Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1088 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Devi Lal
RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. In the year 1991, Appellant married Pushpa Devi, the deceased. A
male child was born to them.
2. At the time of marriage, father of Pushpa, Hazari Ram, allegedly,
spent a lot of money. Appellant\022s family, however, was not happy with the
dowry given by the bride side. Pushpa was allegedly tortured and
continuously harassed. She had, however, no grievance against her father in
law, namely, Ram Swaroop. He had all along been assuring Pushpa and her
parents that he would do his best to see that she is not harassed for not
bringing enough dowry.
3. After the birth of the child, she came back to her matrimonial home.
A few days prior to the incident which took place on 9.5.1994 her uncle
Ranveer (PW-2) visited her. She made complaints about the harassments
meted out to her. Ranveer conveyed the same to her father. On 9.5.1994,
his nephew, Madan Lal (PW-7) was going to some place. Hazari Ram asked
him to take him to his daughter\022s place. On reaching the house of Pushpa,
he enquired about her. No response thereto was made but later on he was
informed that she had died and the dead body has been cremated. Hazari
Ram allegedly came back to his village. He went back to Umawali. A
Panchayat was held. Appellant\022s family accepted the purported mistake that
they should have informed Hazari Ram about the death of his daughter. It
was agreed that some lands would be settled in the name of the son of
Pushpa.
4. On 9.5.1994, a first information report was lodged by Hazari Ram. It
appears from the records that investigating agency had been helping the
accused. A purported supplementary statement of Hazari Ram was recorded
wherein he had allegedly accepted that he was present at the time of funeral.
A final form was submitted. However, a protest petition was filed
whereupon cognizance of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (Code) was taken. Charges were framed under Section 304B of
the Code and in the alternative under Section 306 read with Section 498A
thereof. The Trial Court convicted both the accused, namely, Devi Lal and
his mother Sukh Devi.
5. An appeal having been preferred by the accused thereagainst before
the High Court, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed; but that of Sukh
Devi was allowed.
6. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the High Court committed an error in passing
the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that no
demand of dowry was made in respect of any specific item. It was urged
that the prosecution has also not proved as to whether the purported
harassment meted out to the deceased was as a result of demand of dowry or
not. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, whereupon reliance has been
placed by learned Trial Judge as also the High Court, Mr. Parekh would
contend, is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
7. Mr. Naveen Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
Rajasthan, on the other hand, submitted that from the deposition of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
prosecution witnesses, it would be evident that all the ingredients of Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code have been proved.
8. Defence of the accused before the learned Trial Judge was that as
Pushpa Devi delivered a child, the societal norms by way of custom
demanded that the occasion be celebrated by offering gifts and distributing
sweets, meal etc. by the maternal grand-father of the child. It was pointed
out that almost at the same time, elder brother Banwari Lal\022s wife also
delivered a child and there was a big celebration. Pushpa wanted his father
to celebrate the function of her son in a similar manner. But the same was
not done. She not only came back from her parents\022 house but after a few
days committed suicide. It was furthermore the case of the defence that
Hazari Ram was informed about the death of his daughter through one Nand
Ram, pursuant whereto, he attended the funeral. Prior thereto, a village
panchayat was held and he was informed about his right to lodge a first
information report but he declined to do so as a representation was made that
some land would be transferred in the name of the child.
9. The fact that death of Pushpa took place within the period of seven
years from the date of marriage is not in dispute. Unnatural death of Pushpa
is also not in dispute.
10. Hazari Ram examined himself as PW-1. According to him, he gave to
his daughter at the time of her marriage articles beyond his capacity, but the
family members of the appellant were not pleased with the amount of dowry
given and, therefore, they used to harass Pushpa. According to him, Ram
Swaroop, father of the appellant, was a gentleman and he had all along been
assuring him that they would try to make the appellant and his mother
understand but they had not been heeding his advice. He categorically stated
that even after the delivery of child, Pushpa asked him to call his father-in-
law so that would be pleased. She had also asked him to give some gifts to
him. Ram Swaroop came to his place and took his daughter-in-law back.
He stated that whenever he would go to his daughter-in-law\022s house, Ram
Swaroop used to assure him with folded hands that he would make Devi Lal
and his mother understand. Five to seven days prior to the death of his
daughter, his brother Ranveer had gone to meet her. He had informed him
about the beating and harassment to his daughter and that he was asked to
visit his daughter\022s place. He, in his examination-in-chief, supported the
statement made by him in his first information report.
11. We may notice that Ranveer (PW-2) in his deposition before the
learned Trial Judge, stated :
\023My brother had given a good dowry and articles
to his daughter according to capacity. Thereafter,
whenever, the girl returned back to her parent\022s
house from her in-law\022s house, she told to us that
my in-laws persons are not happy with the articles
of this dowry and trouble me. Later on, I along
with my brother went to Umewali and said that do
not trouble and harass her. As possible, we will
give continuously more dowry. My brother told
me to meet my niece. I went to meet the girl prior
to 5-7 days of death of her. When I went to meet,
the girl started to weeping and said that they
trouble and harass to me. I returned back after
advised to her. I narrated this to my brother that
they (in-laws persons) trouble and harass to the
girl, taking the issue of dowry.\024
12. PW-7, Madan Lal, was the nephew of Hazari Ram. He took Hazari
Ram to the village Umewala on 9th May, 1994. After visiting the house of
his daughter, Hazari Ram came back and told him \023they have murdered to
pushpa (sic) and cremated\024.
13. We need not notice the deposition of other witnesses who had turned
hostile.
14. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. According
to them, Hazari Ram when asked by the elders of the village as to whether
he had any doubt on any person as regards the death of Pushpa or whether he
intended to inform the Police, answered in the negative stating that he would
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
not take recourse thereto. The said witnesses, however, accepted that they
had come to depose in court only at the instance of the appellant.
15. It is significant to note that even in the first information report, Hazari
Ram categorically stated that no assistance had been rendered to him by the
villagers.
16. Two courts have concurrently accepted the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have
been relied on for arriving at the finding of guilt of the appellant. We do not
see any reason to take a different view.
17. The core question which has been raised for our consideration in this
appeal is as to whether a case had been made out for application of Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act (the Act).
18. The Parliament by Act No.46 of 1983 and Act No.43 of 1986 inserted
Sections 113A and 113B in the Act. They read as under :
\023113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide
by a married woman.\027When 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).
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.\027When
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).\024
19. Section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and
306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof.
Whereas in terms of Section 113A of the Act, the prosecution is required to
prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in terms of Section 113B,
the prosecution must prove that the deceased was \023subject by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry\024.
20. The question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are :
(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or
in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within
7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4)
such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand
of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was
made soon before her death. {See Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006) 1
SCC 463]; Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar [(2006) 10 SCC 115]}
21. In T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through SHO, Pondicherry [(2006) 9
SCC 467], this Court held :
\023It is now well settled in view of a catena of
decisions of this Court that what would constitute
\023soon before her death\024 depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.\024
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
22. Distinction between Section 113A and 113B was noticed by the Court
in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab [(2001) 8 SCC 633], stating :
\023No doubt, Section 306 IPC read with Section
113-A of the Evidence Act is wide enough to take
care of an offence under Section 304-B also. But
the latter is made a more serious offence by
providing a much higher sentence and also by
imposing a minimum period of imprisonment as
the sentence. In other words, if death occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within
7 years of the marriage as a sequel to the cruelty or
harassment inflicted on a woman with demand of
dowry, soon before her death, Parliament intended
such a case to be treated as a very serious offence
punishable even up to imprisonment for life in
appropriate cases. It is for the said purpose that
such cases are separated from the general category
provided under Section 306 IPC (read with Section
113-A of the Evidence Act) and made a separate
offence.\024
23. In Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257], this Court held:
\02313. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not
arise by operation of law merely on proof of the
circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the
Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the
Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to
establish that the woman concerned committed
suicide within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage and that her husband (in this
case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these
facts are established the court is not bound to
presume that the suicide had been abetted by her
husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the
court to raise such a presumption, having regard to
all the other circumstances of the case, which
means that where the allegation is of cruelty it
must consider the nature of cruelty to which the
woman was subjected, having regard to the
meaning of the word \023cruelty\024 in Section 498-A
IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed
suicide within seven years of her marriage and that
she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband,
does not automatically give rise to the presumption
that the suicide had been abetted by her husband.
The court is required to look into all the other
circumstances of the case. One of the
circumstances which has to be considered by the
court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such
nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health of the woman.\024
24. Submissions of Mr. Hegde that as Hazari Ram (PW-1) in his
deposition did not categorically state that Pushpa was subjected to
harassment for and in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her
death, no case for convicting the appellant under Section 304-B has been
made out.
25. Indisputably, before an accused is found guilty for commission of an
offence, the Court must arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
been established. The statement of a witness for the said purpose must be
read in its entirety. It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in
consonance with the wording of the section of a statute. What is needed is
to find out as to whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the
ingredients thereof.
25. Evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that
Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the
ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage.
For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular
item should have been made.
27. Evidence of Hazari Ram (PW-1) and his brother Ranveer (PW-2) go a
long a way to establish the ingredients of offence. Reading their testimonies
in their entirety, we have no doubt in our mind that the harassment and
cruelty meted out to Pushpa was for and in connection with the demand of
dowry. Demand of dowry did not abate at any point of time. Demands were
made both before and after the birth of the son. A plain reading of the
deposition of Hazari Ram (PW-1) would categorically show that Pushpa\022s
father-in-law, Ram Swaroop had all along been apologetic. He persuaded
the appellant and his mother not to insist for dowry or at least not harass her
therefor. He, however, did not succeed in his efforts. Sentimental
attachment of Pushpa to her father-in-law becomes apparent when we find
that after giving birth to a male child she requested her father to invite him
and give him some gifts so that he would be pleased.
28. It is not one of those cases, where omnibus allegations have been
made against the members of the family. First information report was
lodged against the accused persons only. Nobody else was implicated.
Hazari Ram (PW-1) has been categorical in stating that Pushpa\022s father-in-
law was a gentleman. His effort to persuade his wife and son not to harass
Pushpa might not have ultimately succeeded but his attempt in that behalf
was appreciated by him (PW-1) and other members of his family with
gratitude. It is, therefore, cannot be said to be a case where Hazari Ram
(PW-1) has falsely implicated anybody. His evidence was supported in
material particulars by his brother Ranveer (PW-2). The very fact that
harassment or cruelty on Pushpa did not abate even after her coming back to
the matrimonial home with a son and the fact that she had been assaulted
even a few days prior to the incident, in our opinion, tests of Section 304-B
of the Indian Penal Code stood satisfied. Ranveer (PW-2) informed his
brother, Hazari Ram (PW-1), about the harassment meted out to Pushpa. He
was asked to go there. He went there to find his daughter dead; her
cremation having already taken place.
29. Learned Trial Judge, as also the High Court commented upon the
manner in which the Police made all efforts to help the accused. The
investigating officer purported to have recorded a supplementary statement
of Hazari Ram (PW-1) which, according to the learned Trial Judge, was not
at all necessary. Recording of the said supplementary statement has been
disbelieved by the courts below.
30. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case has been
made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.