RAJESH BHATNAGARversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                     [2012] 5 S.C.R. 895


                   RAJESH BHATNAGAR                             A
                              v.
                  STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
              (Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2010)

                        MAY 10, 2012
                                                                B
    [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)

       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-B - Dowry death - Prosecution
  case that husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of a
  woman burnt her to death after pouring kerosene on her, as C
  she and her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry
  - Courts below convicted all the three accused uls.304-8 /PC
  - Appeals by husband and brother-in-law before Supreme
  Court - Held: PW2, mother of the deceased, deposed that
  demand of dowry in relation to various items persisted right D
  from date of engagement, uptil the death of deceased -
  Statement of PW2 corroborated by PW1, an uncle of the
  deceased - Definite ocular, expert and documentary evidence
  to show that deceased died an unnatural death, she was
  subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was demand of E
  dowry of specific items like refrigerator, television and cooler
  and she died within seven years of her marriage - Thus,
  ingredients of s.304-8 fully satisfied - Projection by defence
  that deceased had died because of an accident of stove fire
  while cooking the food cannot be accepted - If accused- F
. husband had attempted to save the deceased, as claimed by
  him, then he would have suffered some bum injuries - But not
  even a single bum injury found on his body - Accused-
  husband suffered bruises or minor cuts which one could suffer
  only if he was struggling or fighting with another person - G
  Absence of any cooking material in the kitchen also belie the
  stand of this accused - An accused who raises a false plea
  before the Court would normally earn the criticism of the Court
  leading to adverse inference - Furthermore, the conduct of the
                             895                                H
    896     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A accused prior to and immediately after the occurrence clearly
  shows that they were not innocent - Otherwise, there was no
  occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased
  was handed over to her relations - Circumstances consistent
  only with hypothesis that the accused had killed the deceased
B by setting her on fire - Clearly accused not entitled to any
  benefit, much less acquittal - No merit in the appeals.

       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Dowry death - Life
  imprisonment - Justification - Held: There were no mitigating
  circumstances in favour of the accused in the instant case -
C Offence of s.304-8 was proved- Manner in which the offence
  was committed was found to be brutal - It had been committed
  for satisfaction of dowry demands, particularly, for material
  goods like television or cooler - Furthermore the accused took
  up a false defence before the Court to claim that it was a case
D of an accidental death and not that of dowry death - In the
  circumstances, Court normally would not exercise its judicial
  discretion in favour of the accused by awarding lesser
  sentence than life imprisonment.

E      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-8 - Ingredients of - Stated -
  Held: The requirement of s.304-8 is that the death of a woman
  be caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than in normal
  circumstances, within seven years of her marriage - Further,
  it should be shown that soon before her death, she was
F subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or her
  husband's family or relatives and thirdly, that such
  harassment should be in relation to a demand for dowry -
  Once these three ingredients are satisfied, her death shall be
  treated as a 'dowry death' and once a 'dowry death' occurs,
  such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused
G her death - Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative
  would be presumed to have committed the offence of dowry
  death rendering them liable for punishment unless the
  presumption is rebutted - It is not only a presumption of law
  in relation to a death but also a deemed liability fastened
H upon the husband/relative by operation of law.
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 897


      The prosecution case was that the husband ('M'),         A
brother-in-law ('R') and mother-in-law of a woman burnt
her to death after pouring kerosene on her, as she and
her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry. The
trial court held all the three accused guilty under Section
304-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo life                   B
imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction
and sentence. 'i'lli' and 'R' preferred the instant appeals
contending that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC
were not satisfied and as such, they could not be
convicted thereunder.                                          c
      Dismssing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. The requirement of Section 304-B is that the
death of a woman be caused by burns, bodily injury or
otherwise than in normal circumstances, within seven           D
years of her marriage. Further, it should be shown that
soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or her husband's family or
relatives and thirdly, that such harassment should be in
relation to a demand for dowry. Once these three               E
ingredients are satisfied, her death shall be treated as a
'dowry death' and once a 'dowry death' occurs, such
husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused
her death. Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative
would be presumed to have committed the offence of             F
dowry death rendering them liable for punishment unless
the presumption is rebutted. It is not only a presumption
of law in relation to a death but also a deemed liability
fastened upon the husband/relative by operation of law.
[Para 7] [907 -D-G]                                            G

     Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359: 2011
(1) SCR 724; Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder &Am: v. State
of West Bengal (2008) 1SCC202: 2007 (4) SCR 120 - relied
on.
                                                               H
    898     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A       Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan & Ors. AIR 1998
    SC 774; Rajesh Tandon v. State of Punjab 1994 (1) SCALE
    816 - cited.

