Holding

Section 304‑B IPC is attracted even in cases of suicide if dowry harassment is proven, making the husband liable, while the brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law are acquitted due to lack of evidence and the benefit of doubt.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined two criminal appeals arising from the death of Gayatri Devi, who was found hanged in her marital home. The husband, Raja Lal Singh, was convicted under Sections 304‑B and 34 IPC for dowry harassment leading to her death, while the brother‑in‑law Pradip Singh and sister‑in‑law Sanjana Devi were also convicted on the same charges. The Court held that Section 304‑B applies even if the death is a suicide, provided there is a perceptible nexus between dowry‑related cruelty and the death. It found sufficient evidence of dowry harassment by the husband and rejected the defence of lack of explanation, thereby upholding his conviction. Conversely, there was no evidence linking the brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law to the death, and the benefit of doubt was granted, leading to their acquittal. Consequently, the appeal by Raja Lal Singh was dismissed and the appeal by Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 304‑B IPC is applicable when the death is a suicide rather than homicide
Interpretation of the phrase "soon before her death" in Section 304‑B
Whether the brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law can be convicted under Section 304‑B in the absence of direct evidence
Whether the husband’s failure to explain the circumstances of death establishes liability under Section 304‑B
Application of the benefit of doubt principle to co‑accused

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 34

Subjects

dowry harassmentSection 304-Bsuicidehomicidebenefit of doubtnexuscriminal appealIPC

Judgment

RAJA LAL SINGH A
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

MAYOS,2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Penal Code, I 860:

S. 304-B/34-Deceasedfound dead due to hanging in her room on the
first floor of the building-No evidence to show that brother-in-law and C
sister-in-law who were living on the ground floor of the building had hand
in the incident which led lo her death-Benefit of doubt given lo them-
Conviction set aside.

S.304-B-Applicability of-Deceased harassed by husband for not bring D
dowry article-Commilled Suicide -S. 304-B is applicable-Husband rightly
convicted.

S.304-B-Expression 'soon before her death '-Meaning of-Discussed.

Prosecution's case was that the deceased was married to the appellant. E
After 3 months, she came back to her parents house and told her father PW-
5 that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had been harassing her
for not bring dowry articles. He assured his daughter that he will fulfill the
demand. Within 7 months of marriage, the father of deceased received news
of death of his daughter. He rushed to his daughter's house with his sons,
where he found the dead body of the deceased lying on a Chauki kept ina room F
at the upper floor of the building. On being asked, his son-in-law stated that
the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The case was
registered against husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law u/ss. 304-8/34
I.P.C. Doctor PW-7 who conducted the post mortem had opined that the cause
of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. However, in his cross-
examination he stated that it was a case of suicidal death. Trial Court convicted G
the accused persons u/ss. 304-B/34 I.P.C. High Court upheld the ordei: of
Trial Court. The brother-in-law and his wife filed appeal no. 514/2006 and
husband filed appeal No. 513/2006.

105 H
!06 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal No. 513/2006 and allowing the appeal No. 514/
2006, the Court

HELD: I. The appellant-husband used to live on the first floor of the
building along with his wife, whereas brother-in-law and his wife were living
in the ground floor. Admittedly, the deceased was found dead due to hanging,
B on the first floor in the room of her husband. There is no evidence to show
that the appellant brother-in-law and his wife had any hand in the incident
which led to her death, and at any event benefit of doubt has to be given to
them, as they were living on the ground floor of the building in question. No
doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW5 who is the father of the deceased and
C PW 3 brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased told them that
dowry was demanded by not only husband, but also the brother-in-law and his
wife but it is possible that the names of brother-in-law and his wife has been
introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like 498-A
and 394 IPC. (Paras 13 and 14) [110-A-C)

D Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC
388, relied on.

2. Husband of the deceased llr't:d ·to live with her on the first floor of the
building in question. Hence, it was for him to explain how deceased met with
her death. She was found hanging by a Sari on a ceiling fan in the very room
E where she used to live with her husband. Appellant-husband, however, did not
enter into the witness'box to depose in this connection. So far as S, 304-B is
concerned it is not relevant whether it is case of homicide or suicide.
(Paras 15 and 16( (110-E-G)
....
F Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 633,
relied on.

3. The essential components of S.304-B are (i) Death of a woman
occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of
marriage. (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty
G and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Deceased died about
7 months after her marriage. Also, it has come in evidence that she had been
harassed for dowry 10 or 15 days before her death. This has come in the
evidence of PW5 and PW3 and there is no reason to disbelieve them. She had
earlier also been subjected to harassment on account of dowry when she had
gone to her parents' house in August, 2000, as has come in the evidence of ~
H
RAJALALSINGHv.STATEOFJHARKHAND[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.j 107
,, PWS. Thus, the ingredients ofS. 304-B IPC are satisfied. A
[Para 17] [110-H; 111-A-B)
"""
T. Aruntperunjothi v. State, [2006) 9 SCC 467, relied on.

