of
death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be
treated as having become stale enough.”
(emphasis supplied)
A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
[Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
225]
38.3. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-B IPC cannot be
construed to mean “immediately before”. The prosecution must establish
existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty
or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
45. Even for the sake of argument if it is presumed that there was any
demand of dowry, then the prosecution has also miserably failed to
prove that the aforesaid demand of dowry was ever made soon before
the death of the deceased, because as per prosecution evidence, the last
knowledge of aforesaid demand of dowry was in the month of October,
1987 whereas the alleged incident had happened on 29.02.1988 and
there is no proximate and live link between death of the deceased and

25
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
cruelty or harassment made for demand of dowry by the appellants.
Thus, it is clear that the alleged harassment, if any, was informed by the
deceased to her parents in the month of October, 1987 and thereafter no
such complaint was made by the deceased to her parents. There is no
evidence on record that the deceased either visited her parents after
October, 1987 or informed her parents after October, 1987 regarding her
continuous harassment on account of additional demand of dowry. We
are therefore, of the opinion that the alleged harassment, if any, was not
having any proximate and live link between death of the deceased and
her harassment for alleged dowry demand as she died on 1.3.1988.
CONDUCT OF APPELLANT
46. It is specific case of surviving appellant Chandra Bhan that on the
fateful day when he returned to his home from the office at 6pm, he saw
his wife burning, he tried to put off the fire by placing the quilts but he
himself got burnt. Thereafter, he has taken his wife to the hospital. A
perusal of the injury report Ext. Ka-9 of the deceased reveals that the
deceased Munni Devi was brought by her husband to the hospital on
29.2.1988 at 6:45 pm, where she was medico legally examined. Dr. P.K.
Srivastava PW-7 has also stated on oath that Munni Devi (deceased) was
brought by her husband Chandra Bhan. A perusal of injury report Ext.
Kh-1 of surviving appellant Chandra Bhan reveals that he was also
medico legally examined at 7pm on 29.2.1988 and he was also found
burnt 15% thus, it was the appellant who brought the deceased to the
hospital and even the appellant himself was in burnt condition at that
time, which is indicative of his conduct whereby he tried to save the life
of his wife Munni Devi.
DYING DECLARATION
47. A perusal of dying declaration of the deceased reveals that she has
not alleged any harassment or her torture on account of demand of
additional dowry at the hands of appellant. She has not even uttered a

26
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
single word regarding any demand of dowry or her harassment on
account of non fulfillment of such demand if any. Her dying declaration
is although brief and precise to the fact that her sister-in-law Sunita,
brother-in-law Jairam and Chandra Bhan have burnt her after pouring
kerosene oil from a 5 liter cane at about 6pm. In her dying declaration
the deceased has stated that Chandra Bhan 3 with his sister-in-law and 1
day resided at his house. She however, stated that her sister-in-law
(Jethani) is a widow. However, the aforesaid portion of her dying
declaration is little bit vague, but it means that the accused Chandra
Bhan used to reside with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) for 3 days and used
to stay at his house for 1 day.
48. In this background the deposition of PW-1 become material. PW-1 in
his examination in chief has not stated anything regarding aforesaid
contents of the dying declaration of his daughter. However, PW-1 in his
deposition has proved a letter (Ext. Ka-1) of his daughter Munni Devi,
which has been carefully perused by us. The aforesaid letter is dated
29.11.1986 which is written by Munni Devi to his father Mahesh
Chandra, there is no allegation regarding either demand of additional
dowry or harassment of Munni Devi on account of non fulfillment of
demand of dowry. However, it is specifically mentioned in this letter that
her husband stayed in Shanti Colony and had not returned to her house.
She waited whole night but her husband had not turned up even in
morning then he sent son of their house owner in the office of her
husband where her husband was found and he returned in the evening.
She stated to her husband that whenever you are going somewhere then
please inform her. On this her husband got excited and said who are you
to stop him, I shall go daily there and will also sleep there. Now he is
daily going in Shanti Colony. This letter reveals that the deceased was
annoyed as her husband (present surviving appellant) used to
continuously stay in Shanti Colony and was not returning to his own
rented house and this fact was the principle bone of contention between
the deceased and her husband. Through this letter (Ext. Ka-1) the
deceased has informed this fact to her father.