         2.1. In the instant case, immediately upon the death
    of the deceased, PW2, the mother of the deceased had
8
    lodged report with the police where she had given in
    writing the complete facts. When her deposition was
    recorded in the Court, she, again, on oath, reiterated the
    complete facts. According to her, the demand of dowry
C   in relation to various items persisted right from the date
    of engagement, uptil the death of the deceased. Firstly,
    demand was raised in relation to purchase of a
    refrigerator, for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given and
    it was only thereafter that the engagement ceremony
    could be completed. Thereafter, television and cooler
D   were also demanded, for which they had thrown out the
    deceased from her matrimonial home and it was only
    upon the assurance given by the mother and the uncle
    of the deceased that 'M' and his family had agreed to take
    her back to the matrimonial home. Not only this, while 'R'
E   was leaving her home for the last time along with 'M', after
    'M' was assured that in future they would arrange for
    television and cooler, she had categorically stated that
    she apprehends danger to _her life and she may not come
    back to her home. These c'ircumstances clearly show the
F   kind of threat and fear under which the deceased was
    living. PW1 is the uncle of the deceased, who also fully
    corroborated the statement of PW2. According to this
    witness, 'M' had climbed up to the roof and said that he
    would not come down ~nd would not permit the
G   engagement ceremony to be completed, unless a fridge
    was brought. Then Rs.10,000/- was given to his brother
    'R', whereafter the ceremony was completed. There is no
    contradiction or variation in the statements of PW1 and
    PW2. [Para 9] [909-D-H; 910-A-C]
H
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 899


      2.2. From the evidence, it is clear that there was A
 persistent demand of dowry by the accused persons and
 they had killed her by sprinkling kerosene on her and
 putting her on fire. The deceased died an unnatural death
 within seven years of her marriage. Thus, the ingredients
 of Section 304-B are fully satisfied in the present case. It 8
 cannot be said that merely because the letters on record
 (as written by deceased) do not specifically mention the
 dowry demands, such letters have to be construed by
 themselves without reference to other evidence and
 rebutting the presumption of a dowry death, giving the C
 benefit of doubt to the accused. These letters have to be
 read in conjunction with the statements of PW1 and PW2.
 The letters clearly spell out the beatings given to the
 deceased, the cruelties inflicted on her and reference to
the conduct of the family. The evidence has to be
appreciated in its entirety. Neither the letters can be D
 ignored nor the statements of PW1 and PW2. If the letters
 had made no reference to beatings, cruelty and ill-
treatment meted out to the deceased and not
demonstrating the grievance, apprehensions and fear
that she was entertaining in her mind, but were letters E
simpliciter mentioning about her well being and that she
and her in-laws were living happily without complaint
against each other, the matter would have been different.
There is definite ocular, expert and documentary
evidence to show that the deceased died an unnatural F
death, she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment,
there was demand of dowry of specific items like
refrigerator, television and cooler and she died within
seven years of her marriage. [Para 11] [911-C-H; 912-C-
D]                                                           G
    3.1. The contention that accused 'M' had suffered 12
injuries o.n his person in an attempt to rescue the
deceased and there was no proximity between the
demand of refrigerator and the occurrence, and therefore,
the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence charged,    H
    900     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A is liable to be rejected. No doubt the accused had
  suffered number of injuries, but the question is as to how
  and when the accused 'M' suffered the injuries.
  According to the accused, he had suffered these injuries
  when he was trying to break open the door of the kitchen
B with the intention to save the deceased, because it was
  projected by the defence that the deceased had died
  because of an accident of stove fire while cooking the
  food. This entire gamut of projections by the defence are
  not only afterthoughts but, in fact, nothing but falsehood.
C This aspect has been well considered by the Trial Court,
  which rightly rejected this theory propounded on behalf
  of the defence. [Paras 13, 15] [913-H; 914-A-B; 916-G-H;
  917-D-E]
         3.2. Furthermore, the entire conduct of the accused
D   is such as to lead to only one plausible conclusion, i.e.,
    all the accused together had caused the death of the
    deceased. The arguments of the defence are strange
    because if the accused had attempted to save the
    deceased, then he would have suffered some burn
E   injuries. But as per the details of injuries, there was not
    even a single burn injury found on the body of the
    accused 'M'. These injuries were such that one could
    suffer only if he was struggling or fighting with another
    person, as then alone could he suffer such bruises or
F   minor cuts. Absence of any cooking material in the
    kitchen is another very important circumstance which
    would belie the stand of this accused. An accused who
    raises a false plea before the Court would normally earn
    the criticism of the Court leading to adverse inference.
G   [Para 14) [915-D-G]
       3.3. The contention of the accused that there was no
  proximity or nexus between the alleged demand of
  refrigerator and the death of the decease.d and the
  accused is, thus, entitled to benefit of acquittal is also
H liable to be rejected. The demand for refrigerator was the
 RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 901

