Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAJENDRA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 477
- Decided
- 8 July 2014
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
The prosecution proved the elements of dowry death, leading to conviction under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B (r/w 34), but failed to prove abetment of suicide, so the conviction under Section 306 r/w 34 was set aside.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed the acquittal of six accused under Sections 498‑A, 304‑B and 306 of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of a dowry death and the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act. It held that the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, that the death occurred within seven years of marriage by burns, and that the accused were therefore guilty of offences under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B read with Section 34. However, the Court found no proof that the death was a suicide, so the conviction under Section 306 r/w 34 was set aside. The appeals were allowed in part, upholding the convictions for dowry‑related offences and overturning the acquittal on abetment of suicide.
Issues considered
- The conditions required to invoke the presumption of dowry death under Section 113‑B, Evidence Act.
- Whether the prosecution proved the elements of a dowry death under Section 304‑B, IPC.
- Whether the prosecution proved abetment of suicide under Section 306 r/w Section 34, IPC.
- The adequacy of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence for dowry death.
- The interpretation of the phrase "soon before her death" in Sections 304‑B and 113‑B.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 113-A, s. 113-B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 306, s. 34, s. 498-A
Subjects
dowry deathSection 304-BSection 498-ASection 306presumptionEvidence Act 113-Bcircumstantial evidenceabetment of suicideIndian Penal Code
Judgment
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 393
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A
v.
RAJENDRA &ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 719 of2010)
JULY 08, 2014 B
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
Pena/Code, 1860-ss.306, 304-Band498-Ar/w. s.34
- Dowry death-Acquittal by trial court- Cpnviction by High
Court - On appeal, held.' Prosecution successfully proved C
and established its case u/ss. 498-A and 304-B, hence
conviction thereunder affinned- Since the case uls. 306 has
not been proved beyond doubt, conviction thereunder set
aside.
EvidenceAct, 1872-s.113-B-Presumption under- D
Raising of- Conditions for.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In dowry death cases direct evidence may
not be available. Such cases may be proved by E
circumstantial evidence. Section 394-B IPC read with
113-B of the Evidence Act indicates the rule of
presumption of dowry death. The expression "soon
before her death" is used in the substantive Section 304-
B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The F
determination of period which can come within the term
"soon before" is left to be determined by the Court
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. [Paras 24, 27)(405-C-D; 406-B]
Yashoda and Another v. State of M.P. 2004 (3) G
sec 98 - relied on.
2. The presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act .•
with respect to dowry death can be raised only on the
proof of the following four essential conditions: 1) The
H
393
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R..
A woman was ·subjected to cruelty or harassment; 2)by
the husband or his relatives;3) for or in connection with
any demand for dowry; 4)soon before her death.
[Para 25][405-D-F] ' ·
Kaliyaperumal vs. State ofTamil Nadu 2004 (9)
B SCC 157: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 - relied
on. · " '
3. In the present-case from the evidence of
prosecution witnesses it is found that the harassment
of the deceased was with a ·view to coerce. her to
C convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said
. willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the
suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific
· evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of s.498-A
IPC, while hblding that all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty
D for the offence u/s. 498-A IPC, it is held that the
prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed .
suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the
offence u/s.306 r/w 34 IPC. [Para 31)[4~7-E-H]
· 4. The prosecution on the basis "of evidence has
E successfully proved that the deceased. died within·· 7
· years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is
.
caused by burns i.e. nor under normal .
circumstances.
.
has also been proved that soon before her death, during
It
her pregnancy, the deceased was subjected to cruelty
F and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused
in· connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the
'prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable
doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence
u/s.304-B, r/w s. 34 IPC.[Para 32][408-A-C]
G CASE LAW REFERENCE
2004 (3) sec 98 relied on
~ ~ ~., ,r i Para 24
[2003) 3 Suppl. SCR 1 . relied on Para 25
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA& ORS. 395
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal A
Appeal No. 719 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2005 of the
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in Crl. A. No. 388 of2005.