27
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
49. Vimla Devi PW-2 in her cross examination has stated that accused
Chandra Bhan mostly stayed with his Bhabhi (sister-in-law) and also
used to sleep there and rarely slept with the deceased and therefore, her
daughter was absolutely convinced that her husband was having illicit
relation with her Bhabhi (sister-in-law Sunita). She however conceded
that her daughter used to tell this fact that whenever she came to their
house and also used to write the same.
50. It is thus clear that there was no demand of dowry as alleged in the
prosecution story. However, the deceased was apprehending illicit
relationship between her husband Chandra Bhan and her husband’s
Bhabhi Sunita. In this background, the dying declaration of the deceased
gains importance. However, the prosecution instead of prosecuting the
accused on account of murder of deceased because of the alleged illicit
relationship put forward a specific story that the deceased was being
harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry.
51. The appellant- accused Chandra Bhan had taken specific stand in his
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that neither he nor his
family members have burnt the deceased. He was in his office and
returned at about 6:00 PM and saw that his wife Munni Devi was
burning. He tried to douse the fire by placing quilt over her (his wife).
He himself got burnt. Thereafter, he took his wife to the hospital. He has
further stated that his Bhabhi (sister-in-law/ co-accused Sunita) gave her
job. Therefore, he used to help her. He denied that he ever slept there.
Accused- appellant Chandra Bhan was injured in the incident and his
injury report has been proved as Ext. Kh-1. Sustaining burn injuries in
the incident, clearly signifies his presence on the spot, which is further
strengthened by his burn injuries. Sustaining burn injuries and taking the
deceased to the hospital cannot itself be a factor for giving any benefit to
the appellant- accused Chandra Bhan. However, it remains relevant fact
to be considered. PW-1 in his cross examination has fairly conceded that
he found Chandra Bhan in the hospital when he arrived, therefore,
accused- appellant Chandra Bhan had not only got admitted his wife to

28
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
the hospital but also remained there and had not fled away. Admittedly,
co-accused Sunita was residing separately, therefore, in the totality of
circumstances, there is great probability that the accused- appellant
actually tried to save his wife and sustained burn injuries and got her
admitted for treatment, where he also met the informant.
52. Both PW-1 and PW-2 while deposing about demand of dowry have
not deposed to any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the
appellant. This is an essential ingredients of Section 304-B and 498-A
IPC which is not made out from their evidence. From the deposition of
PW-1 and PW-2 it can be seen that except for general and vague
statement about demand of Scooter or Rs. 10,000/- cash and physical
harassment in the nature of beating, being inflicted on the deceased by
the appellant, there is not a single instance specifically attributed to the
appellant. Both these witnesses have not deposed about any specific
instance narrated to them by the deceased that could indicate that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment specifically by the
appellant. Their depositions are in general terms without giving any
specific details of any instance of cruelty or harassment meted out to the
deceased. It is one thing to make a demand for dowry and another thing
to inflicted cruelty for dowry. For sustaining the conviction under
Section 304-B IPC, it would be necessary for the prosecution to bring on
record atleast some specific instance of cruelty or harassment being
caused to the women in connection with any demand for dowry that
results in her death occurring otherwise then under normal circumstances
within 7 years of the marriage. Such evidence however is missing in the
present case, even otherwise the alleged narration of demand of dowry
and harassment pertains to October, 1987, however, the present incident
had happened on 29.2.1988. Therefore, the incident, if any, of alleged
demand of dowry and harassment in lieu thereof did not happen soon
before the death. It is not the case of prosecution that the deceased
allegedly visited her parental house a week or 15 days or even a month
before the incident and she complained about any cruelty or any
harassment on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Thus in