 first demand of dowry, that too, at the time of              A
engagement. This demand was instantaneously fulfilled
 by the family of the deceased under compulsion and
threat that the engagement ceremony would not be
 performed if the refrigerator or money was not given. The
 demand of dowry raised by the accused persons later for      B
television and cooler could not be satisfied by the family
 of the deceased for financial limitations upon the death
 of father of the deceased. As a result, the deceased was
treated with cruelty and physical assault. In fact, it
ultimately led to her brutal murder at the hands of the       c
husband and his family members. Not only this, the
conduct of the accused prior to and immediately after the
occurrence clearly shows that they were not innocent.
Otherwise, there was no occasion for them to abscond
after the body of the deceased was handed over to her
                                                              0
relations. These circumstances, along with the
circumstances stated by the Trial Court, are inconsistent
with their innocence and consistent only with hypothesis
that they had killed the deceased by setting her on fire.
No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, has
been rendered by the accused persons in their                 E
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the
trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses
and explanations given by the defence for accused 'M'
having suffered injuries on his body are patently false
and not worthy of credence. In these circumstances, it        F
isrtrtytttrd clear that the accused are not entitled to any
benefit, much less acquittal, from this Court. [Paras 15,
16] [916-G-H; 917-A-F]

    Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra G
Pradesh (1993) 2 SCC 684: 1993 (2) SCR 666 - relied on.

    Asraf Ali v. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328: 2008
(10) SCR 1115 - referred to.

    4. T~ere are no mitigating circumstances in favour of H
    902      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A   the accused to take any view other than the view taken
    by the Trial Court on the question of quantum of
    sentence. When the offence of Section 304-B is proved,
    the manner in which the offence has been committed is
    found to be brutal, it had been committed for satisfaction
B   of dowry demands, particularly, for material goods like
    television or cooler and furthermore the accused takes
    up a false defence before the Court to claim that it was a
    case of an accidental death and not that of dowry death,
    then the Court normally would not exercise its judicial
c   discretion in favour of the accused by awarding lesser
    sentence than life imprisonment. [Para 17] [917-H; 918-
    A-C]

          Hemchand v. State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 727: 1994
    (4) Suppl. SCR 295 - referred to.
D
                        Case Law Reference:
          AIR 1998 SC 774            cited           Para 6
          1994 (1) SCALE 816         cited           Para 6
E
          2011 (1) SCR 724           relied on       Para 7
          2007 (4) SCR 120           relied on       Para 8
          1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 295    referred to     Para 12, 17
F         2008 (10) SCR 1115         referred to     Para 14
          1993 (2) SCR 666           relied on       Para 16
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 851 of 2010 etc.
G
         From the Judgment & Order dated 14.10.2009 of the High
    Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1659
    of 2001 (Old Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 1996.
                                 WITH
H   Crl. A. No. 850 of 2010.
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 903


     Dinesh Kumar Garg, Meha Aggarwal, Ashutosh Garg for            A
the Appellant.

   S.S. Shamshery, Rahul Verma, Abhishek Atrey, Jatinder
Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     B

      SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Learned Second Additional
District Judge, Haridwar, vide its judgment dated 2nd
 December, 1996 held all the three accused, namely, Mukesh
 Bhatnagar, Rajesh Bhatnagar and Smt. Kailasho @                    c
 Kailashwati, guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for causing the death of
Smt. Renu motivated by non-payment of dowry demands and
sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment. Against this
judgment, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High        D
Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 14th October,
2009 dismissed the appeal of all the accused confirming the
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial
 Court. Aggrieved therefrom, two of the accused have preferred
separate appeals. Criminal Appeal No.851 of 2010 has been           E
preferred by the accused Rajesh Bhatnagar while Criminal
Appeal No.850 of 201 O has been preferred by Mukesh
Bhatnagar. As both these appeals arise from a common
judgment, we shall dispose of these appeals by this common
judgment. The prosecution filed a charge sheet in terms of
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).      F
After completing the investigation and examining the witnesses,
the investigating officer presented the charge sheet sfating that
these three appellants had committed an offence punishable
under Section 304B IPC as together they had burnt, by pouring
kerosene, Renu, the deceased wife of the accused Mukesh             G
Bhatnagar, as she and her parents failed to satisfy their
demands of dowry.