WITH
B
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of2010
Shankar Chillarge (for Ms. Asha G Nair), Sachin J. Patil,
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi,Advs., fortheAppellant.
Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Aditya Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Ms.
·Asha G Nair, K. L. Taneja,Advs., forthe Respondents. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These
appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th August,
2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.388 of 2005. D
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that unless the
prosecution proves that death was suicidal and that the
deceased was treated with cruelty and was harassed by direct
evidence, the presumption under Section 113-A does not apply
in the case and acquitted all the accused-respondents from E
the charges under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section
306 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC, thereby reversing the
finding of the Trial Court.
2. Respondents - accused No.1, Shivpujan and accused
No.3, Malti Devi are husband and wife. Accused No.2, F
Rajendra, accused No.5, Surendra and accused No.6,
Virendra are their sons. Accused No.4, Anita is the daughter
of accused Nos.1 and 3 and is married to one Satyam Mishra
who is in Police service. Accused Nos.1 and 5 are also in
Police service. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 reside together G
in Plot No.96, Adarsha Colony, behind Police Line Takli at
Nagpur. Accused No.4 resides in Police Line, Pathrigad
Quarter, Sadar at Nagpur. Accused No.2-Rajendra is the
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.
A youngest son of accused Nos.1 and 3. Deceased Ranjana
was the wife of accused No.2-Rajendra.
3. Marriage of deceased took place with accused No.2-
Rajendra on 19'h April, 1998. She was the daughter of
Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) and Chandrakanta (PW-
B 8)-the complainant. The deceased was the younger sister of
Ranjit (PW-9). Parents and brothers of the deceased reside
at Gandhi Nagar, Surendergarh, Nagpur. The distance
betWeen the house of the accused and the parental house of .
the deceased is about 1 km: • ·
c 4. The deceased sustained 98% burn injuries in the early
morning of 81hApril, 1999, in her matrimonial house i.e. the
house of the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. She was taken to
Mayo Hospital, but before treatment could commence, she died
at 9.30 a.m. on the same day itself and at that time the
D deceased was in the 7th month of her first pregnancy.
5. · The prosecution case is that the husband and the
mother-in-law i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 used to beat the
. deceased whereas other accused together with accused
Nos.2 and 3 used to mentally and physically ill-treat the
E deceased on account of dowry demand. Accused No.2-
Rajendra wanted Hero Hon.da Motor Cycle from the parents
of the deceased. He always used to press his demand. The
deceased had informed her parents that she was being
subjected to cruelty and that her in-laws behaved with her like
F animals: Many a times father of the deceased went to fetch
the deceased but accused used to ask him that he should firat
bring money for Hero Honda Motorcycle and then only he can
take the deceased along with him. Since 71h month of the
pregnancy of the deceased was to begin, on 8th April, 1999 at
.G 6 a.m. her father had been to her matrimonial house to fetch
her. Accused insulted him on account of dowry demands and
refused'to send the deceased with him. At 9 a.m. accused
No.5-Surendra i.e. elder brother-in-law Ueth) of the deceased
came to the house of parents of the deceased and told them
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA & ORS. 397
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
that their daughter had sustained burns and that she was A
admitted in Mayo Hospital. The parents of the deceased
immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital. It was found that their
daughter was already dead.
6. A.O. No.28/99 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was
registered at 10.50 a.m. on 8"'April, 1999 on the basis of report B
of Police Head Constable Diwakar from Mayo Hospital Police
Booth. The PSl-S.R. Parvekar thereafter visited the spot of
occurrence, prepared spot panchanama (Ext.40) and then
. proceeded to Mayo Hospital and prepared inquest
panchanama (Ext.43) and sent the dead body for its C
postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ashish
Wankhede (PW-10) and report is Ext.62. Thereafter, the report
(Ext.54) was lodged by PW.8, mother of the deceased with
the Police Head Constable Girish Pande (PW-14) upon which
FIR (Ext.55) was registered at 7.10 p.m. on 8'h April, 1999 for D
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.
Further investigation was carried out by Police Sub-Inspector,
Parvekar. He recorded the statement of the father of deceased
and arrested accused No.2-Rajendra i.e. husband of the
deceased on 8'h April, 1999 itself. The further investigation was E
carried out by Police Inspector Ravindra Relgudwar (PW.12)
and then Police Sub-Inspector, Dadasaheb Khade (PW.13).
In the statements of witnesses i.e. neighbours of the
complainant, brother of the deceased, supplementary
statement of the complainant were recorded. Viscera of the F
deceased that was preserved at the time of the postmortem
examination, pieces of saree, match box and a piece of burnt
plastic which were seized at the time of drawing the
panchanama were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for
examination. The marriage ceremony of the deceased and G
accused No.2-Rajendra was shot by a video shooting. Its video
cassette was produced by the complainant before the
Investigating Officer. It was seized (Ext.45). Pursuant to a
direction in Criminal Writ Petition No.168/99 filed by the
complainant, offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC was H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A also added. Other accused were arrested and on completion
of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up to the Court.of CJM,
Nagpur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Charges for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-
8, 306 r/w 34 IPC were framed to which the accused pleaded
8 not guilty. The prosecution produced altogether 14 witnesses.
The witnesses against the accused made their statements
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. (Ext.91 to 96) and submitted their
written statement (Ext.97). Four defence witnesses viz. DW.1-
Mohd Asgar, DW.2-A.S.I., Chandrabhan Osare, DW.3-ASI
C Pralhad Kaware and DW.4-Rajesh Soni were also examined.
The defence, as how it appears from the cross-examination
of the witnesses etc. is that of total denial with regard to the
alleged cruelty. The stand was that the accused always gave
good treatment to the deceased. They gave jewellery to the
o deceased and also invested money in her name in the post
office. It was denied that they ever demanded any dowry from
her parents. It is their case that the deceased was under
pressure from her mother. They were disowned knowledge as
to how the deceased died.
E 7. The. Trial Court, as noticed above on appreciation of
evidence, statements of witnesses and exhibits, held the
accused guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-8,
306 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the said finding was reversed
by. the Appellate Court for the reasons mentioned in the
F preceding paragraphs.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment
mainly on the following grounds:
(a) The High Court in the impugned judgment, while .
quoting some portions of the evidence of the prosecution
G witnesses has not given any cogent reason for
disbelieving the evidence of those witnesses.
(b) The impugned judgment is cryptic, unreasoned and
order of acquittal was passed without discussion and
appreeiation of evidence.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA & ORS. 399
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(c) The High Court recorded completely erroneous finding A
that prosecution has not proved. suicidal death of
Ranjana. In fact, the defence itself came with the story of
suicidal death of Ranjana.
(d) The prosecution has proved the demand of dowry
and cruelty for the said dem.and. All ingredients for B
conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were
present. It was presumed that the case was that of a
dowry death.
9. The stand of the respondents is that the deposition of
prosecution witnesses after five years was improved version C
from their version made during the investigation. They added
allegation to attract Section 3048 IPC. Chandra Kanta (PW-
8), mother of the deceased and Ranjit(PW-9), brother of the
deceased both improved their version from the version made
during the investigation on material aspect. Same is the D
situation of Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-1), father of the
deceased. All were related to the deceased. Thus they were
interested witnesses and their credibility is considerably in
question.
10. Chandrakanta (PW-8), mother of the deceased is E
the complainant. In her statement she stated that Ranjana
(deceased) was married with accused No.2- Rajendra on 19th
April, 1998. At the time of marriage it was decided that
Rs.25,000/-was to be paid, which was given apart from another
sum of Rs.25,000/-given for scooter and Rs.5,000/~ in addition F
to that, a total amount of Rs.56,000/- was given when the
• marriage was settled. Prior to 2-4 days of the marriage,
accused No.1 and accused No.2 asked for Hero Honda
Motorcycle although the amount of Rs.25,000/-was paid for
scooter: Deceased's family informed that they are unable to G
pay more than what was already agreed. The marriage was
thereafter performed. At the time of Baral (procession) the
accused had also created chaos when the bridegroom was
about to enter the panda I of the marriage hall and the golden
ring was given to him. In the marriage, religious rites were going H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A on throughout the night. The accused No1 did not take any
meals or food. During the marriage a golden chain of about
12 gms. was presented to accused No.2. Accused No.2 was
refusing to accept the said chain and wanted the chain of 2
tolas (20 gms.) and the golden stick. However, at that time
B they were convinced. The deceased had to come back to her
parents house after 8-1 Odays of the marriage. She disclosed
that her in-laws were torturing her throughout the day for not
giving the T.V set, Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle.
