Basic concept of dowry in Section 304-B IPC

In Kamesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388, the
Apex Court, considering the expression “dowry” inter alia observed as
under:-
“14. The word „dowry‟ in Section 304-B IPC has
to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Act. Thus, there are three occasion related
to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at
the time of marriage and the third „at any time‟
after the marriage. The third occasion may appear
to be unending period. But the crucial words are
„in connection with the marriage of the said
parties‟.”
In Bachni Devi vs. State of Haryana 2011 (4) SCC 427, Apex
Court inter alia held that if a demand for property or valuable security,
directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, such demand would
constitute demand for dowry, the cause or reasons for such demand
being immaterial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 04.03.2014

Crl. A. No.259 of 2010
YOGESH KUMAR & ORS.V STATE

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
Citation; 2014(3) crimes 212 Delhi

On 19.4.2006, Police Control Room was informed that a girl had
hanged herself in House No.56, Gali No.10, Sitapuri. The information,
when conveyed to Police Station Dabri, was recorded there vide DD
No.28A, a copy of which was given to ASI Surender Singh of the said
Police Station for investigation. When the police officer reached the
aforesaid spot, he found a young girl hanging with a ceiling fan, using
her chunni for the purpose. The concerned SDM was called to the spot
and he recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar, who is the father of
the deceased and Rajesh Kumar, who is her paternal uncle. Ramesh
Kumar told the SDM that his daughter Mamta was married to Yogesh

Kumar (appellant before this Court) on 23.4.2004 and there was no
demand of dowry in the marriage. When the SDM asked him as to
whether his daughter had been subjected to cruelty or any kind of
harassment in the house of her in-laws, he alleged that Sheela Devi,
mother-in-law of his daughter, Yogita, her married sister-in-law, his
son-in-law Yogesh and Vijender Singh, father of Yogesh had started
demanding motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash in dowry from him just
one week after the marriage and they used to taunt and beat his
daughter, besides quarrelling with her and harassing her. He claimed
that he gave Rs.5,000/- to his son-in-law, one week after marriage,
followed by Rs.20,000/- to his son-in-law and his sister after about two
(2) months, when they demanded dowry from him. He also claimed that
on 12.4.2006, he had given Rs.30,000/- in cash as well as gold chain and
jhumki weighing 15 grams to the parents-in-law of his daughter so that
she is not maltreated and is given due respect. However, he did not
fulfill their demand for motorcycle, which had resulted in dispute
between them. He further alleged that after a child was born to his
daughter on 29.3.2005, she lived with him for about five (5) months and
was not willing to go to her matrimonial home due to harassment by in-
laws over demand of dowry and apprehending maltreatment in the said

house, but on account of the intervention of respected members of the
society, he had sent her back to the matrimonial home on 1.9.2005,
hoping that better sense would prevail with her in-laws and they would
improve their behaviour. He also alleged that his daughter Mamta had
complained to him with respect to maltreatment by her in-laws, through
letters sent by her.
2.
The paternal uncle of the deceased told the SDM that since
marriage, the in-laws of Mamta used to quarrel with her, besides
demanding dowry and harassing her. He also claimed that Mamta used
to weep whenever she visited him. He also alleged that though he had
tried to meet the in-laws to make them see reason, there was no
improvement in their behaviour and they used to harass Mamta and
subject her to cruelty, by beating her on account of demand of dowry.
The appellants Yogesh Kumar, Vijender, Sheela Devi and Yogita,
who are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of
the deceased were charge-sheeted under Sections 498A and 304B of
IPC. Since all of them pleaded not guilty to the charge, as many as
fifteen (15) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
witnesses were examined in defence.

Two
3.
Vide impugned order and judgement all the four appellants were
convicted under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC read with Section 34
thereof. They were sentenced to undergo RI for ten (10) years each
under Section 304B of IPC and RI for three (3) years each and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- each or to undergo SI for six (6) months each under
Section 498A thereof. Being aggrieved from their conviction and the
sentence awarded to them, the appellants are before this Court by way of
this appeal.
4.
Shri Ramesh Kumar, father of the deceased came in the witness
box as PW3 and stated that after 5-7 days of the marriage, the accused
persons started harassing his daughter on account of their demand of
dowry and after 8-9 days Yogesh took Rs.5,000/- from him. After about
20-25 days of marriage, his daughter sent him letter, through her
maternal uncle, disclosing therein that the accused were harassing her on
account of demand of Rs.2 lac in cash and a motorcycle. She sent yet
another letter after about one month disclosing therein that the accused
were asking her to sell her share in the plot and handover an amount of
Rs.5 lac to them besides a motorcycle. He claimed that after the said
letter the accused – Yogesh and his sister Yogita came to their house
and he gave Rs.20,000/- to them. He further stated that whenever the

