BHOLA RAMversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                    [2013] 12 S.C.R. 573


                        BHOLA RAM                                  A
                              v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2008)

                   NOVEMBER 11, 2013
                                                                   B
            [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND
                MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048 & 498A - Sister-in-law of
appellant committed suicide within few years of marriage -         C
Allegations of dowry death - Conviction of appellant -
Justification - Held: Not justified - Appellant deserves
acquittal since no evidence inculpating him - No definite
allegation made by any of the witnesses including PW-2
(deceased's father) or anybody from his family that appellant      D
had demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in
his family or had treated the deceased with cruelty or in a
humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry
death - Appellant may have been a silent or a passively
conniving participant, but nothing on record to suggest that       E
he had either actively made such a demand or that the
demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his benefit
either directly or indirectly - Presumption available u/s. 113-
B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude that deceased's
death was a dowry death cannot be stretched to implicate all       F
and sundry in the family of deceased's husband in demanding
additional dowry from deceased's family and harassing her
and treating her with such cruelty that she had to resort to
taking her life - Mere fact that all family members of the
deceased's husband were living together, did not alter the         G
factual situation - In absence of the prosecution proving the
ingredients of s.304-B, initial burden cast on it not discharged
- Therefore, presumption uls. 113-B of the Evidence Act


                              573                                  H
    574       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A cannot be attracted -· Appellant acquitted - Evidence Act,
    1872 - s.1138.

      The sister-in-law of the appellant committed suicide
  by consuming poison within few years of marriage. The
8 appellant .was convicted by both the Trial Court and the
  High Court urider Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC for
  causing dowry death, and there fore the instant appeal.

       It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in fact
  there was no specific allegation against him; that the
C statements of all the witnesses were omnibus or generic
  in nature; and that in the absence of any particular
  allegation, demands for dowry made by the deceased's
  husband cannot be attributed to the appellant and under
  these circumstances, there was really no evidence to
D uphold his conviction.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The Sessions Judge found that there was
  no evidence that the sister-in-law and the other brother-
E in-law of the deceased made demands for additional
  dowry from PW-2, the deceased's father. Accordingly,
  they were acquitted at the trial stage itself. Therefore, the
  segregation process, based on the evidence on record,
  had begun at the trial stage. This is clearly because in a
F dowry death, some actors play an active role while
  others play a passive role. Consequently, to sustain the
  conviction of the appellant, there must be some
  suggestive evidence and not generic evidence
  implicating him in the demand for additional dowry from
G PW-2. [Para 22) [582-G-H; 583-A-B]
          Law Commission of India (LC/) in its 91 st Report of 10th
    August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) - referred to.

          2. So far as this case is concerned, no definite
H
         BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     575


allegation has been made by any of the witnesses                  A
including PW-2 or anybody from his family that the
appellant had demanded any additional dowry from him
or anybody in his family or had treated the deceased with
cruelty or in a humiliating manner so as to make him
complicit in the dowry death. It is true that there was a         B
demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/- which was paid by PW-
2 by borrowing this amount from PW1, but that demand
was for the purchase of a car for use by the deceased's
 husband. Under the circumstances, it can safely be
 presumed that the deceased's husband made the                    C
 demand for additional dowry for his benefit. The appellant
 may have been a silent or a passively conniving
 participant, but there is nothing on record to suggest that
 he had either actively made such a demand or that the
 demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his                D
 benefit either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the evidence
 on record does not show that the demand of another
 amount of Rs.30,000/- from PW1 just a fortnight before
 the deceased took her life was made by the appellant to
 purchase articles for the service station being set up by        E
 him and the deceased's husband. At best, it could be said
 that this amount was intended for use for the joint
 business venture of the appellant and the deceased's
 husband. Given that the earlier demand for additional
 dowry was made for the benefit of the deceased's                 F
 husband, it is more than likely that this demand was also
 made by him. In any event, there is again nothing to
 suggest that the appellant was in any manner actively
 concerned in making the demand directly or indirectly
 from PW2. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest
 any active complicity of the appellant in demanding any          G
 additional dowry from PW2 either for himself or for the
  deceased's husband or his proposed business venture.
  [Paras 25, 27, 28 & 29) [583-H; 584-A-B, G-H; 585-A-D]

     3. Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to         H
    576       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A bring about a conviction under Section 304-8 of the IPC. A
  dowry death victim should also have been treated with
  cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or a
  relative. In this case, even assuming the silent or conniving
  participation of the appellant in the demands for dowry,
B there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that
  he actively or passively treated deceased with cruelty or
  harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High
  Court, unfortunately, did not advert to this ingredient of an
  offence punishable under Section 304-8 of the IPC or even
c considered it. [Para 30] [585-E-G]
          Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 2007: 2000
    (3) SCR 662 - relied on.

