DHAIN SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

A                         DHAIN SINGH AND ANR.
                                    v.
                            STATE OF PUNJAB

                              AUGUST 10, 2004

B       [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 :

         Ss. 304-B and 201-Dowry death-Bride died of burn injuries 2Y:
    years after her marriage-Injured not admitted in hospital-Body cre-
C mated without informing relatives of deceased and police-Conviction of
    husband-Contention that there was no evidence to show demand of
    dowry; and .that there must be proximate connection between alleged
    cruelty and death of the deceased-Held, it is proved that deceased died
    of burn injuries and it was not under normal circumstances and that the
D   husband caused harassment-S.113-B of Evidence Act could be invoked
    against the husband and he was rightly held guilty of the offences
    charged-Evidence Act, 1872-S. 113-B.

         S.201-Dowry death-Injured not admitted in hospital-Body cre-
E mated without informing relatives of deceased and police-Conviction-
    Accused, paternal uncle of'deceased's husband, pleading that mere
    participation in cremation was not sufficient to prove that he committed
    offence u/s. 201-Held, the evidence shows that everything was done in
    clandestine and secret manner and circumstances would show that accused
    was party to the secret disposal of the body-Hence knowledge can be
F   attributed to him that he knew well that an offence had been committed
    and he caused disappearance of the evidence-There is no illegality in
    conviction of the accused under ·s.201.

         Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1952) SC 354,
G distinguished.
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5
    of 2004.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2002 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 495-SB of 1989.
                                      442
                 DHAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      443

     Kuldip Singh and Raj K. Pandey for the Appellant.                     A
    Arun K. Sinha,     Rakesh Singh and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the
Respondent.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                           B
      The appellants challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed
against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which was
confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The first appellant
was convicted under Sections 304-B and 201 !PC and was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period often years and rigorous imprisonment C
for a period of two years respectively. The second appellant was found
guilty under Section 20 I IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years.

      The incident happened on 13.10.1988. Shinder Kaur the daughter of D
PW-2 was married to the first appellant Dhian Singh about two and a half
years prior to her death. After the marriage Shinder Kaur stayed with her
husband for about one year. It was alleged that the first appellant, the
husband, wanted more dowry and started harassing her so she left her
matrimonial home and started staying with her perents. Then at the E
intervention of the local panchayatdars a settlement was effected and about
two months prior to her death, she left her parents' house and again started
staying with the appellant Dhian Singh. On 22.10.1988, PW-2 came to
know that his daughter Shinder Kaur was burnt to death. He immediately
went to the police station and gave information to the police. The police F
registered a case and started investigation and during investigation it was
revealed that the accused had disposed off the dead body on 13.10.1988
itself by cremating the body.

      On the side of the prosecution PW-I to PW-8 were examined and on
the defence side DW-1 Tara Singh was examined. The Sessions Court held G
that the deceased Shinder Kaur died of burn injuries and the first appellant
Dhian Singh was responsible for cruelty on account of demand for dowry
and thus committed the offence under Section 304-B !PC. The first
appellant was also held responsible for committing the offence under
Section 201 !PC.                                                             H
    444                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        We heard learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the
    respondent.

          The counsel for the appellant urged before us that there was abso-
    lutely no evidence to show that the first appellant had ever demanded any
B   dowry from PW-2. It was also contended that the prosecution failed to
    produce any evidence to show that there was any cruelty on the part of
    the first appellant. The contention of the appellant is not correct. PW-2 gave
    evidence to the effect that the appellant had demanded dowry and he
    demanded television set and PW-2 could not give the same and therefore
    the deceased was sent back to her parental home. It is also important to
C   note that the deceased left the house of husband as she could not bear the
    miserable life in his house and there was a panchayat also to settle the
    dispute. Admittedly, the deceased Shinder Kaur died of bum injuries. It
    was proved that incident happened within the period of seven years of her
    marriage. Section 304-B defines the Dowry death and it states that the death
D   of a woman is caused by any burns or dodily injury or occurs otherwise
    than under normal circumstances with in 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 or in connection
    with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and
E   such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In the
    instant case, it is proved that she died of burn injuries and it was not under
    normal circumstances. The evidence also show that the husband caused
    harassment, that is why she could not live with him in the matrimonial
    home and started staying with her parents.

F        Section 113-B of the Evidence Act enables the Court to draw
    presumption in such circumstances to the effect that, when the question is
    whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
    shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
    person to cruelty or harassment or in connection with any demand for
G   dowry, such person shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death.

        The contention of the appellant's counsel is that even if it is proved
  that there was cruelty on account for demand of dowry, such cruelty sha!.l
  be soon before the death and there must be proximate connection between
H the alleged cruelty and the death of the deceased. It is true that the
'I   _..,


                              DHAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     445

            prosecution has to establish that there must be nexus between the cruelty A
            and the suicide and the cruelty ·meted out must have induced the victim
            to commit suicide. The appellant has no case that there was any other
            reason for her to commit suicide. The evidence shows that the first
            appellant had demanded dowry and he had sent her away from his house
            and only after the mediation she was taken back to appellant's house and B
            death happened within a period of two months thereafter. These facts
            clearly show that the suicide was the result of the harassment or cruelty
            meted out to the deceased. The presumption under Section 113-B of the
            Indian Evidence Act could be invoked against the appellant and the
            Sessions Court rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable C
             under Section 304-B IPC and Section 20 I !PC.

                 The second appellant is the paternal uncle of the first appellant. He
            was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 I IPC for
            causing disappearance of the evidence. The allegation against this appellant
            was that he helped in cremating the body of deceased Shinder Kaur.           D
                  The counsel for the appellant contended that mere participation in
            cremation of the body by itself is not sufficient to prove that he committed
            the offence punishable under Section 20 I IPC. It was argued that in order
            to establish charge under Section 20 I IPC, it is essential to prove that an
            offence has been committed and the accused knew or had reasons to E
            believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite
            knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment
            causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information.

                  Reliance was placed on Palvinde Kaur v. The State of Punjab, F
            reported in AIR (1952) SC 354, there the Court held that there was no direct
            evidence to show that the appellant therein was aware that an offence had
            been committed and there was no direct circumstantial evidence which was
            essential to prove the ingredients of the offence. In the instant case the
            glaring facts are to be noticed, Shinder Kaur died on 13.10.1988 of bum
            injuries. She was admittedly residing with the first appellant. According G
            to the first appellant he was not in his house when Shinder Kaur sustained
            bum injuries. In his examination under Section 313 Cr P.C., he had taken
            the injured Shinder Kaur to the hospital. But the defence witness examined
            in the case deposed that Shinder Kaur was taken initially to a private doctor
            and as per his instructions she was taken to another government hospital H
    446                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A but on the way she died. The first appellant did not inform the matter to
  the police and the body was cremated without any information being given
  to the police. The second appellant was residing near to the residence of
  first appellant. It is also pertinent to note that PW-2, the father of the
  deceased gave evidence to the effect that he was not informed of the death
B of his daughter at all a1;1d he came to know of her death through PW-6,
  Mukhtiar Singh. First appellant contended that there were about 50 persons
  at the cremation place including PW-2 and his relatives. There is absolutely
  no evidence to show that the cremation was done in the presence of PW-
  2 or any close relative of the deceased. The failu;e to inform PW-2 and
C police about the incident and the fact that the injured was not admitted in
  any hospital show that everything was done in clandestine and secret
  manner and circumstances of the case would show that the 2nd appellant
  was party to the secret disposal of the dead body. Hence, knowledge can
  be attributed to him that he knew well that an offence had been committed
  and he caused disappearance of the evidence. We do not find any illegality
D in the conviction of second appellant under Section 20 I !PC.
         Appellant No. 2 was granted bail by this Court and he had undergone
    imprisonment only for a period of one year. He has to surrender to his bail
    bonds to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

E          The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    R.P.                                                  Appeal disposed of.