4. The words "soon before her death" do not necessarily mean
immediately before her death. This phrase is an elastic expression and can B
refer to a period either immediately before death of the deceased or within a
few days or few wee~ before death. There should be a perceptible nexus
between the death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment or cruelty
j_
inflicted on her. [Para 181 [111-C-D)

5. There is a clear nexus between the death of deceased and the dowry c
related harassment inflicted on her. Even if deceased had committed suicide,
S.304-B can still be attracted. A person commits suicide in a fit of depression
due to extreme unhappiness. Thus, even if deceased had committed suicide, it
was obviously because she was extremely unhappy, and unless her husband
gave a satisfactory alternative explanation for the suicide it has to be taken D
that due to the persistent demand for dowry which led to her suicide. It is
evident from the evidence that deceased's father was a poor man and he did
not have the money to give the dowry immediately and he wanted time so that
..... he could collect some funds from somewhere, but the appellant was heartless
and he wanted immediate compliance of his demand. Since that was not
fulfilled, he either killed deceased or harassed her so much that she was E
driven to suicide on account of the said dowry demand. [Para 19] [111-D-EJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 513 of
2006.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2005 of the High Court F
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. A. No. 974 of2003.

WITH
Crl. A. No. 514 of2006.
G
P.S. Mishra, Sunil Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Awanish Sinha, Anita
Kanungo and Himanshu Shekhar for the Appellant.

Manish Kumar Saran and C.P. Yadav for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. These two appeals have been filed against
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A the common judgment & order dated 20.10.2005 of the Jharkahand High Court
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 769 and 974 of2003.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that an FIR being Baghmare P.S. Case No.
B 229/2000 was registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the three aforesaid appellants on the basis of the information given
by Dashrath Singh (PW5), wherein it was alleged that his daughter Gayatri
Devi (the deceased) aged about 19 years, was married to the appellant Raja
Lal Singh on 24.4.2000 and he had given dowry according to his capacity. His
C daughter came back after three months of her stay at her in-laws' place and
told him that her husband Raja Lal Singh, her brother-in-law Pradip Singh and
her sister-in-law (Gotni) used to harass her for the demand of a 'Palang' (Bed)
and a Godrej Almirah. The informant assured his daughter to fulfill those
demands in January, and then his daughter went to her in-laws' place. It was
further alleged that subsequently when he went to see his daughter at her
D in-laws' place, she again told him about the aforesaid demand of 'Palang' and
'Godrej Almirah' by the appellants and then the informant talked to his son-
in-law, and his brother as well as his wife had promised them to fulfill the
demand in January.

4. It is said that on 28.11.2000 one Dunia Lal Singh came to the village
E of the informant and informed him that his daughter has died due to hanging.
On this information, the informant along with his sons Santosh Singh (PW3),
Bhola Singh and Bhagirath Singh went to village Behrakudar, i.e. the village
in which his daughter was married, and on reaching there he found that the
dead body of his daughter was lying on a Chauki kept in a room at the upper
F floor of the building of the appellants. On being asked, his son-in-law stated
that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself with a ceiling fan
by tying a Sari around her neck. His son-in-law also told that since he was
sleeping in the room, he could see her hanging only in the early morning Jo.~
when he woke up. On being further questioned by the informant, his son-in-
G law could not give a satisfactory reply. The informant suspected that his
daughter was murdered by her husband, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law,
and a colour of suicide was given to the whole occurrence of murder. The
police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 304-B/34
IPC. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions.
H
5. The defence was of false implication.
RAJA LAL SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND[MARKANDEY KATJU,J.] 109

6. In order to establish the charges, altogether eight witnesses were A
"'\ examined on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence also two
witnesses were examined.

7. It appears that PW! Ramesh Singh, PW2 Gobardhan Singh, PW3
Santosh Singh and PW4 Ashok Singh accompanied the informant PW5 to the
in-laws' place of the deceased. PW6 is Shiv Pujan Singh, another son of the B
informant, who is a witness of seizure and he also identified the handwriting
of the deceased written on her palm. PW7 is Dr. C.S. Prasad, who held post
mortem examination of the deceased and PW8 Kamta Singh, is the Investigation
l. Officer.

8. As stated earlier, on behalf of the defence also two witnesses were
c
examined. DWI Bindeshwar Singh, was a co-villager and neighbour of the
appellants, who was examined to prove the cordial relationship between the
deceased and her husband. DW2 Mantu Singh, another co-villager of the
appellant has stated that the appellant Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi were
separate in residence and mess with the appellant Raja Lal Singh, husband D
of the deceased.