29
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
the totality of the circumstances, none of the statement of these two
witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 contained any specific instance of cruelty
or harassment. Resultantly the prosecution failed to prove the material
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Not a
single instance of cruelty covered by Section 498-A IPC was proved by
the prosecution. Therefore, Section 113-B of Evidence Act would not be
applicable. There does not appear to be any nexus between the alleged
demand (although the prosecution has failed to prove the same) and any
specific case of cruelty or harassment of the deceased, which resulted in
her death, therefore, we find that the reasons recorded in the impugned
judgment being against material on record, are perverse and we find that
the ingredients of Section 304-B and 498-A IPC are not made out.
Therefore, Question No. (II) is also answered in the negative.
Whether surviving appellant can be convicted under
Section 302 IPC.
53. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only
under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act, however, charge
against the appellant was framed only under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC,
even no alternative charge under section 302 IPC was framed. As the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand of dowry or
harassment in lieu thereof. When the prosecution has failed to prove the
charge under Section 498-A IPC, presumption under section 113-B of
Evidence Act also does not attract and, therefore, the prosecution has
also miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC..
54. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant-
accused caused dowry death of the deceased. However, at this juncture,
dying declaration of the deceased is again carefully perused with the
objective that whether the appellant- accused can be convicted under
Section 302 IPC or not. The dying declaration of the deceased is
categorically clear that the appellant- accused poured 05 liters kerosene
oil on the deceased and burnt her. However, Section 302 IPC is graver

30
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
section than 304-B IPC. The appellant- accused were not tried under
Section 302 IPC. Even no question has been put to the appellant-
accused regarding commission of murder of the deceased by pouring
kerosene oil on her and thereafter burning her in his statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
55. The expression “minor offence” found in Section 222 is not defined
under the Code, it can be discerned from the context which is not merely
that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. In other
words, if the two offences are cognate offences and the main ingredients
are common, the offence punishable with lesser sentence can be
considered as a minor offence with reference to the other offence. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka,
(2001) 2 SCC 577 has held as under:-
“16. What is meant by “a minor offence” for the purpose of Section 222
of the Code? Although the said expression is not defined in the Code it
can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not
merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. The
two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point
home well. Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the
main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a
lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the other
offence.
17. The composition of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is vastly
different from the formation of the offence of murder under Section 302
IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis
the latter. However, the position would be different when the charge also
contains the offence under Section 498-A IPC (husband or relative of
husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty). As the word “cruelty” is
explained as including, inter alia, “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”.
56. Section 222(1) of the Code deals with a case where a person is
charged with an offence consisting of several particulars. The Section
permits the Court to convict the accused of the minor offence though he
was not charged with it. Sub section (2) deals with a similar, but slightly
different situation. When a person is charged with an offence and facts
are proved which reduces it to a minor offence he may be convicted of

31
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
the minor offence although he is not charged with it. As noticed
hereinabove, the expression “minor offence” is not defined under the
Code. Punishment prescribed under Section 302 IPC is death or life
imprisonment, whereas punishment thereafter under Section 304-B IPC
is not less than seven years, but may extend to life imprisonment,
therefore, when Section 304-B is compared with Section 302 it would
clearly indicate that they are separate and distinct offences and by no
stretch of imagination can be construed as cognate offences and
moreover punishment prescribed under Section 302 IPC is more
stringent than 304-B IPC.
57. In the present case admittedly the appellant- accused Chandra Bhan
and co-accused Sunita were living separately. It has been specifically
averred by the deceased that the appellant and other two co-accused
poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter she was burnt, but it has
clearly come in the prosecution evidence that the deceased was
perturbed on account of appellant- accused Chandra Bhan maintaining
the family of co-accused Sunita for the reasons that he (Chandra Bhan)
got government job in place of deceased husband of co-accused Sunita,
who was his elder brother. The deceased in her letter dated 29.11.1987
i.e. Ext. Ka-1 and PW-2 in her oral deposition have clearly stated that the
appellant-accused Chandra Bhan used to reside at the residence of co-
accused Sunita and even used to stay in nights. In this background, we
have carefully perused the oral as well as documentary medical evidence
which clearly indicates that it was the appellant – accused Chandra Bhan
who brought her wife (deceased) to the hospital and he had actually
sustained burn injuries in this incident. We have already come to its
conclusion that there is greater possibility of appellant- accused Chandra
Bhan trying to save his wife on seeing her burning, when he returned at
his home after office hours at about 6:00 pm. It has come on record that
the accused sustained burn injuries and had brought the deceased to the
hospital in an injured (burnt) condition. It has also come on record that
the informant PW-1 met the appellant- accused Chandra Bhan in the
hospital, who had not fled away from the hospital even after admitting