     2. The facts, as they appear from the record of the case,
are that Ms. Renu (deceased) was daughter of Smt. Vimla Devi        H
    904      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A    Bhatnagar, widow of Rajbahadur, resident of Mohalla
     Kayasthwada, Sikandrabad, Police Station Bulandshahar.
     Vimla Devi had sought a marriage alliance for her daughter Ms.
     Renu. Finally, the mother of Ms. Renu and Mukesh's family had
     agreed to alliance of marriage between Mukesh and Renu.
B    When the engagement (sagai) ceremony was to be performed
     at the house of Mukesh, family of Ms. Renu along with their
     relations, Sanjay Bhatnagar, Shailendera Bhatnagar and others
     had gone to the house of Mukesh. At that time itself, Mukesh,
     his brother Rajesh and his mother Kailasho (all the accused)
c    demanded a refrigerator as dowry. The mother and relations
     of the deceased expressed their inability to buy a refrigerator
     but their request brought no results and the accused family
     pressurized them to pay Rs.10,000/- for purchasing the
     refrigerator then and there. Upon persuasion by their own
     relations, the family of Ms. Renu paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to
0
     Rajesh Bhatnagar for purchasing the refrigerator, whereafter the
     ceremony was performed. On 26th May, 1994, the marriage
     between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites at
     Roorkee. The family of Ms. Renu had come to Roorkee from
     Sikandrabad to perform the marriage at Roorkee to the
E   convenience of the boy's family. After performing the marriage,
    Ms. Renu went to her matrimonial home while her other family
    members came back to their house at Sikandrabad
    (Bulandshahar). Not even one and a half months of the marriage
    had elapsed but Mukesh is stated to have brought Renu to her
F   parental home, where he informed her family that a television
    and a cooler had not been given as dowry in the marriage and
    these articles should be given immediately. If this was not done,
    he would not take Renu back to her matrimonial home. The
    members of Renu's family tried to impress upon Mukesh not
G   to pressurize them so much, but Mukesh persisted with his
    demands. At that time, Ms Renu also informed her family
    members that all the accused persons were beating her
    frequently for not bringing television and cooler as part of the
    dowry. However, left with no alternative, the mother and uncle
H   of Ms. Renu assured Mukesh that everything would be settled
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 905
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

and he need not worry. However, the television and cooler were A
not given at that time. The behavior of the accused towards Ms.
Renu did not change and whenever she came to her parental
home, she complained about the behavior of her in-laws and
demands of dowry from them. She even wrote letters to her
family from time to time complaining of cruel behavior of the B
accused towards her. In May 1995, Ms. Renu gave birth to a
male child. On 18th October, 1995, unfortunately, the father of
Ms. Renu expired and thereafter the family was not able to meet
the dowry demands raised by the accused persons. Sometime
in the second week of November 1995, Ms. Renu came to her       c
parental home at 11.00 p.m. in the night. She was alone and
had not even brought her child with her. Being surprised, her
mother had asked her what had happened. She started crying
and informed her mother and uncle that the accused persons
were very unhappy, as the television and cooler had not been
                                                                0
given and they had turned her out of the matrimonial home,
refusing to even give her, her child. The mother and the uncle
tried to pacify Ms. Renu and told her that with the passage of
time, things would get settled and she should go back to her
matrimonial home. After 20-25 days, Mukesh came to his in-
laws' house. During their meeting, the mother and uncle of Ms. E
 Renu told Mukesh to treat her properly and said that the child
should not be kept away from Ms. Renu. They also assured him
that as soon as they could make some arrangement, they would
give the television and cooler to Mukesh. After this assurance,
Mukesh took Renu with him to the matrimonial home. While F
leaving, Renu told her mother that though they were sending her
to her matrimonial home, her in-laws would kill her and she may
not come back at all.

      3. On 17th February, 1996, the uncle of Renu received a G
call from PW3, Anoop Sharma, resident of Roorkee, informing
him that some accident had taken place and Renu was not well.
He asked them to come to Roorkee immediately. Mother and
uncle of Renu came to Roorkee, where they learnt and believed
that for failing to give television and cooler, Renu's mother-in- H
    906       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A   law, brother-in-law and husband had sprinkled kerosene and
    set Renu on fire. Before setting her on fire, accused Mukesh
    had also beat her and when Renu attempted to defend herself,
    even Mukesh received some bruises on his person. On 17th
    February, 1996 itself, the mother of the deceased lodged a
B   complaint with the Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee and
    case No.32 of 1996 under Section 3048 IPC was registered
    on that very day.