_...._ 9. According to PW7 Dr. C.S. Prasad, who held the post mortem
examination of the dead body, the cause of death was due to asphyYia as a
result of hanging. The post mortem report was proved by him and was marked
as Ext.2. However, this witness in his cross-examination stated that it was a E
case of suicidal death.

10. The learned trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution held that the prosecution was
able to establish the charge under Sections 304-B/34 IPC against all the three
accused. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for the said offence F
and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years each.
-~
11. Against the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the appellants filed
appeals before the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned
judgment. Hence, these two appeals.
G
12. As regards the appeal of Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi
being Criminal Appeal No. 514/2006, we are of the opinion that the said appeal
deserves to be allowed and the appellants therein deserve to be acquitted by
--.. giving them the benefit of doubt.
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 13. It has come in evidence that Raja Lal Singh, appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 513/2006 used to live on the first floor of the building along with
his wife, deceased Gayatri, whereas Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi
were living in the ground floor. Admittedly, the deceased Gayatri was found
dead due to hanging on the first floor in the room of her husband. There is
B no evidence to show that the appellant Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi had
any hand in the incident which led to her death, and at any event we are of
the opinion that benefit of doubt has to be given to them, as they were living
on the ground floor of the building in question.

14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW5 Dashrath Singh, who is
C the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of
the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was
demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh
and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that
the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to
spread the net wide as often happens in cases like 498-A and 394 IPC, as has
D been observed in several decisions of this Court, e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar@
Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, [2005) 2 SCC 388 etc. Hence, we allow
the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned
judgments of the High Court and trial court in so far as it relates to them and
we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with
E some other case.
15. However, we are of the opinion that the appeal of Raja Lal Singh has
to be dismissed. Raja Lal Singh is the husband of the deceased Gayatri and
he used to live with her on the first floor of the building in question. Hence,
it was for him to explain how Gayatri met with her death. She was found
p hanging by a Sari on a ceiling fan in the very room where she used to live
with her husband Raja Lal Singh. Raja Lal Singh, however, did not enter into
the witness box to depose in this connection.

16. It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court that so far as
Section 304-B is concerned, it is not relevant whether it is case of homicide
G or suicide vide Satvir Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2001] 8
sec 633, [Para 18).
17. It has been held in Satvir Singh (supra) that the essential components
of Section 304-B are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under
normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death r
H she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with
RAJALALSINGHv.STATEOFJHARKHAND[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 111

.....
any demand for dowry. In the present case, Gayatri died about 7 months after A
her marriage in April, 2000. Also, it has come in evidence that she had been
harassed for dowry 10 or 15 days before her death. This has come in the
evidence of her father PW5 and brother PW3 and we see no reason to
disbelieve them. She had earlier also been subjected to harassment on account
of demand for dowry when she had gone to her parents' house in August,
2000, as has come in the evidence of PW5 Dashrath Singh. Thus, in our
B
opinion, the ingredients of Section 304-8 !PC are satisfied in this case [see
also in this connection T. Aruntperunjothi v. State, [2006] 9 SCC 467] .
18. It may be mentioned that the words "soon before her death" do not
necessarily mean immediately before her death. As explained in Saivir Singh
(supra), this phrase is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either c
immediately before death of the deceased or within a few days or few weeks
before death. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between the
death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted
on her.
19. In the present case, we are of the opinion that there is a clear nexus D
between the death of Gayatri and the dowry related harassment inflicted on
her. As mentioned earlier, even if Gayatri committed suicide, S. 304-8 can still
be attracted. A person commits suicide in a fit of depression due to extreme
unhappiness. Thus, even if Gayatri committed suicide, it was obviously because
she was extremely unhappy, and unless her husband gave a satisfactory
E
alternative explanation for the suicide we have to take it that it was the
persistent demand for dowry which led to her suicide. It is evident from the
evidence that Gayatri's father was a poor man and he did not have the money
to give the dowry immediately and he wanted time up to January, 2001 so that
he could collect some funds from somewhere, but the appellant, Raja Lal
Singh was heartless and he wanted immediate compliance of his demand. F
Since that was not fulfilled, he either killed Gayatri or harassed her so much
that she was driven to suicide on account of the said dowry demand. The
writing on Gayatri's palm is, in our opinion, not very relevant. In view of the
above, we dismiss the appeal of Raja Lal Singh.
20. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 513/2006 filed by Raja Lal Singh is G
dismissed while Criminal Appeal No. 514/2006 filed by Pradip Singh and
Sanjana Devi is allowed.
D.G. Cr!. Appeal No. 513/2006. dismissed.
_,..,, Crl. Appeal No. 514/2006 allowed.
H