         4. The High Court has relied on the presumption
D   available under Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act, 1872
    to conclude that deceased's death was a dowry death.
    However, this presumption cannot be stretched to
    implicate all and sundry in the family of deceased's
    husband in demanding additional dowry from
E   deceased's family and harassing her and treating her
    with such cruelty that she had to resort to taking her life.
    There is a possibility of members of the family having
    varying roles, active and passive. Depending on the
    nature and extent of involvement, a person may be
F   punished for an offence under Section 498-A or Section
    304-8 or Section 306 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry
    Prohibition Act, 1961. A dowry death will not ipso facto
    suck the husband with all his relatives into the net of
    Section 304-8 IPC. While the appellant and the other two
G   convicts (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased)
    may be staying together, it does not lead to any positive
    conclusion that each one of them was actively involved
    in demanding additional dowry from the deceased and
    also behaving in a cruel or humiliating manner towards _
H   her resulting in her consuming poison to end her life. In
         BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 577


cases of this nature which attract a reverse onus of proof, A
the least that is expected of the prosecution to bring home
a charge under Section 304-8 IPC is to adduce some
evidence to suggestively implicate a relative, in this case,
to suggestively implicate the appellant both in the
demands for additional dowry and harassment or cruelty. B
Such evidence is not available on record and so the mere
fact that all the members of the family of the deceased's
husband were living together, would not alter the factual
situation. [Paras 31, 32] [585-G-H; 586-A-F]

     5. Consequently, in the absence of the prosecution
                                                            c
proving the ingredients of Section 304-8 of the IPC, the
initial burden cast on it has not been discharged.
Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-8 of the
Evidence Act cannot be attracted. The appellant deserves
acquittal since there is no evidence inculpating him. D
[Paras 1, 33] [578-8-C; 586-G-H]

                    Case Law Reference:
    2000 (3) SCR 662        relied on            Para 26
                                                            E
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1022 of 2008.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2004 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal    F
Appeal No. 25 SB of 1992.

     R.K. Kapoor, Shiwani Mahipal, Rajat Kapoor, Shweta
Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellant.

   V. Madhukar AAG, Ms. Anvita C., Kuldip Singh for the G
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The question for consideration H
    578     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A is whether the appellant Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by
  both the Trial Court and the High Court for having caused the
  dowry death of Janki Devi, an offence punishable under Section
  304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In
  our opinion, Bhola Ram deserves an acquittal since there is
B no evidence inculpating him.
    The facts:

       2. Darshan Ram married Janki Devi on 30th June, 1986
  after which they resided in Darshan Ram's house in village
C Mehma Sarja. The couple has a female child.

      3. At the time of their marriage, Janki Devi's family gave
  dowry within their means to Darshan Ram and his family. But
  according to the prosecution, his brothers Parshottam Ram and
D Bhola Ram (the appellant) and his sister Krishna Devi and
  mother Vidya Devi demanded more dowry from time to time.
      4. Janki Devi's family was unable to fulfill the additional
  demands for dowry and, according to the prosecution, she was
E humiliated and cruelly treated by Darshan Ram's family for their
  incapacity. Being unable to face the harassment, cruelty and
  humiliation meted out by Darshan Ram's family, Janki Devi
  consumed poison and thereby committed suicide on 6th
  September, 1989.
F      5. About one and a half months before her death, a
  demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made by Janki Devi's in-laws for
  the purchase of a car. Janki Devi's father PW-2 Nath Ram
  borrowed this amount from PW-1 Nirbhai Singh for meeting the
  dowry demand. The amount was then handed over by him to
G Darshan Ram in the presence of other members of his family.
       6. Unfortunately, Darshan Ram's family was not fully
  satisfied with this payment. According to the prosecution, about
  a fortnight before her death, Janki Devi came to her father and
H told him that there was a further demand for an amount of Rs.
         BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    579
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
30,000/- for purchasing some articles for a service station A
proposed to be run by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram.
Thereupon, Nath Ram accompanied Janki Devi to her
matrimonial home and informed Darshan Ram and the other
accused that he would not be able to pay this amount. On this,
Darshan Ram's family informed him that he should pay the B
amount failing which he could take Janki Devi back with him.
Nath Ram requested the family not to insist on the demand and
left Janki Devi at her matrimonial home in village Mehrna Sa~a.