       4. PW5, Sub-Inspector R.P. Purohit and PW7, Deputy
C S.P., M.L. Ghai, along with other police officers, reached the
  place of occurrence, filled the panchayatnama, Ext.Ka-7,
  prepared the sketch of the place of occurrence and took the
  body of the deceased into custody vide Exts.Ka-8 and Ka-1.
  The dead body was sent for post mortem and photographs of
  the dead body were taken vide Exts. 1, 3 and 3. The articles
D found at place of occurrence, like container containing
  kerosene, empty container which was having smell of kerosene,
  the stove pin, burnt ash, cloth rope, bangles, cloths of the
  deceased, one match box, etc. were recovered from the site
  and were taken into custody vide Exts. 18 to 27. The post
E mortem report of the deceased was Ext. Ka-6 whereafter the
  dead body was handed over to her family members. Injuries
  were also found on the person of the accused Mukesh and he
  was subjected to medical examination on 17th February, 1996
  at about 12.30 p.m. vide Ext. Ka-22. When M.L. Ghai, PW7,
F on 17th February, 1996 before the arrest of the accused
  persons went to their house, he found the house open and the
  accused were absconding. He had directed that a lock be put
  on the door of the house, which was later opened and the site
  map Ext.Ka-9 was prepared.
G
         5. All the accused faced the trial and were convicted. Their
    conviction and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court were
    confirmed by the High Court, as already noticed above. This
    is how the present appeals come up for consideration of this
    Court.
H
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 907
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     6. First and foremost, it has been contended on behalf of A
the appellants that in the present case, the ingredients of
Section 304 B IPC are not satisfied and as such, they cannot
be convicted for that offence. This contention is sought to be
buttressed by the counsel while relying upon the letters Exts.
Ka-2 to Ka-5 (four letters). The argument is that since no B
complaint of dowry has been made in these letters, therefore,
it must follow that there was no demand of dowry made by the
accused persons. In absence of such demand, the rigours of
Section 304B do not come into play. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Meka               c
Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan & Ors. [AIR 1998 SC 774] and
Rajesh Tandon v. State of Punjab (1994 (1) SCALE 816].

      7. Before we examine the merit or otherwise of this
contention, it will be useful to state the basic ingredients of
Section 304B IPC. The requirement of Section 304B is that the D
death of a woman be caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise
than in normal circumstances, within seven years of her
marriage. Further, it should. be shown that soon before her
death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or her husband's family or relatives and thirdly, that E
such harassment should be in relation to a demand for dowry.
Once these three ingredients are satisfied, her death shall be
treated as a 'dowry death' and once a 'dowry death' occurs,
such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused her
death. Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative would be F
presumed to have committed the offence of dowry death
rendering them liable for punishment unless the presumption
is rebutted. It is not only a presumption of law in relation to a
death but also a deemed liability fastened upon the husband/
relative by operation of law. This Court, in the case of Bansi G
Lal v. State of Haryana ((2011) 11 SCC 359], while analyzing
the provisions of Section 304B of the Act, held as under :

    "18. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 113-
    B of the Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption that      H
    908       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         the accused is responsible for dowry death, have to be
          pressed in service. The said provisions read as under:

                 "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When
                 the question is whether a person has committed the
B                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 for, or in
                 connection with, any demand for dowry, the court
                 shall presume that such person had caused the
                 dowry death."
c
                                               (emphasis supplied)

          19. It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its
          wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a
D         mandatory application on the part of the court to presume
          that death had been committed by the person who had
          subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with
          any demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Section
          113-A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been
E         conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that
          court may presume abetment of suicide by a married
          woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the
          accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section
          113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove
          shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. The only
F
          requirements are that death of a woman has been caused
          by means other than any natural circumstances; that death
          has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her
          marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty
          or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
G         husband in connection with any demand of dowry.

          20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such
          death have been established by the prosecution, it is the
          duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused
H         has caused the dowry death. It may also be pertinent to
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 909
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     mention herein that the expression "soon before her death"      A
     has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore,
     in each case, the Court has to analyse the facts and
     circumstances leading to the death of the victim and
     decide if there is any proximate connection between the
     demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the        B
     death. (Vide T. Aruntperunjothi v. State; Devi Lal v. State
     of Rajasthan; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, SCC p.
     56, para 13; Anand Kumar v. State of MP. and Undavalli
     Narayana Rao v. State of A.P.)"

    8. Similar view was also taken by this Court in the case of
                                                                     c
Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder & Anr. v. State of West
Bengal [(2008) 1 sec 2021.