deceased came to their house, she complained that her father-in-law and
mother-in-law used to harass her, abuse her and give beatings to her.
Though she was unwilling to return to matrimonial home they used to
send her back making her understand that with the passage of time
everything would be settled. He further stated that on discharge of her
daughter from the hospital on 30.3.2005, they brought her to their house
and sent her back to the matrimonial home on 1.9.2005, on the
intervention of respectables from the society. However, there was no
change in the attitude of the accused persons who continued to give
beatings to his daughter. He further claimed that on 5.4.2006, the
deceased came to their house at about 7 am and they found that she had
been given severe beatings. There were blue marks on her body at that
time. She told them that the accused were demanding Rs.5 lac and a
motorcycle from them and were harassing her for not bringing the
chhuchhak (customary gifts given at the time of birth of a male child)
after birth of son. She remained at their house for about 6-7 days.
According to the witness on 12.4.2006, he along with his brother -
Rajesh went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and gave
Rs.30,000/- besides a gold chain for the child, a pair of golden and silver
chand and suraj, silver ornaments, 11 pair of clothes for the child and

other articles to the accused persons who complained as to why he had
not brought ornaments for their daughter. An altercation took place on
this issue and he asked the accused persons to give some time to meet
their demands. They, however, were ready to quarrel on this issue. The
witnesses identified Ex.PW3/P 1 to P2 as the letters he had received
from his daughter.
5.
PW7 – Rajesh is the brother of the complainant. He stated that
within one week of marriage of Mamta, her in-laws started harassing her
for inadequate dowry and demanded a motorcycle besides Rs.5 lac in
cash. The father of Mamta gave Rs.5,000/- in cash to the accused
Yogesh. He further stated that whenever the deceased visited them she
used to tell him and his wife that the accused persons were harassing her
and giving her a lot of beatings on account of insufficient dowry. He
further stated that after birth of the child of Mamta they brought her to
their house and she remained there for about six months. It was only on
repeated requests that she was taken by her husband. He claimed that
even thereafter the accused persons did not improve and repeatedly
harassed Mamta. He also stated that on 5.4.2006 when the deceased
came to the house of his brother, she had bruises all over her body and
she stated that she had been asked by the accused persons to bring

motorcycle besides Rs.5 lac and chuchak. He claimed to have gone to
the matrimonial home of the deceased along with his brother and
deceased on 12.4.2006 and giving a lot of presents including ornaments
and clothes of child besides Rs.30,000/- in cash to the accused persons.
According to him, the accused persons were not satisfied with the
presents given to them and were demanding motorcycle and cash of
Rs.5 lac.
6.
PW13 – Smt. Kamla Devi is the mother of the deceased. She
stated that after about eight days of marriage, the accused persons
started harassing her daughter over dowry and demanding a motorcycle,
chain and Rs.50,000/-. She claimed that after about ten days, her
husband gave Rs.5,000/- to the accused Yogesh and thereafter he gave
Rs.20,000/- to him and his sister Yogita, but the accused persons
continued to harass her daughter by beating and harassing her. She
further stated that after delivery of a child to Mamta, the accused
persons left her alone there and they brought her to their house.
Thereafter, the accused persons demanded plot and a sum of Rs.5 lac in
cash. A Panchayat was then organized by them to persuade the accused
and take the deceased to their place. After much persuasion, the matter
was resolved and they sent the deceased along with them. However,

after a few days, she was again brought to their house and left there.
Thereafter, her husband and his younger brother took the deceased along
with chuchak, Rs.30,000/- in cash, a gold chain and clothes for the
accused persons, which were handed over to the accused Vijender and
his wife. The accused persons, however, were still not satisfied and
insisted on their earlier demand of Rs.5 lac and a plot.
7.
PW10 – Manoj Kumar stated that after two months of her
marriage when he went to the matrimonial house of Mamta to deliver
some clothes given by her father, she gave him a letter which he handed
over to her father.
PW11 – Shri Vir Pal is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He
stated that after 20-25 days of marriage of Mamta, he visited the house
of her in-laws and at that time she gave him a letter which he handed
over to her father.
8.
In their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., all the appellants
denied the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.
9.
DW1 – Suraj Bhan Garg stated that on 20.2.2005, the uncle of the
deceased came to the house of the accused person at the instance of the
deceased who at that time stated that her father wanted to take her back
to his house so as to keep Yogesh as gharjawai. According to him, this

was resisted by the deceased, who wanted to stay with her in-laws.
According to him on 30.3.2005, the accused Bijender informed him that
the parents of the deceased were insisting to take her to their house. He
thereupon went to DDU Hospital and tried to make them understand,
but they did not agree and took her with them. He further stated that in
June, 2005, a meeting took place in the house of Rajesh in Sagarpur and
in that meeting father of the deceased acknowledged receipt of financial
assistance amounting to Rs.8500/- from the accused persons and
returning the said amount. He also stated that the house of accused
Bijender is a two-storied house in which Yogesh along with his family
were residing on the ground floor whereas Bijender and his family were
residing on the first floor.
DW2 HC Shiv Kumar proves the copy of DD No.64 on
22.5.2005, Ex.DW2/A.
10.
In order to prove the charge under Section 304B of IPC, the
prosecution is required to prove that (a) the victim died within seven
years of marriage; (b) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon
before her death; (c) such cruelty and harassment was for dowry. The
expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in the Indian
Penal Code and, therefore the Court is required to analyze the facts and

circumstances leading to the death of the victim and then decide whether
there was any proximate connection between the demand of dowry or
the act of cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim.
In Kamesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388, the
Apex Court, considering the expression “dowry” inter alia observed as
under:-
“14. The word „dowry‟ in Section 304-B IPC has
to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Act. Thus, there are three occasion related
to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at
the time of marriage and the third „at any time‟
after the marriage. The third occasion may appear
to be unending period. But the crucial words are
„in connection with the marriage of the said
parties‟.”
In Bachni Devi vs. State of Haryana 2011 (4) SCC 427, Apex
Court inter alia held that if a demand for property or valuable security,
directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, such demand would
constitute demand for dowry, the cause or reasons for such demand
being immaterial.
In Hans Raj Sharma & Others vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Crl.A. Nos. 339-41 of 2005, decided on 02.03.2010, this Court, inter
alia, observed as under:-
“If at any time before or at the time of or even
during marriage, the parents of a woman or any

other person related or connected to her agree to
give some cash, valuable security or property to
her husband or in-laws after marriage, that also
would be covered within the definition of dowry as
the agreement or promise in such a case would be
attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage
and if there is demand for any cash property,
valuable security etc. which is promised, but not
given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the
husband of the girl or any other person related or
connected to him, demands something from the
girl or her parents or any other person related to or
connected with her, saying that the article being
demanded by them was expected to be given or
ought to have been given in marriage, that also, to
my mind, would constitute demand of dowry
because even though such an article may not have
been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or
her family members, it might have been in the
contemplation of the boy and/or his family
members, on account of the expectation that such
an article would be given at the time of marriage.
Therefore, such demand would be considered to be
a demand in connection with the marriage though
made after the marriage has been solemnized.
Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge,
jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are
given or expected in marriages in our country,
would, considering the objective sought to be
achieved by incorporating Section 304-B in Indian
Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 fall within the purview of Section 304-B of
IPC. In fact, in Pawan Kr. & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana AIR 1998 SC 958, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has specifically held demand of T.V.,
Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or
promised or even demanded prior to or at the time
of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the
purpose of Section 304-B of IPC. If cash or some
property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family

members, after marriage, saying that they were
expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in
marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other
person related or connected to her promise to fulfil
such a demand, that also may fall within the
purview of dowry, as the promise though made
after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to
the marriage, having been made with a view to
preserve the marriage. But, if the demand is made
after marriage and it is in respect of a property or
valuable security, which was not demanded, was
not expected to be given and also was not in
contemplation at any time up to solemnization of
marriage, demand of such cash, property or
valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in
connection with the marriage and, therefore, would
not constitute demand of dowry...
.. The use of the expression „in connection with the
marriage of the said parties‟ leaves no room for the
interpretation that any and everything demanded
after marriage, without anything more, would
constitute demand of dowry.
Such an
interpretation would render the expression „in
connection with the marriage of the said parties‟
totally redundant and, therefore, cannot be said to
be have been intended by the Legislature. It is
settled proposition of law that penal statutes need
to be strictly construed and even if two views in
the matter are reasonably possible, the
interpretation, which would favour the accused,
needs to be given by the Courts. No doubt, Section
304-B of IPC is a social legislation aimed at
preventing dowry deaths which is a social evil that
needs to be eradicated at any cost. It is also
difficult to deny that in our society there are
demands other than those covered under the
definition of dowry are made after the marriage
and such demands do result in subjecting the girl
to cruelty and/or harassment if she or her parents