       7. On 3rd September, 1989 PW-3 Des Raj, the brother of c
Nath Ram's wife, informed Nath Ram about Janki Devi being
ill-treated on account of Nath Ram's inability to meet the
additional demand for dowry. Again on 5th September, 1989
Des Raj informed Nath Ram that Janki Devi wanted to meet
Nath Ram and was weeping in his presence.                     D

      8. On receiving this information, Nath Ram went to village
Mehrna Sarja along with his brother PW-4 Sukhdev Ram.
When they reached the bus stand in the village they were
informed that Janki Devi had consumed poison and had taken
her life, having suffered more than enough cruelty at the hands E
of the family of, Darshan Ram. Nath Ram and Sukhdev Ram
then proceeded to Janki Devi's matrimonial home and found
her lying there but no one from Darshan Ram's family was
present in the matrimonial home.
                                                                F
     9. Nath Ram then lodged a First Information Report (FIR)
in Police Station Nehianwala. On the basis of the FIR PW-7
Manrninder Singh prepared an inquest report in the presence
of Sukhdev Ram. On the next day, that is 7th September, 1989
PW-5 Dr. Tirath Goyal performed an autopsy on the dead body G
of Janki Devi. He noted that froth was corning out from her nose
and mouth. Her viscera were sent to the Chemical Examiner
who reported that Janki Devi had died due to having consumed
an organo phosphorus insecticide which was poisonous and
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.      H
    580      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A        10. On the basis of the above details and further
    investigations, a charge sheet was filed against Darshan Ram
    and four members of his family (including Bhola Ram) under
    Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC for causing the
    dowry death of Janki Devi.
B
        11. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried by the
    Sessions Judge at Bathinda.

    Decision of the Trial Judge

C        12. In his Judgment and Order dated 3rd December, 1991
  the Sessions Judge at Bathinda in Sessions Case No. 35 of
   15th May, 1990 held that Section 304-B of the IPC required
  the prosecution to establish four ingredients, namely: (i) the
  death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
D occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, (ii) such
  death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage,
  (iii) soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
  harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, and
  (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection
E with, any demand for dowry. In the present case, all four
  ingredients were established by the prosecution.

         13. It was further held that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and
  their mother Vidya Devi were living together in the same house
F at village Mehma Sarja and that they had demanded additional
  dowry from Janki Devi's family. However, Parshottam Ram and
  Krishna Devi were living separately and they could not be said
  to have caused the dowry death of Janki Devi. Consequently,
  Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were found not guilty of the
G charges framed against them and they were acquitted.
  However, the Sessions Judge found that Darshan Ram, Bhola
  Ram and Vidya Devi, by their attitude and behaviour, caused
  Janki Devi to take the extreme step of taking her own life. These
  three accused were accordingly convicted for offences
H punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC
         BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      581
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period A
of 7 years with fine for the offence under Section 304-B of the
IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC.
     14. The accused preferred two appeals (one by Vidya          B
Devi and the other by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram) against
their conviction and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana.

Decision of the High Court
                                                                  c
    15. In so far as Vidya Devi is concerned, her conviction
was upheld by the High Court and she preferred a Special
Leave Petition in this Court. She was granted special leave to
appeal but during the pendency of her appeal she passed away
and accordingly her appeal was disposed of.                    D
     16. Darshan Ram and Bhola· Ram preferred a joint appeal
in the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 25 SB of 1992.
This appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who by his
Judgment and Order dated 5th July, 2004 upheld their E
conviction and sentence.

       17. The High Court held that Vidya Devi, Darshan Ram and
Bhola Ram were all residing together in the same house at
village Mehma Sarja. It was held that the amount of Rs. 10,000/
- initially taken from Nath Ram was used to purchase a car for F
Darshan Ram and that car was being plied as a taxi by him. It
was also held that a service station was at the initial stages of
being established by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram and that
they needed Rs. 30,000/- for expenses in connection with that
venture. Since all three convicts were residing together at village G
Mehma Sarja, they were equally responsible for demanding
additional dowry from Janki Devi and her father and thereby
compelling her to take her life.

     18. It appears that Darshan Ram has not challenged the        H
    582      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge and his
  conviction and sentence have attained finaiity.

       19. We are, therefore, only concerned with the appeal filed
  by Bhola Ram who challenged his conviction and sentence in
B this Court and was granted special leave to appeal on 8th July,
  2008. He was also granted bail by this Court on the same day
  and we are told that even today, he is on bail.

    Discussion

C       20. Learned counsel for Bhola Ram submitted that in fact
  there is no specific allegation against him. The statements of
  all the witnesses are omnibus or generic in nature and Darshan
  Ram and other members of his family have been generally
  accused of having demanded additional dowry from Janki
D Devi's family. It is submitted that in the absence of any particular
  allegation, demands for dowry made by Darshan Ram cannot
  be attributed to Bhola Ram and under these circumstances,
  there is really no evidence to uphold his conviction.

E      21. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel
  for the State that the three convicts were jointly and directly
  concerned with the demands of additional dowry made on Janki
  Devi and her family. Consequently, it is not possible to
  segregate the case of Bhola Ram from that of the other two
F convicts.
      22. We are unable to accept the contention of learned
  counsel for the State. The Sessions Judge found that there was
  no evidence that Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi made
  demands for additional dowry from Nath Ram. Accordingly, they
G were acquitted at the trial stage itself. Therefore, the
  segregation process, based on the evidence on record, had
  begun at the trial stage. This is clearly because in a dowry
  death, some actors play an active role while others play a
  passive role. Consequntly, to sustain the conviction of Bhola
H
          BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      583
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Ram, there must be some suggestive evidence and not generic A
evidence implicating him in the demand for additional dowry
from Nath Ram.

     23. As observed by the Law Commission of India (LCI) in
its 91st Report of 10th August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) the truth   B
may not come in a dowry death case due to the sequestered
nature of the offence. This is what the LCI said:

     "Those who have studied crime and its incidence know
     that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a
     difficult matter and still more difficult is successful C
     prosecution of the offender. Crimes that lead to dowry
     deaths are almost invariably committed within the safe
     precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a member
     of the family; other members of the family (if residing in the
     same house) are either guilty associates in crime, or silent D
     but conniving witnesses to it. In any case, the shackles of
     the family are so strong that truth may not come out of the
     chains. There would be no other eye witnesses, except for
     members of the family."
                                                                    E
      24. This passage also clearly brings out that in a case of
·a dowry death, every member of the family may not be fully and
 equally guilty. The degree of involvement may differ - as an
 associate, as a silent witness, as a conniving witness and so
 on.                                                                F
     25. So far as this case is concerned, we have gone through
the evidence of all the witnesses on record and while there is
no doubt that Janki Devi died an unnatural death within a few
years of her marriage to Darshan Ram, no definite allegation
has been made by any of the witnesses including Nath Ram G
or anybody from his family that Bhola Ram had demanded any
additional dowry from him or anybody in his family or had
treated Janki Devi with cruelty or in a humiliating manner so
 a~ to make him complicit in the dowry death.
                                                                H
    584       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A
         26. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207
    the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC
    were held to be as follows:
          "In order to seek a conviction against a person for the
B         offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to prove
          that:
                 (a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or
                 bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under
c                normal circumstances;
                 (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years
                 of her marriage;

                 (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
D                harassment by her husband or by any relative of her
                 husband;
                 (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
                 connection with the demand of dowry; and
E                (e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased
                 should have been subjected soon before her
                 death."

       27. It is true that there was a demand of dowry of Rs.
F 10,000/- which was paid by Nath Ram by borrowing this amount
  from Nirbhai Singh, but that demand was for the purchase of a
  car for use by Darshan Ram. Under the circumstances, it can
  safely be presumed that Darshan Ram made the demand for
  additional dowry for his benefit. Bhola Ram may have been a
G silent or a passively conniving participant, but there is nothing
  on record to suggest that he had either actively made such a
  demand or that the demanded amount was sought to be utilized
  for his benefit either directly or indirectly.

          28. Similarly, the evidence on record does not show that
H
          BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        585
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

 the demand of another amount of Rs.30,000/- from Nath Ram            A
 just a fortnight before Janki Devi took her life was made by
 Bhola Ram to purchase articles for the service station being
 set up by him and Darshan Ram at village Nehianwala. At best,
 it could be said that this amount was intended for use for the
 joint business venture of Bhola Ram and Darshan Ram. Given           B
  that the earlier demand for additional dowry was made for the
  benefit of Darshan Ram, it is more than likely that this demand
  was also made by him. In any event, there is again nothing to
  suggest that Bhola Ram was in any manner actively concerned
  in making the demand directly or indirectly from Nath Ram.          C

      29. Consequently, we do not find any evidence to suggest
, any active complicity of Bhola Ram in demanding any
  additional dowry from Nath Ram either for himself or for
  Darshan Ram or his proposed business venture.                       D
      30. Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to
 bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As
 held in Kans Raj a dowry death victim should also have been
 treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband
                                                                      E
 or a relative. In this case, even assuming the silent or conniving
 participation of Bhola Ram in the demands for dowry, there is
 absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that he actively or
 passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty or harassed her in
 connection with, or for, dowry. The High Court has, unfortunately,
 not adverted to this ingredient of an offence punishable under       F
 Section 304-B of the !PC or even considered it.

      31. The High Court has relied on the presumption available
  under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude that
  Janki Devi's ·death was a dowry death. However, this                G
  presumption cannot be stretched to implicate all and sundry in
  Darshan Ram's family in demanding additional dowry from
  Janki Devi's family and harassing her and treating her with such
  cruelty that she had to resort to taking her life. As mentioned
                                                                      H
    586       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A above, there is a possibility of members of the family having
  varying roles, active and passive. Depending on the nature and
  extent of involvement, a person may be punished for an offence
  under Section 498-A or Section 304-B or Section 306 of the
  IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A dowry
B death will not ipso facto suck the husband with all his relatives
  into the net of Section 304-B of the IPC.

        32. It was contended by learned counsel for the State that
  Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi were living together
C at village Mehma Sarja and so their active involvement in the
  dowry death cannot be ruled out. While these persons may be
  staying together, it does not lead to any positive conclusion that
  each one of them was actively involved in demanding additional
  dowry from Janki Devi and also behaving in a cruel or
D humiliating manner towards her resulting in her consuming
  poison to end her life. In cases of this nature which attract a
  reverse onus of proof, the least that is expected of the
  prosecution to bring home a charge under Section 304-B of
  the IPC is to adduce some evidence to suggestively implicate
E a relative, in this case, to suggestively implicate Bhola Ram
  both in the demands for additional dowry and harassment or
  cruelty. Such evidence is not available on record and so the
  mere fact that all the members of Darshan Ram's family were
  living together at village Mehma Sarja, would not alter the factual
F situation.

       33. Consequently, in the absence of the prosecution
  proving the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC, the initial
  burden cast on it has not been discharged. Therefore, the
G presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot
  be attracted.
    Conclusion

          34. Based on the evidence available on record (or the lack
H
         BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      587
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
of it) we have no doubt that the appeal filed by Bhola Ram ought A
to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and he is acquitted of
the charges against him under Section 304-B and Section 498-
A of the IPC in relation to the death of Janki Devi.
    35. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence B
of Bhola Ram is set aside.

Post script

       36. What is a little disturbing about this case is that it is
illustrative of the slow movement of the wheels of criminal justice C
delivery. The dowry death took place on 6th September, 1989.
The Trial Court pronounced its decision on 3rd December, 1991
within two years of Janki Devi's death. The first appeal was
decided by the High Court on 5th July, 2004 which is more than
twelve years later. A petition for special leave to appeal was D
filed in this Court in 2004 and leave was granted only after a
 gap of four years in 2008. Thereafter this appeal was listed for
 hearing as if it is an appeal of 2008 rather than a petition of
 2004 thereby wiping away four years of its age in this Court.
 And even then, it has taken another five years for its disposal, E
 making a total of nine years spent in this Court. It is high time
 those of us who are judges of this Court and decision makers
 also become policy makers.

B.B.B.                                         Appeal Allowed.     F