      9. In light of the enunciated principles, now we will revert
back to the facts of the present case. Immediately upon death        D
of the deceased, PW2, Smt. Vimla Devi, mother of the
deceased had lodged the report with the police where she had
given in writing the complete facts, as we have stated above,
and it is not necessary for us to repeat her complaint here. When
her deposition was recorded in the Court, she, again, on oath,       E
reiterated the complete facts. According to her, the demand of
dowry in relation to various items persisted right from the date
of engagement, uptil the death of the deceased. Firstly,
demand was raised in relation to purchase of a refrigerator, for
which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given and it was only thereafter      F
that the engagement ceremony could be completed. Thereafter,
television and cooler were also demanded, for which they had
thrown out the deceased Ms. Renu from her matrimonial home
and it was only upon the assurance given by the mother and
the uncle of the deceased that Mukesh and his family had             G
agreed to take her back to the matrimonial home. It must be
noticed that on 18th October, 1995, the father of the deceased
had died, but despite such death, the demands of dowry
persisted from the accused persons. Not only this, while Ms.
Renu was leaving her home for the last time along with Mukesh,
                                                                     H
    910      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A after Mukesh was assured that in future they would arrange for
  television and cooler, she had categorically stated that she
  apprehends danger to her life and she may not come back to
  her home. These circumstances clearly show the kind of threat
  and fear under which the deceased was living. PW1 is the uncle
B of the deceased, who also fully corroborated the statement of
  PW2. According to this witness, Mukesh had climbed up to the
  roof and said that he would not come down and would not
  permit the engagement ceremony to be completed, unless a
  fridge was brought. Then Rs.10,000/- was given to his brother
c Rajesh Bhatnagar, whereafter the ceremony was completed.
  There is no contradiction or variation in the statements of PW1
  and PW2.

         10. One Anoop Sharma had informed them on 17th
    February, 1996 that Ms. Renu had met with an accident. Anoop
D   Sharma was examined by the prosecution as PW3, and this
    witness admitted that he had got the marriage arranged
    between Renu and Mukesh and when he had gone to meet his
    aunt, who lived in Roorkee, while passing by the place situated
    near the house of Mukesh, then he saw the gathering of people
E   there and had made the call to Ms. Renu's family from the STD
    booth to Sikandrabad. This is another circumstance which
    shows that the accused persons were totally irresponsible and
    did not even care to inform the family of the deceased, about
    her death. Dr. Vipin Kumar Premi, PW4, along with Dr. R.K.
F   Pande, had performed the post mortem on the dead body of
    the deceased Renu. According to the doctor, the whole of the
    body was burnt up to the stage of first and second degree burns
    and the deceased had expired due to ante mortem injuries and
    shock. Sub Inspector RP. Purohit, the Investigating Officer,
G   (PW5) has testified with regard to the inquest investigation,
    recovery of articles from the place of occurrence and recording
    of statements of witnesses. In his examination, he specifically
    denied that the body of the deceased was handed over to
    Mukesh and Rajesh after post mortem. Deputy Superintendent
H   of Police M.L. Ghai, PW-7 had also visited the spot after
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 911
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

complainant Smt. Vimla Devi was examined. He prepared the A
site plan and conducted the inquest. This witness clearly stated
that when at 8.00 p.m. on 17th February, 1996, he went to the
house of Mukesh, to make inquiries upon the formal registration
of the case, he did not find the accused persons on the spot
and, in fact, they had left the house open and fled. Therefore, s
he had got the house locked by a Havaldar of Chowki Tehsil.

      11. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was
persistent demand of dowry by the accused persons and they
had killed her by sprinkling kerosene on her and putting her on C
fire. There can be no dispute that the deceased died an
unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Thus, the
ingredients of Section 3048 are fully satisfied in the present
case. We are least satisfied with the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, that merely because the
letters on record do not specifically mention the dowry D
demands, such letters have to be construed by themselves
without reference to other evidence and rebutting the
presumption of a dowry death, giving the benefit of doubt to the
accused. These letters have to be read in conjunction with the
statements of PW1 and PW2. It is difficult for one to imagine E
that these letters should have been worded by the deceased
as submitted on behalf of the accused. She never knew with
certainty that she was going to die shortly. The letters clearly
spell out the beatings given to her, the cruelties inflicted on her
and reference to the conduct of the family. The evidence has F
to be appreciated in its entirety. Neither the letters can be
ignored nor the statements of PW1 and PW2. If the letters had
made no reference to beatings, cruelty and ill-treatment meted
out to the deceased and not demonstrating the grievance,
apprehensions and fear that she was entertaining in her mind, G
but were letters simpliciter mentioning about her well being and
that she and her in-laws were living happily without complaint
against each other, the matter would have been different. In the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
accused, it has specifically been recorded that the letters H
    912      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A produced in those cases had clearly stated that relations
  between the parties were cordial and there was no reference
  to any alleged cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased
  by any of the accused in that case. On the contrary, in the letters,
  it was specifically recorded that the deceased was happy with
B all the members of the family. The oral and documentary
  evidence in those cases had clearly shown that the deceased
  was never subjected to any cruelty or harassment. In those
  cases, there was no evidence of demand of dowry and cruelty
  to the deceased, which certainly is not the case here. In the
c case before us, there is definite ocular, expert and documentary
  evidence to show that the deceased died an unnatural death,
  she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was
  demand of dowry of specific items like refrigerator, television
  and cooler and she died within seven years of her marriage.

