HARI OMversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

A
                           .
                        (2014] 11 S.C.R. 436


                             HARi OM
                                              -

                                                                      •
                                 v.
                STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2011)
                        OCTOBER 31, 2014
B
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
               ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

        Penal Code1860:
c
      ss.304-B and 498-A - Dowry death - Demand of dowry
  and harassment of bride - Suicide committed by bride after
  about one month of marriage - Conviction of appellant-
  husband and life sentence affirmed by High Court - Courts
0 below were justified in holding the appellant guilty of
  committing the offences punishable uls 304-B read with s.498-
  B, which caused death of the bride - However, as the case
  does not fall in the category of a "rare 'case" so as to award to
  appellant life imprisonment, the sentence is reduced to 10
E years RI - Sentence/Sentencing.

        Sentence/Sentencing:

       Conviction of husband u/ss 3048 and 498-A - Sentence
  - Court could award sentence in exercise of its discretion
F between seven years to life imprisonment depending upon
  the facts of each case - In no case it could be less than
  seven years and that extreme punishment of life term should
  be awarded in "rare cases" but not in every case - Penal
  Code, 1860 - ss.304-B and 498-A.
G       Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. The courts below were justified in
    holding the appellant guilty of committing offences
    punishable uls 304~8 read with s.498-B IPC, which
H                                436
•             HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA


caused death of the bride. Therefore, the conviction of
the appellant u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC is upheld. [para
                                                           437


                                                                  A

19 and 27) [443-H; 444-A; 446-D]

    1.2. Under s.304-B, the court can award sentence in
exercise of its discretion between seven years to life            8
imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case; in
no case it can be less than seven years; and the extreme
punishment of life term should be awarded in "rare cases"
but not in every case. [para 21) [444-D]

        Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR        C
        =
    295 (1994) 6 SCC 727; State of Karnataka Vs. M. V.
                                                 =
    Manjunathegowda and Anr. 2003(1) SCR 21 (2003) 2 SCC
    188, G. V. Siddaramesh Vs. State of Kamataka, 2010 (2) SCR
        =
    380 (201 O) 3 sec 152 - relied on.
                                                                  D
        1.3. Having regard to the totality of facts and
    circumstances, the instant case, does not fall in the
    category of a "rare case" as envisaged by this Court so
    as to award to the appellant the life imprisonment. That
    apart, while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below     E
    did not assign any reasons. The ends of justice would
    meet, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced from life
    imprisonment to that of rigorous imprisonment for 10
    years. Ordered accordingly. [para 25] [445-H; 446-A, G]

                         Case Law Reference:                      F

        1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 295      relied on       para 22
        2003(1) SCR 21               relied on       para 23
        2010 (2) SCR 380             relied on       para 24      G
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1167 of 2011.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 14.05.2010 of the High
                                                                  H
    438      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 11 S.C.R.    •


A   Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    No. 1901-DB of 2004.

        Shekhar Naphade, Harikesh Singh, J.B. Mudgil, Atul
    Bhuchar, Satyendra Kumar for the Appellant.
B      Devinder Pratap Singh, AAG, Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Ramesh
    Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C       ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal
  is filed by the accused, Hari Om (A-1), against the judgment
  and order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the High Court of
  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no. 190-
  DB of 2004, which in turn, arises out of judgment dated
D 31.01.2004/04.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions
  Judge, Jind in Session Case no. 57/23.12.2002 and Session
  Trial No. 5 of 13.02.2003.

       2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
  appeal filed by the appellant (A-1) and upheld his conviction
E and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304-
  B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC")
  and allowed the appeals filed by the co-accused namely,
  Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram Chander and Chander Kala (A-2
  to A-5) and set aside their conviction and sentence.
F
       3. So far as this appeal is concerned, we are only
  concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to the
  appellant - Hari Om (A-1 ).

      4. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need to
G be mentioned in brief.

      5. As per the prosecution case, Poonam - a young girl
  having post-graduate degree to her credit, was married to A-1
  on 04.07.2002. At the relevant time, A-1 was working as sub-
H inspector in Delhi Police. In the marriage, Pooam's parents
•          HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                                                            439

spent around Rs.6.50 lacs. An amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was paid
in cash to the appellant (A-1) for purchasing a car and the
                                                                   A

remaining ,amount was spent on gifts and other expenses.

      6. After a week of the marriage, A-1 made a telephone call
to the parents of Poonam and demanded several items - such           ,
                                                                   8
as furniture etc., which, according to A-1, were not given in
marriage. On 21.7.2002, when A-1 visited Poonam's parents
house, collected the demanded items. During that time, the
appellant(A-1) also complained to them that Sarris given to his
relatives in the marriage were of inferior quality and, therefore, C
they should pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash in lieu thereof.
Though Poonam's parents tried their best to convince A-1 that
they did their best looking to their financial capacity in the
marriage and now it may not be possible for them to satisfy his
demands but A-1 did not agree and threatened that -if they do
not satisfy his demands, he will not keep Poonam with him.         D

     7. After sometime, on 30.7.2002, Poonam's parents
(complainant) went to the house of A-1 and tried to persuade
him and his parents to give up new demands, which included
money for purchasing a flat in Delhi. However, out of sheer E
compulsion, Poonam's parents agreed to pay the amount as
demanded at the earliest On this assurance, A-1 said that they
can take Poonam with them and when money is sent, she can
come to matrimonial home. Then Poonam returned to parental
home with her parents. On 5.8.2002/6.8.2002, A-1 made a F
telephone call to Poonam reminding her of payment for
purchasing a flat in Delhi and in lieu of saris. Due to persistent
illegal demands by A-1, Poonam became tense and on
7.8.2002 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, she committed suicide in her
room by consuming poison. She was taken to civil hospital in G
an unconscious condition where doctor declared her dead at
7.45 AM.

    8. This led to taking up of investigation on the basis of FIR
No. 336 dated 07.08.2002 (EX-PN) lodged by the parents of
the deceased against the appellant and her parents for · H
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 11 S.C.R. •


A   commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/
    498-8/34 IPC on the same day at about 12.50 PM at Jind
    Police Station. During the investigation, the police recovered
    one 3-pages hand written letter (Ex.PA) from Poonam's
    bedroom. On 7.8.2002, Dr. Satija (P.W.10) conducted post
B   mortem and found no injury on the body of the deceased. During
    examination, stomach and its contents were sent for chemical
    examination. A piece of small intestine, a piece of large
    intestine, a piece of liver, spleen and kidney with their contents
    were also sent for chemical examination. The report of the
c   chemical examiner (Ex-PT) revealed that Poonam consumed
    poison (aluminum phosphide), which caused her death.

          9. This event led to arrest of the appellant (A-1) and her
    family members (A-2 to A-5) followed by recovery of dowry
    articles from the house of the appellant by the police and then
D   filing of challan against him and his parents for the offences
    punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-B of the IPC to
    which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
    examined 17 witnesses to prove the charges in relation to the
    offences against the accused persons whereas the defence
E   examined 19 witnesses.

         10. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, by judgment.
    dated 31.01.2004 and sentence dated 04.02.2004, convicted
    A-1 to A-5 for the offences punishable under Section 304-B and
F   498-A IPC and imposed sentenced on them as under :

     S.No.     Name of      Under         Sentence awarded
               convict      Section

      1.       Hari Om      304-B IPC Life imprisonment and to
G                                     pay a fine of Rs.5000/-

               Ram          498-A IPC Two years rigorous
               Chander                imprisonment and to pay ~
                                      fine of Rs.1000/-.
H
•   ~.
          HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

          11:am           JU.. -l:S   lt-'c..;
                                                                        441


                                                 11:1gorous imprisonment tor   A
          Chnander                               ten years and to pay fine
          son of                                 of Rs.5000/-.
          Dawarka         498-A                  Rigorous imprisonment fo1
                                                 two years and to pay fine
                                                 of Rs.1000/-.                 B
    3.    Chander         304-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment fo
          Kalan                     ten years and to pay fine o
          wife of                   Rs.5000/-.
          Ram             498-A     Rigorous imprisonment fo
          Chander                   two years and to pay fine
                                                                               c
                                    of Rs.1000/-.

    4.    Subhash         304-B IPC              Rigorous imprisonment fo1
          son of                                 seven years and to pay
          Ram                                    fine of Rs.5000/-.            D
          Chander         498-A                  Rigorous imprisonment fo1
                                                 two years and to pay fine
                                                 of Rs.1000/-.

    5.    Dharam     304-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment fo1
                                                                               E
          Pal Son of           seven years and to pay
          Dawarka              fine of Rs.5000/-.
          Dass       498-A     Rigorous imprisonment fo
                               two years and to pay fine
                               of Rs.1000/-.
                      .
                                                                               F
     11. Feeling aggrieved, all five accused (A-1 to A-5) filed
criminal appeals before the High Court out of which this appeal
arises. The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the
appeal in respect of the appellant (A-1) and upheld the
conviction and sentences awarded to A-1 and allowed the                        G
appeal in respect of A-2 to A-5, namely, Subhash, Dharam Pal,
Ram Chander and Chander Kalan and acquitted them of the
charges framed against them.

                                                                               H
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 11 S.C.R.     •


A        12. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, A-
     1 has filed this appeal by way of SLP against the impugned
    judgment.

        13. Mr. Shekhar Nahapde, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the appellant (A-1) confined his submission only
8
  to one ground. He expressly gave up his challenge to
  concurrent finding of the courts below so far as the conviction
  of the appellant under Section 304-8 read with Section 498-A
  is concerned. In other words, learned senior counsel accepted
C the finding of conviction on merits, apparently, finding .no merit
  therein and challenged the quantum of punishment (life
  imprisonment) awarded to the appellant.

        14. According to learned senior counsel, having regard to
  all circumstances, which resulted in appellant's conviction and
D further keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already
  undergone 9 years of imprisonment till date and still continues
  to remain in jail, this Court should alter the award of life
  sentence to that of the one already undergone by the appellant.
  Learned senior counsel urged that though Section 304-8(2)
E prescribes award of imprisonment for a term, which shall not
  be less than seven years but which may extend for life, yet
  according to him, this is not a case where the courts should
  have awarded life sentence to the appellant. Learned counsel
  urged that any term more than seven years would meet the
F ends of justice and since in this case, 9 years of imprisonment
  has already been undergone by the appellant, this Court should
  allow the appeal to this extent and by modifying the impugned
  judgment in so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned,
   reduce the same from life imprisonment to that of 9 years.

G       15. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant
  while countering the submission made by the learned senior
  counsel for the appellant, submitted that having regard to the
  totality of circumstances emerging from the evidence and the
  fact that young girl ended her life in dramatic condition within
H few days of her marriage, the award of sentence of life
•          HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                                                              443


imprisonment to the appellant is fully justified and hence, this      A
Court should not interfere in quantum of sentence.

     16, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of entire record of the case, we are inclined to allow
the appeal in part finding some force in the submission urged
                                                                      B
by learned senior counsel for the appellant.

     17. Though the appellant did not make any attempt to
assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to
satisfy ourselves as to whether the concurrent findings of the
courts below on conviction are legally sustainable or not, we         C
perused the record and specially the evidence. Having so
perused, we are satisfied that no case is made out to interfere
in concurrent findings of the courts below on merits for the
following reasons.
                                                                      D
      18. Firstly, Poonam committed suicide and died within one
month of her marriage. This event attracted rigor of Section
304-B read with Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872. Secondly, her death was due to persistent
illegal demands of dowry made by the appellant one after the
                                                                      E
other to Poonam and to her parents. Thirdly, the death of
Poonam had a direct nexus with demand of dowry duly proved
by evidence and Poonam's suicide note (EX-PA) mentioning
therein the reasons, which compelled her to end her life.
Fourthly, the suicide note was duly proved to be in the
handwriting of the deceased; fifthly, defence witnesses were not      F
able to demolish or weaken the prosecution case on any of
these material issues and lastly, in the light of these established
facts, a clear case under Section 304-B read with Section 498-
B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act for drawing
presumption as to dowry death under Section 304-B was made            G
out against the appellant.

     19. We, therefore, on our part uphold the finding of
conviction and hold that the courts below were justifieq in
holding the appellant(A-1) to be guilty of committing o~es            H
    444      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R.     e
A   punishable under Section 304-B read .with Section 498-8 IPC,
    which caused death of Poonam.

        20. Now, the question arises as to whether we should
    reduce the appellant's sentence and if so, to what extent, as
    urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.
8
        21. This issue has been the subject matter of debate
  before this Court in several cases, which arose out of Section
  304-8 read with Section 498-B and wherein this Court while
  interpreting the expression "may" occurring in Section 304-B
C IPC held that it is not mandatory for the Court in every case to
  award life imprisonment to the accused once he is found guilty.
  of offence under Section 304-B. It was held that the Court could
  award sentence in exercise of its discretion between seven
  years to life imprisonment depending upon the facts of each
o case. It was held that in no case it could. be less than s·even
  years and that extreme punishment of life term should be
  awarded in "rare cases" but not in every case.-

         22. In the case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana,
    (1994) 6 sec 727, the courts below had awarded life term to
E   the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A but
    this Court reduced it to 1O years . This was also a case where
    the accused was a police officer who had suffered fife
    imprisonment. This Court held as under:

F          "7... ... .. the accused-appellant was a police employee
          and instead of checking the crime, he himself indulged
          therein and precipitated in it and that bride-killing cases
          are on the increase and therefore a serious view has to
          be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304-B IPC only
G         raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence
          should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment
          for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of
          imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in
          every case.
H
•          HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                                                            445


            8. Hence, we are of the view that a sentence of 10
    years' RI would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly
                                                                    A

    while confirming the conviction of the appellant under
    Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment
    for life to 10 years' RI. .... "
                                                                    B
    23. Similarly this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.V.
Manjunathegowda and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 188, while
convicting the accused under Section 304-B awarded 10 years
imprisonment in somewhat similar facts.

     24. Recently in G.V. Siddaramesh Vs. State of                  C
Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152, this Court while allowing the
appeal filed by the accused only on the question of sentence
altered the sentence from life term to 1O years on more or less
similar facts. Hon'ble H. L. Dattu, J. (as His Lordship then was)
speaking for the Bench held as under:                               D

    "31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and
    circumstances bf the case, the appellant was rightly
    convicted under Section 304-B IPC. However, his sentence
    of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below appears        E
    to us to be excessive. The appellant is a young man and
    has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being
    convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High
    Court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances
    of the case, that a sentence of 10 years' rigorous
    imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. We,
                                                                    F
    accordingly while confirming the conviction of the appellant
    under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of
    imprisonment for life to 1O years' rigorous imprisonment.
    The other conviction and sentence passed against the
    appellant are confirmed."                                       G

     25. Applying the principle of law laid down in the
aforementioned cases and having regard to the totality of facts
and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if we reduce the       H
    446      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.


A sentence of the appellant from life imprisonment to that of 1O
  years. In our view, this case does not fall in the category of a
  "rare case" as envisaged by this Court so as to award to the
  appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, we also notice that
  while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below did not
B assign any reasons.

      26. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant
  were not able to cite any authority in support of their submission
  except to oppose the prayer made by the appellant. Therefore,
C we are not impressed by their submission.

    . 27. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal
  succeeds and is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant-
  Hari Om (A-1) under Sections 304-B read with Section 498-A
  IPC is upheld. However, the sentence (life imprisonment)
D awarded to the appellant is altered and accordingly, is reduced
  to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. To this extent, the impugned
  judgment stands modified.

    Rajendra Prasad                              Appeal partly allowed.