Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellants are aggrieved with the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence dated 27.1.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2003, by virtue of which all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. Each of them were required to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, further imprisonment for a period of three years has been awarded. Since the appellants were convicted for major offence i.e. Section 304B I.P.C, so, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Shanti and Ors. v. State of Haryana , the trial court did not impose any sentence upon the appellants for committing an offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

7. On 28.10.2002 Smt. Reena succumbed to her burn injuries. Inquest report (Ex.PG) of the dead body of Smt. Reena was prepared by A.S.I. Mahender Singh and post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Kulpratibha (PW.4) and one Dr. Paramjit. In her opinion, Smt. Reena had died due to ante mortem burns and its complications which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

8. The accused persons were arrested and thereafter, on completion of usual formalities of investigations, the prosecution filed challan against all the accused-appellants under Sections 498A/304B read with Section 34 I.P.C.

17. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code lays down that where the death of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death". Section 113B has also been inserted in the Indian Evidence Act. It deals with the presumption of "dowry death" and proclaims that when the question is whether a person has committed a dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused "dowry death". It can, therefore, be seen that irrespective of the fact whether the accused has any direct connection with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the "dowry death" provided the other requirements mentioned above are satisfied. The very thrust of the counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, hence such evidence falls short of the requirement to establish the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. The contention is meritless. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B I.P.C. show that there must be material to show that soon before death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B I.P.C. are pressed into service. But, at the same time, "soon before" is relative terms which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. These words imply that the interval should not be too long between time of making the demand and the death. It contemplates reasonable time which as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In other words, demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. The deceased Smt. Reena had a married life of little more than 3 years. In the instant case, apart from the dying declaration, which not only relates to the event of the date of occurrence, but also regarding demand of money the prosecution has examined PW.10 Dinesh, PW.11 Vijaypal and PW.12 Smt. Sona Devi, the brother, maternal uncle and mother of the deceased respectively. The tenor of their evidence suggests that though there was no demand prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage but after 15 days of the marriage, the demand of cash for the purpose of motorcycle and a plot was raised and the said demand of Rs. 20,000/- - 30,000/- continued till a compromise was effected in the year 2001 and even after that it persisted. Subsequently, a quarrel having been taken place between Sunil appellant and Dinesh (PW.l) on 18.8.2002 i.e. about two months prior to death of Smt. Reena, at the parental house of the deceased on the issue of expenses upon the studies of the deceased. No doubt, PW. 10 Dinesh, PW.11 Vijaypal and PW.12 Sona Devi, after having been recalled for further cross-examination, resiled from their previous statements made in the Court, stating that their previous statements were made under police pressure. Reena was tutored. There was also threat to the deceased by the police and the death of Reena was accidental, but no undue importance can be given to such like statements and this puts Court to guard as to which of the statement is correct and the statement which is corroborated from other reliable evidence can be used against the accused. The relations between the deceased and her husband i.e. appellant Sunil were not cordial after the marriage. This led Hem Chandra to make it publicise through a news item published in daily newspaper "Punjab Kesari" (Ex.DE) to the effect of having no concern with his son Sunil and his wife Reena and further divesting them from his moveable and immovable properties. Further, Sona Devi, mother of the deceased had moved an application against appellant Sunil at police post Dighal relating to harassment and demand of money from her daughter Reena. A compromise had been affected and Sona Devi moved another application Mark A in relation to the compromise to the effect that Sunil has felt apology and assured that he will not harass his daughter in future. This compromise has not been disputed by the defence and the appellant Sunil in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also mentioned about the compromise and a clear cut suggestion has also been put to PW.10 Dinesh that a compromise was effected in the year 2001 in the police post Dighal. The matter does not rest here. Admittedly, on 18.8.2002 on the occasion of the birth of a son to PW.l Dinesh, accused-appellant Sunil and deceased Reena had gone there and situation aggravated there as the accused-appellant Sunil refused to finance the further studies of Reena. This led a quarrel between Dinesh and Sunil, for which Sunil was detained over-night and the next day he got a case registered against Reena, Dinesh and other on the basis of statement Ex.DF. Then filing a divorce petition by Sunil on 2.9.2002 seeking dissolution of marriage against Reena also strengthen the factum of their strained relationship. Subsequent thereof the present occurrence had taken place on 22.10.2002 resulting into death of Smt. Reena on 28.10.2002. Therefore, the chain of events suggest that she was not living in a congenial atmosphere in her matrimonial home, obviously on account of mal-treatment, harassment etc. and of course for demand of dowry, for which a compromise, referred earlier thereto,had been affected. Thus, her death cannot be said to be too remote and stale enough which could not attract the ingredients of "soon before" her death. The words "soon" embrace the series of incidents forming part of the same transaction which culminated in the death of the concerned woman and the word "soon" cannot be interpreted to mean that cruelty or harassment should be just before death. In other words, if the bride is given disrespect from time to time and being tortured or harassed on account of the demand, no hard and fast rule can be fixed by the Court of law while interpreting the words "soon before the death". The sequence of events suggests that cruelty and harassment, for said reasons, were alive till her death. The argument that, admittedly, there was no demand before or at the time of marriage and as such, there was no occasion to demand the same, is also of no avail. There cannot be a thumb of rule that the demand of dowry could not be raised after the marriage. Where there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, it does not mean that demand cannot be raised after the marriage by the greedy husband, if the dowry was not to his satisfaction.

19. So far as husband of the deceased i.e. accused-appellant Sunil is concerned, the sequence of events, referred to above, points out accusing finger towards him. He, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the stand that Smt. Reena had committed suicide whereas in the cross-examination of the witnesses, a specific suggestion has been put to them regarding the death of Smt. Reena, accidentally. Thus, he himself is not sure with regard to his defence as to how Smt. Reena died. The death of Smt. Reena occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Admittedly, she died within 7 years of her marriage. It is duly proved that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and mal-treatment in connection with demand of dowry. All the essential ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. are fully satisfied with the availability of the presumption in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the instant appeal, qua the appellant Sunil is dismissed.