or relative are unable to fulfil the demand. Such a
demand, if followed by cruelty or harassment
would constitute offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC. But, it is difficult to accept that the
demands which are not at all referrable to the
marriage, would also constitute dowry demand
punishable under Section 304-B of IPC in case the
woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for or
in connection with such a demand. The remedy, to
my mind, lies in the Legislature stepping in and
making even such demands subject matter of
offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
In Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2001(4) Crimes 45,
the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as under:-
11.
“There can be many other instances for
payment of money or giving property as
between the spouses. For example, some
customary payments in connection with birth of
a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in
different societies. Such payments are not
enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence
the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be
any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given in connection with the
marriage.”
The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as
to whether the prosecution has been able to prove or not that the letters
Ex.P-1 and P-2 were written by deceased Mamta. The case of the
prosecution, as set out in the chargesheet, is that one of the aforesaid
letters was handed over by the deceased to her maternal uncle Vir Pal,
whereas the other letter was handed over to one Manoj Kumar, who has
been examined as PW-10. However, in his statement to the SDM, the
complainant Ramesh Kumar did not say that the aforesaid letters were
delivered by his daughter to PW-10 Manoj Kumar and PW-11 Vir Pal,
though he did refer to the letters written by the deceased. The aforesaid
letters were seized by the Investigating Officer on 22.05.2006, as would
be evident from the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-3/A. The said letters were
thus handed over to the Investigating Officer more than one month after
the death of the deceased. There is no explanation from the prosecution
as to why the aforesaid letters were not handed over to the Investigating
Officer, soon after his statement was recorded by the SDM. This is not
the case of the prosecution that the receipt of the aforesaid letters was
not known to the complainant at the time his statement was recorded by
the SDM. It has come in the deposition of the Investigating Officer that
in about 1 1⁄2 month, after the death of Mamta, the complainant met him
a number of times. It is strange that despite meeting the Investigating
Officer number of times, the father of the deceased did not bother to
hand over the said letters to him. This creates doubt with respect to the
authenticity of the said letters.
12.
When the complainant came in the witness box, he, inter alia,
stated that both the above-referred letters were handed over by the

deceased to her maternal uncle Vir Pal. However, when Vir Pal came in
the witness-box, he stated that only one letter was handed over to him.
The prosecution examined another witness PW-10 Manoj Kumar who
claimed that one of the letter was handed over to him by the deceased
for being delivered to her father. Thus, there is contradiction in the
deposition of the complainant on one hand and the aforesaid witnesses
on the other hand as to whom the aforesaid letters were handed over by
the deceased.
13.
The most important circumstance which creates a serious doubt
with respect to the aforesaid letters having been handed over by the
deceased to PW-10 and/or PW-11 is that the deceased as well as parents,
both being resident of Delhi and residing within a distance of about 1 1⁄2
kilometres, as admitted by PW7, in the normal course of human
conduct, instead of handing over letters of this nature to the maternal
uncle or to someone who was not even related to her, the deceased
would just have visited her parents and shared her plight with them.
Alternatively, she would have made a telephone call to her parents,
complaining against the alleged cruelty and/or harassment. This is not
the case of the prosecution that the deceased was not allowed by her in-
laws to come out of the matrimonial home. In fact, according to PW-7

Rajesh Kumar, uncle of the deceased, after marriage, Mamta visited 2-3
times and earlier somebody from her in-laws house used to take her
though subsequently nobody used to come for the said purpose. None
of the witnesses has stated that Mamta had complained to him/her that
she was not allowed to come out of the house to visit her parents or even
to make a telephone call to them. I, therefore, feel that it would be rather
unnatural for the deceased to send letters of this nature through persons,
one of whom was not even related to her, when she could easily have
visited the house of her parents or could have called up either her
parents or any of her relatives to share her misery with them.
14.
As far as PW-10 Manoj Kumar is concerned, he was not residing
near the matrimonial home of the deceased, he being a resident of West
Sagar Pur, where the father of the deceased was residing. Therefore, in
the normal course of human conduct, there would be no reason for the
father of the deceased to send her clothes through Manoj Kumar instead
of going there himself or sending a member of his family or a relative
for the purpose.
Moreover, the authenticity of the documents which the
Investigating Officer collected from the father of the deceased and sent
to the handwriting expert for comparison of the letters Ex.P-1 and P-2