32
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
his wife. There is no other ante-mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased except burn injuries which could have been indicative of the
fact of physical harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant
prior to her death. The prosecution has also failed to prove that all the
accused named in the FIR were residing together under one roof. There
is no explanation from the side of prosecution regarding burn injuries so
sustained by the appellant- accused Chandra Bhan in the incident.
58. Therefore, we are of the opinion that even the dying declaration is
not free from doubts. Thus in the present case even the surviving
appellant could not be convicted only on the strength of the dying
declaration. Moreover, no charge has been framed under Section 302
IPC and incident pertains to the year 1988, therefore, it is also not
appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court for re-
trial of the appellant after framing appropriate charges. Resultantly, this
criminal appeal is liable to be allowed.
59. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.1989 passed by Ist
Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1988
(State Vs. Chandra Bhan) connected with Session Trial No. 256 of 1988
(State vs. Jai Ram) arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 1988, under
Sections 302 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station- Kotwali, District Etawah is liable to be set aside.
60. Before parting with the judgment we would like to say few words
regarding proper investigation of dowry death cases as well as framing
of appropriate charges in such cases. The dying declaration of the victim
was clear to the extent that it was a case of homicide, however to the
utter surprise, the then Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet
only under Section 304-B IPC even without perusal of the contents of
the dying declaration of the deceased. It clearly reflects not only lack of
knowledge on the part of Investigating Officer but also is indicative of
his failure to perform statutory duties regarding fair investigation.
Moreover, the then Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court was also

33
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
required to be more careful while framing charges. If he (the then
Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court) would have been a little
vigilant and had gone through the dying declaration of the victim, he
must have framed the main charge under Section 302 IPC and thereafter
would have framed alternative charge under Section 304-B IPC. On
account of failure of both i.e. the then Investigating Officer and the then
Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court, no charge could have been
framed under Section 302 IPC and we have not referred back the matter
to the learned trial Court for re-trial of the appellant after framing
appropriate charges for the reasons that incident pertains to the year
1988. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the trial
Courts to frame appropriate charges in cases of dowry death. In such
cases, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officers during course
of investigation should be carefully gone through at the time of framing
of charge and if there is evidence either direct or circumstantial to prima
facie support a charge under Section 302 IPC, the trial Courts are duty
bound to frame charge under Section 302 IPC and also frame an
alternative charge under Section 304-B IPC. Addition of Section 302
IPC should not be mechanical and it should be framed if the evidence
collected during course of investigation support framing of charge under
Section 302 IPC. It is also important to observe here that the charge
under Section 302 IPC should be the main charge rather than an
alternative charge. The cases like the present one, clearly signifies the
commission of homicide and, therefore, in such cases, framing of main
charge under Section 302 IPC is inevitable. We hope and trust that the
trial Courts shall frame appropriate charges in cases relating to dowry
death. A copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all Judicial
Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh through Registrar (compliance).
61. Consequently, this appeal for surviving appellant, Chandra Bhan, is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 04.10.1989 passed by Ist
Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1988
(State Vs. Chandra Bhan) arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 1988,

34
CRLA No. - 2062 of 1989
under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station- Kotwali, District Etawah for the surviving appellant,
Chandra Bhan, is hereby set aside. The surviving appellant, Chandra
Bhan, is acquitted of all the charges for which he has been tried. The
surviving appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, he need not
surrender subject to compliance of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned at the earliest. His bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
62. Original record has not been sent by the trial Court. Therefore,
photostat copy of the record of the ‘Trial Court’ be retained and a copy
of this judgment be immediately sent back to learned trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
July 13, 2026
Dhirendra/
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad