Holding

A conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves that the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with a dowry demand; mere evidence of cruelty is insufficient.

Summary

Rupali, married to Biswajit Halder, alleged that her husband and in‑laws repeatedly demanded additional dowry items after the marriage. She committed suicide within seven years of marriage. The trial court convicted the appellants under IPC Sections 304B (dowry death), 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, imposing multiple sentences. The Calcutta High Court reduced the sentence for 304B but retained convictions under the other statutes. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved that the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with a dowry demand, a prerequisite for invoking Section 304B. It held that the evidence showed only general harassment, not linked to dowry demand, and therefore the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be applied. Consequently, the conviction under Section 304B could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove that the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with a dowry demand to attract Section 304B IPC.
Whether the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies in the absence of specific evidence of dowry‑related cruelty.
Whether convictions under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are necessary when the essential element of dowry‑related cruelty is missing.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 34, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathSection 304B IPCSection 498A IPCDowry Prohibition ActEvidence Act 113Bpresumptioncruelty and harassmentsuicideconvictionappeal

Judgment

--r--
~

A BISWAJIT HALDER@ BABU HALDER AND ORS.
..
1,-
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL

MARCH 19, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] ~

,._
Penal Code, I 860:

s. 304B-Applicability of-Held, applicable when cruelty or harassment
c is in connection with dowry demand-Evidence Act, 1872-s. I 13B-Dowry
death.
;,
Prosecutions case is that deceased was subjected to harassment by her
husband and in-laws on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. She
committed suicide. Trial Court convict~d husband and in-laws under ss.304B
D and 498A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and passed
various sentences. They filed appeal before High Court wherein it was held /

that the appellants were to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under
s.304B IPC, but there was no necessity for separately sentencing them under
either s.498A IPC or ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act.
' t
E
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that there was no finding
that there was demand for dowry and/or that deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment, or that harassment was for or in connection with the demand
of dowry.

F Respondent contended that s.304B IPC has to be read in the context of
s.113B of the· Evidence Act, 1872 and the Court could presume the death of
the deceased to be dowry death and that the appellants being members of the
matrimonial home at the relevant time were responsible for the dowry death
of the deceased.

G Allowing the appeal, the Court
}
HELD: I. Reading together s. 3048 IPC and s.113B of Evidence Act,
1872, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married women dies in an
~
unnatural circumstance at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her

H 120 •
-1-
B!SWAJIT HALDER@BABU HALDER v. STATEOFWEST BENGAL [PASAYAT,J.] 121
'· ..., marriage and th~re are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such A
married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or
relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under' dowry death"
and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives.
!Para 1411124-CI

Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1226, referred B
to.

2. There is no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment
for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in
that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case.
Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to c
bring in application of s. 3048 IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such
cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand fo:r dowry.
Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded
cannot be maintained. fPara 1511124-C, D, El
D
Kanchy Ramchander v. State ofA.P., [19961 SCC (Crl.) 31, relied on

)
CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3 71 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2006 of the High Court at
E
Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 195 of 1996.

Pradip Ghosh, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, Manish P.S. Chouhar, Vishal
Anand, Ruchi Rathi and Sarla Chandra for the Appellants.

Radha Rangaswamy for the Respondent.
F
.... )
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the
G
appellants, but modifying the sentence. Appellants faced trial for commission
of offences punishable under Section 3048 read with Section 34 of the Indian
-{ Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'DP Act').
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 3. The prosecution version in brief is as follows:
..
4. Rupali, sister of informant Di lip Patra (PW-I) was married to appellant
8iswajit Halder-appellant no. I on 6th March, 1992. Appellants Dula[ Chandra
Halder and Maya Halder are the parents of 8iswajit. At the time of marriage
dowry i.e. of Rs.43,000/-, gold ornaments and the household articles were
B given to the appellants, but they were not satisfied with the dowry items.
Since marriage Rupali was put under pressure to bring one colour television,
English Khat and VJP bag for her father-in-law and other relatives. Rupali time 1-

and again had reported about the persistent demand of the appellants to her
father and brothers. Rupali' s brother (PW- I) on different occasions requested
C the appellants not to harass Rupali for non-payment of those items. On 27th
July, 1992 Rupali committed suicide at the house of the appellants by consuming
poison and after getting the sad news from his relatives, PW-I, who being
a member of Indian Armed Forces was posted at Punjab, came to his native
village and lodged the FIR on 6th August, 1992.

D 5. On receipt of the FIR, police started investigation and on completion
of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for their
trial.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after framing charges against
all the three appellants examined 17 witnesses in all, including PW-I, relatives
E of the victim woman, two doctors and the investigating officer.

7. On examination of the prosecution evid~nce and after hearing both
the prosecution and defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found
sufficient materials against all the appellants to convict them for offences
punishable under Sections 3048/34 and 498A/34 of the !PC and also under
F Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Learned trial Judge, after convicting the
appellants, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each
for the offence punishable under Section 3048 of the IPC. The appellants were
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In
G default of the payment rigorous imprisonment for three months was stipulated.
Learned trial Judge also sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous
in;i.prisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each under
Section 3(1) of the DP Act and that apart, the appellants were also sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of
R;. l 0,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act with default
H
BISWAJIT HALDER@BABU HALDER v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [PASA YAT, .I] J23

-! stipulation. Learned trial Judge directed that all the sentences were to run A
concurrently.

8. Questioning correctness of the conviction and the sentences imposed
appellants preferred appeal before the Calcutta High Court which held that the
appellants were to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under Section
3048 IPC, but there was no necessity for separately sentencing the appellants B
on either Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that there was no finding that there was demand for dowry and/or that
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, or that harassment was for C
or in connection with the demand of dowry.

IO. Learned counsel for the respondent on the 01.her hand submitted
that Section 3048 IPC has to be read in the context of Section 1138 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act'). The court could presume
the death of the deceased to be dowry death and it was open to the Court D
to presume further that the appellants being members of the matrimonial home
at the relevant were responsible for the dowry death of the deceased. Reliance
was placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of
Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1226.

11. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 3048 are E
as follows:-

(l) The death of a woman should be caused by bums or fatal injury
or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her F
marriage;

(3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband; and

(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with
demand for dowry. G
12. Alongside insertion of Section 3048 in IPC, legislature also introduced
J Section 1138 of Evidence Act, which lays down when the question as to
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown
that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 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.

13. Explanation appended to Section 113 B lays down that "for the
purpose of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in
Section 304 B of IPC" .
.·B
· 14. lfSection 304 B !PC is read together with Section 113 B of the
Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies
in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her
marria.ge and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married
C woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or
relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death"
and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives.

15. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show
that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand
D of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence
proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty
and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 3048 !PC.
It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in
connection with the demand for dowry. (See: Kanchy Ramchander v. State
ofA.P., [1996] SCC (Cr!.) 31). Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect,
E the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained.

16. The appeal is allowed.

D.G. Appeal allowed.