D      12. Then the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
  contended that the accused Mukesh had suffered 12 injuries
  on his person in attempts to rescue the deceased and there
  was no proximity between the demand of refrigerator and the
  occurrence. Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of the
E offence charged. According to him, in any case, the courts
  ought not to have awarded the punishment of life imprisonment
  to the accused persons keeping in view the entire facts of the
  case and the fact that both the accused were young persons
  while their mother was an aged lady. He placed reliance upon
F the judgment of this Court in the case of Hemchand v. State
  of Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 727]. These contentions again are
  without any substance. No doubt, as per the statement of the
  doctor, there were nearly 12 injuries fourid on the body of the
  accused Mukesh. Question is, how did he suffer these injuries?
G No doubt the accused had suffered number of injuries. PW8,
  Dr. D.D. Lumbahas explained the injuries on the body of the
  accused Mukesh as follows :

          "(1) Abraded swelling 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right upper
               eyelid.
H
 RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 913
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

      (2)   Abraded swelling 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right side face,       A
            just below right eye.

      (3)   Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.2 cm, left side neck, front
            middle past.

      (4)   Three abrasions in an area of 6.0 cm x 3.5 cm, each      B
            measuring 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, 0.6 cm x 0.4 cm, and
            0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, right upper arm inner side lower
            past.

      (5)   Two faint contusions 2.0 cm apast, each measuring        c
            1.5 cm x 0.5 cm and 2.0 cm x 0.8 cm right chest,
            front, upper past.

      (6)   Faint contusion 2.5 cm x 0.4 cm, left side chest,
            front upper past.
                                                                     D
      (7)   Abrasion 1.4 cm x 0.3 cm, left side chest outer side
            9.0 cm below armpit.

      (8)   Two abrasion 1.5 cm apast, each measuring 5.0 x
            0.5 cm and 6.0 x 0.5 cm, left upper arm outer side,      E
            middle past.

      (9)   Abrasion 0.8 x 0.2 cm, left upper arm, back, lower
            past.

      (10) Abrasion 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm, right back upper past.          F
      (11) Two abrasion 2.0 cm apast, each measuring 3.0
           cm x 0.3 cm and 6.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right back outer
           site/at to the right armpit.

      (12) Abrasion 13.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right upper arm back           G
           outer upper 2/3."

      13. The question that arises for consideration of this Court
is as to how and when the accused Mukesh suffered the injuries.
According to the accused, he had suffered these injuries when        H
    914         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 5 S.C.R.

A   he was trying to break open the door of the kitchen with the
    intention to save the deceased, because it was projected by
    the defence that the deceased had died because of an accident
    of stove fire while cooking the food. This entire gamut of
    projections by the defence counsel are not only afterthoughts
B   but, in fact, nothing but falsehood. This aspect has been well
    considered by the Trial Court, which recorded the following
    reasons for rejecting this theory propounded on behalf of the
    defence:

          "(1)   On the spot, a pin of stove was opened, however,
c                the stove was not burning. The switch of heater was
                 also off and it was also not found on.

          (2)    There was no cooked food.

D         (3)    On the spot the empty container was found which
                 contained kerosene oil smell. Besides this, the one
                 container containing kerosene oil was found.

                 xxxxxx        xxx
E         (5)    From the body of deceased and from earth,
                 kerosene oil smell was coming.

          (6)    The deceased was not wearing synthetic clothes.
                 No half burnt cloth was found.
F         (7)    About 12 injuries were found on the person of
                 accused Mukesh on different parts of the body. On
                 the spot, the broken bangles of deceased were
                 found. All these things go to prove that deceased
                 was fighting for her life. No explanation was given
G                by Mukesh for his injuries.

          (8)    The entrance of kitchen was not having any door
                 and the statement given by defence that the door
                 of the kitchen was closed and he had to open the
H
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 915
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

            door by pushing it from his hands and chest, is a     A
            false statement.

      (9)   Before the death, deceased has discharged faecal
            matter and there was rigor mortis on her dead body,
            which indicates that deceased was afraid of her       B
            death. This fact goes to prove that occurrence had
            not taken place as has been said by accused
            persons.

      (10) The dead body was having first degree and second
           degree burn injuries and it goes to prove that C
           kerosene oil was sprinkled on the body. It
           completely rules out the death of accident."

      14. The above reasoning given by the Trial Court deserves
acceptance by us. Furthermore, the entire conduct of the 0
accused is such as to lead to only one plausible conclusion,
i.e., all the accused together had caused the death of the
deceased. The arguments of the defence are strange because
if the accused had attempted to save the deceased, then he
would have suffered some burn injuries. But as per the above E
details of injuries, there was not even a single burn injury found
on the body of the accused Mukesh. These injuries were such
that one could suffer only if he was struggling or fighting with
another person, as then alone could he suffer such bruises or
minor cuts. Absence of any cooking material in the kitchen is F
another very important circumstance which would belie the
stand of this accused. An accused who raises a false plea
before the Court would normally earn the criticism of the Court
leading to adverse inference. This Court in the case of Asraf
Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328] has held as follows
                                                                   G

    "21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to
    put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the
    purpose of enabling him to explain any of the
    circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It       H
    916       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each
          material circumstance appearing in the evidence against
          the accused is required to be put to him specifically,
          distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a
          serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the
B         accused was prejudiced.

          22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish
          a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. If a
          point in the evidence is important against the accused, and
          the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right
c         and proper that the accused should be questioned about
          the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it.
          Where no specific question has been put by the trial court
          on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it
          would vitiate the trial. Of course, all evidence, it would
D         vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider
          whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or
          prejudice. This Court also expressed a similar view in S.
          Hamam Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) while dealing with
          Section 342 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1898
E         (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non-
          indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the
          trial court to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the
          prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the
          accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless
F         exercise."

        15. As far as the contention of the accused that there was
  no proximity or nexus between the alleged demand of
  refrigerator and the death of the deceased and the accused
G is, thus, entitled to benefit of acquittal is concerned, it requires
  to be noticed only for being rejected. The demand for
  refrigerator was the first demand of dowry, that too, at the time
  of engagement. This demand was instantaneously fulfilled by
  the family of the deceased under compulsion and threat that
  the engagement ceremony would not be performed if the
H
RAJESH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 917
          [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
refrigerator or money was not given. The demand of dowry             A
raised by the accused persons later for television and cooler
could not be satisfied by the family of the deceased for financial
limitations upon the death of father of the deceased. As a result,
the deceased was treated with cruelty and physical assault. In
fact, it ultimately led to her brutal murder at the hands of the     B
husband and his family members. Not only this, the conduct of
the accused prior to and immediately after the occurrence
clearly shows that they were not innocent. Otherwise, there was
no occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased
was handed over to her relations. These circumstances, along         c
with the circumstances stated by the Trial Court, are
inconsistent with their innocence and consistent only with
hypothesis that they had killed the deceased by setting her on
fire. No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, has
been rendered by the accused persons in their statements             0
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the trend of cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses and explanations
given by the defence for accused Mukesh having suffered
injuries on his body are patently false and not worthy of
credence.
                                                                     E
      16. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in
holding that the accused are not entitled to any benefit, much
less acquittal, from this Court. We may also refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Kundu/a Bala
Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2             F
sec    684] where, under somewhat similar circumstances, the
Court rejected the plea of the innocence of the accused taking
into consideration the conduct of the accused and his failure
to furnish a satisfactory explanation.
                                                                     G
      17. Now we are left with the last contention of the counsel
for the appellant that this is a case where the Court may not
uphold the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts
below. We see no mitigating circumstances in favour of the
accused which will persuade us to take any view other than the
                                                                     H
    918      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A view taken by the Trial Court on the question of quantum of
  sentence. Even in the case of Hemchand (supra), relied upon
  by the appellant, this Court had said that it is only in rare cases
  that the Court should impose punishment of life imprisonment.
  When the offence of Section 3048 is proved, the manner in
B which the offence has been committed is found to be brutal, it
  had been committed for satisfaction of dowry demands,
  particularly, for material goods like television or cooler and
  furthermore the accused takes up a false defence before the
  Court to claim that it was a case of an accidental death and
c not that of dowry death, then the Court normally would not
  exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the accused by
  awarding lesser sentence than life imprisonment.

        18. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in the
    appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly.
D
    8.8.B.                                     Appeals dismissed.