She asked the deceased to convey the accused No.2 that she
C would somehow arrange for the motorcycle. After 3-4 months
of the marriage they had given an amount of Rs.20,000/- io
accused No.2 for Almirah, Cooler and T.V., still the torture was
continued. The deceased-Ranjana used to come to her. The
deceased was not sent whenever called by her parents.
o Accused No.2-Rajendra used to take the deceased to the
house of her parents at an interval of3-4 days on some pretext
or other. Initially, the deceased was not disclosing freely even
accused No.2 used to bring the deceased. He used to torture
the deceased by forcing her to demand for the things and used
E to shout at her.
11, She further stated that Ranjana had stayed with her
for a span of 3-4 days when she had come after 8-10 days of
marriage. Thereafter she was not sent for residing, however,
she was sent in January for 2-3 days. At that time on enquiry
F the deceased disclosed that her in-laws are torturing and
. harassing her very much. She further disclosed that she was
also not provided food properly and she was treated like an
animal. The mother enquired from the deceased as to who
had harassed her to which she disclosed that her father in-
G law, husband, brother of husband, sister of husband and the
husband of sister of accused No.2 vexed her.
12. Chandrakanta (PW-8) further stated that her husband
(PW-11) had been to her daughter's materimonial house to
bring her on the day of incident i.e. 8'"April, 1999 at 6.30 a.m.
H .Some religious rites were to be performed but she did not
'
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA& ORS. 401
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
come out. After one hour accused No.5, Surendra came and A
inform about the burning incident happened with the deceased
and took PW-11 to mortuary. She entered the mortuary and
noticed the dead body of Ranjana.
During the cross-examination she accepted that she has
not assigned any reason as to why she has not stated about B
giving an amount of Rs.20,000/- after 3-4 months of the
marriage for Almirah, T.V. and Cooler and still the torture
continued.
13. Ranjit (PW-9) is the brother of the deceased. In his
statement he stated that at the time of Rakhi (probably in c
August, 1998) he had been to the house of accused and
disclosed to accused No.1 that he had come to call his sister
Ranjana. Accused No.1 refused to send Ranjana and
commented that he did not want to send beggar's daughter.
At that time accused No.2 also came and started abusing and D
caught hold of his collar. He further stated that 10-15 days
thereafter accused No.2 had come to their house along with
the deceased Ranjana. At that time his sister disclosed him
{
that her in-laws were demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle,
Cooler, Almirah and she was harassed for non-satisfying the E
demands. He convinced her to the effect that she will have to
pull and there was no purpose in disturbing the family life.
In the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he
made statement before the Police that after 10-15 days after
accused No.2 had come to their house along with Ranjana, F
his sister disclosed him that her in-laws were demanding a
motorcycle Hero Honda, Cooler, Almirah and she was vexed
for non-satisfying the demands.
14. Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11) is the father of
the deceased. In his statement he stated that her daughter
G
disclosed that the accused and his family members ill-treated
her. Accused No.2 was asking for Hero Honda Motorcycle.
She was physically abused on account of dowry. The accused
were also demanding and asking for refrigerator. He further
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A stated that on 8'h April, 1999 he had been to the house of
a.ccused to bring Ranjana for some religious rites, as she was
pregnant of 7 months. He reached the house of the accused
at 6.00-6.30 a.m. All the accused were present in the house.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 enquired from him as to whether he had
B brought the amount for Hero Honda Motorcycle. He told that
he had not brought the amount. Thereafter, he wanted to meet
Ranjana in case if the accused were not ready to send Ranjana.
Atthattime accused No.2 had slapped Ranjana. Thereafter,
he returned back. Ranjana was not sent along with him. At about
C 8.30 a.m. accused No.5-Surendra Shukla came and disclosed
that Ranjana had poured kerosene oil on her and set herself
ablaze. During the cross-examination he accepted that he has
not stated before the Police that accused No.1 and accused
No.2-Rajendra were asking him whether he brought the amount
o for Hero Honda and he replied that he had not brought the
amount.
15. Rajmani (PW-5) stated that at the time of marriage
dowry of Rs.25,000/-, one golden ring and watch was
demanded. At the time ·of bethrotal ceremony (lilak) the
E accused had also insisted for a scooter and the total amount
of Rs.56,000/-was given to the accused.
16. Santoshbai (PW-6), a neighbour, stated that afterthe
marriage when Ranjana had come at the time of Kajaltiz in her
parents' house, she wentthere. At that time there a telephone
F call came, Rajana attended the said call and started weeping.
She enquired from her (deceased) as to the cause of her
weeping. She stated that her in-laws were harassing her. So
also her other in-laws were vexing her. She stated that the
incident of the telephone message received by the deceased
G Ranjana had occurred 2-3.months prior to her death .
. 17. Geeta (PW-7), another neighbor, stated that Ranjana
when met her at the time of Kajaltiz after 2-3 months of her
marriage she was not appearing to be happy. At that time, she
enquired from Ranjana the cause of unhappiness, she told that
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA& ORS. 403
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
her in-laws were getting the complete work done from her but A
murmuring at the time of meals. They used to ask for dowry.
Ranjana had also stated that in case she watched T.V. her-in-
laws used to say that she should have brought the T.V. from
her parents.
18. The statement of Chandrakanta(PW-8) that Ranjana B
had come to him after 8-10 days of marriage and told that the
members of her in-laws were torturing her throughout the day
for T.V., Cooler, Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle, is
consistent with the FIR. Omission of certain facts does not
make any difference as the same is corroborated by PW-12. C
Similarly omission of statement that Rs.20,000/-was given to
the accused for almirah, cooler and TV is corroborated by
PW.6. Therefore the said omission is not fatal to the
prosecution .
. 19. Chandrakanta(PW-8) categorically stated on her D
examination that the deceased disclosed that her in-laws were
harassing her very much; she was not provided with food
properly. This evidence is un-shattered in the cross-
examination and it is stated in the FIR itself.
20. There is un-shattered evidence of Santoshbai (PW-6) E
about the dowry demand and cruelty. That is when she enquired
her as to cause for her weeping she stated that her mother-in-
law and the brother of her husband were very much harassing
her. So also her other in-laws were vexing her. This evidence
also corroborates the complainant Chandrakanta(PW-8) about F
the payment of money to accused No.2 for purchasing of the
house hold articles.
21. Geeta (PW-7) categorically stated thatthe deceased
told that her in-laws were getting the complete work done from
her. The verbal abuse was stated to be on account of dowry. G
She also stated that in case she watched TV her in-laws said
that she should bring TV from her parents.
Prior to one month of her death, she stated that there
was no certainty of her life, this evidence is not shaken in the H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A cross-examination and there are no improvements in the
evidence of PW-6 & PW-7.
22. Ranjit (PW-9) categorically stated in his evidence
that after 2-4 days they had received telephonic message from
the nurse of the Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade regarding
B hospitalization of Ranjana. Thereafter, he, his mother (PW-8)
and father (PW-11) had been to Hospital of Dr. Kunda Tayade
and he noticed that his sister Ranjana was lying on the bed
and that too alone. Ranjana at that time disclosed that since
last 2 days she was not provided food and as such she became
C weak. At thattime they came to know that Ranjanawas pregnant.
He further stated that by that time they were· talking with
Ranjana, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 came to the same room
and abused them and enquired as to who provided the address
of the Hospital and thereafter his mother and father went and
D he waited in the hospital. He had also a talk with accused No.3.
He himself paid the amount of Rs.2,000/-towards the fees of
hospitalization of Ranjana.
23. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that there
was a demand of dowry for purchasing Hero Honda Motorcycle
E and other house hold articles. The evidence of torture is also
clear from the fact that the deceased was not provided food
and as such she had become weak that too at the time when
she was in the 7"' month of pregnancy.
24. Section 304~8 !PC relates to dowry death, which
F reads as follows: ·
3048. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon
G before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death'', and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
H caused her death.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJENDRA& ORS. 405
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Exp/anation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, A
"dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28of1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shqll be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to B
imprisonment for life."
The expression "soon before her death" is used in the
substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act. No definite period has been indicated and the
· expression "soon before her death" is not defined. The C
determination of period which can come within the term "soon
before"js left to be determined by the Court depending upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. In this connection
one may refer the case of Yashoda ai:id another vs. State
of M.P., 2004 (3) sec 98. D
25. The presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act with respect to dowry death can be raised only
on the proof of the following four essential conditions:
1) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
E
2) by the husband or his relatives;
3) For or in connection with any demand for dowry;
4) soon before her death.
Refer Kaliyaperuma/ vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004
(9) sec 157 [AIR 2003 SC 3828]. F
26. Section 113-B of'the Evidence Act reads as under:
1138. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the
question is whether a person has committed the dowry
death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her G
death such woman has been subjected by such person
to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Co_urt shall presume that such
person had caused the dowry death.
H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A ····:'. Explanation.-Forthepurposesofthissection, "dowry
· death" shall have the same meaning as in section
3048, of the Indian Penal Code, (45of1860).
27. ln·dowry death cases direct evidence may not be
available. Such cases may be proved by circumstantial
B evidence. Section 304-B IPC read with 113-8 of the Evidence
Act indicates the rule of presumption of dowry death. If an
unnatural death ·of a married woman occurs within 7 years of
marriage in suspk:ious circumstances.. like due to burns .or
any other bodily injury and there is cruelty or harassment by
C her husband or relatives toror in connection with any demand
for dowry soon before her death then it shall be dowry death.
28. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment to suicide as
follows:
"306. Abetmen? of suicide.-lf any person commits
D
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act deals with
E. presumption as to the abetment to suicide by a married
woman, read as follows:
"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
.·. married woman.-When the· question is whether the
F commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a period
of seven years from the date of her marriage and that
her husband or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having
G
regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that
such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by
such relative of her husband.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty"
H shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the
' Indian Penal Code (45of1860).}"
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAJ EN ORA& ORS. 407
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
30. For the purpose of Section 113-A IPC cruelty shall A
have the same meaning as in Section 498-A IPC which reads
as follows:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, B
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose gfthis section, "cruelty"
means- c
@ any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
D
{Ql harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand."
E
31. In the present case from the evidence of prosecutior
witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7),
Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad
Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased
was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet F
demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the
deceased to commi.t the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in
absence of specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause
(b) of Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 ·
to 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold G
that the prosecutiori!failed to prove that the deceased
committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for
the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the
judgment passed by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld.
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 32. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has
successfully proved that the deceased died within 7 years of
her marriage; the death of the deceased is caused by burns
i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been proved
that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased
B was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and
· relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan. accused
No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita,
accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in
connection With demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the
c prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt
that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence under Section
304-B, r/w 34 IPC.
· 33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major
part of the judgment dated 18'h August, 2005 passed by the
D High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Criminal Appeal N0.388 of 2005 except the part relating to
offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The judgment dated
201h July, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case
No.44 7 of 2000 holding accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the
E offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC. is upheld but the part of the
judgment relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC
against the accused Nos.1 to 6 stands set aside by the
judgment passed by the High Court. The respondents- accused
No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti
F Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and
accused No.6-Virendra be taken into custody forthwith to
undergo the remainder period of sentence for Offence under
Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 IPC.
34. The appeals are allowed to the extent above.
G
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partl{ allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dowry death"Sign in to search