with the writings on the said documents Ex.P-3 and P-4, was not
verified by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
Ex.P-3 is an identity card purporting to be issued by Directorate of
Employment to the deceased on 05.02.1999. It purports to be signed by
the Employment Officer on the aforesaid date. The Investigating Officer
did not bother to visit the Employment Exchange to verify from the
officer posted as Employment Officer there on 05.02.1999 that the
aforesaid document bears his signature. Even during the course of trial,
no witness from the Employment Exchange was produced by the
prosecution to prove the authenticity of the aforesaid identity card. It
has come in evidence that Mamta was educated up to 12 th standard
though it is not known in which year she has passed the 12 th standard
examination. However, his qualification in the document is recorded as
X Pass. Similarly in the second document Ex.P-4 which is the format of
an application form purporting to have been submitted by Mamta on
08.07.2002, her qualification has been noted as 10 th standard.
Moreover, I fail to understand how the application form would be in the
house of the candidate since it is required to be submitted to the
prospective employer. Moreover, the aforesaid document Ex.P-4 does
not have any photograph of Mamta affixed on it though there is a space

earmarked for affixing the photograph of the candidate on it. I can
understand a copy of the application form having been kept by the
deceased, but, the original application form is likely to be in the custody
of the prospective employer and not in the custody of the employment
seeker.
For the aforesaid reasons, it would not be safe to rely upon the
letters Ex.P-1 and P-2 for the purpose of conviction of the appellants.
15.
The following, as per the evidence produced by the prosecution,
in nutshell, are the allegations of cruelty and/or harassment to the
deceased:-
a.
there was demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased 5-7
days after marriage, though the precise demand, alleged to have been
made at that time, has not been specified by the complainant. However,
his brother Rajesh has claimed that there was demand of Rs 2,00,000/-
and a motorcycle. The mother of the deceased, on the other claimed that
the demand was for motorcycle, chain and Rs 50,000/-. However, it has
come in evidence that a sum of Rs 5,000/- was paid by the complainant
to the appellant Yogesh after about 8-9 days of marriage, followed by
payment of Rs 20,000/- to him and his sister appellant Yogita about 20-
25 days thereafter;

b.
whenever deceased came to the house of her parents, she used to
complain against her father-in-law and mother-in-law and was unwilling
to return to the matrimonial home;
c.
on 05.04.2006, the deceased visited the house of her parents and
at that time the marks of beating were found on her body. She
complained that the accused were demanding Rs 5 lakhs and a
motorcycle from them. She also alleged that she was being harassed for
not bringing chuchak on the birth of her son;
d.
on 12.04.2006, the father and the uncle of the deceased went to
her matrimonial home along with Rs 30,000/- which they paid to the
accused persons, one gold chain for the child, some golden and silver
ornaments for the child, clothes of the children and some other articles,
but the appellants complained that they had not brought ornaments for
the deceased. The uncle of the deceased Shri Rajesh Kumar, on the
other hand, stated that at that time the accused persons were demanding
motorcycle and cash amounting to Rs 5 lakhs;
e.
the mother of the deceased stated that the accused persons wanted
Rs 5 lakhs in cash besides a plot.
16.
As far as the appellant Yogita is concerned, admittedly, she was
already married when deceased Mamta got married to the appellant

Yogesh.
After marriage, she was not residing with her parents.
Therefore, it is somewhat unlikely that she would have demanded the
dowry from the parents of her sister-in-law and would have
accompanied her brother Yogesh to the house of her parents to collect a
sum of Rs 20,000/- from them. She had nothing to gain from the cash or
articles of dowry or the articles alleged to have been given by the
parents of Mamta to her in-laws. Therefore, there would be no good
reason for her to intervene in a matter of this nature and harass her
sister-in-law. Though it has come in evidence that the deceased used to
be beaten and when she visited the house of her parents on 05.04.2006,
injury marks were noticed on her body, it is unlikely that the appellant
Yogita would have beaten her sister-in-law. Ordinarily, in matrimonial
dispute the woman is subjected to physical violence only by her husband
and the married sister-in-law would not join her brother in giving
beatings to his wife.
17.
In Surinder Kaur and Anr vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 140, there were allegations against the sisters-in-law of the
deceased that they along with their brother used to harass the deceased
for not bringing the dowry and Maruti car and in the process used to
beat her. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court found rather difficult to believe

that the young girls would go to the extent of beating the deceased. The
sisters-in-law who were convicted by the Trial Court and whose
conviction were upheld by the High Court were acquitted by the Apex
Court.
The appellant Yogita, therefore, deserves to be given benefit of
doubt.
18.
It is an admitted case that the house in which the deceased died
was a two storey house and she was found dead on the ground floor.
According to DW-1, Shri Suraj Bhan Garg, the appellant Yogesh with
his family was residing on the ground floor, whereas his parents were
residing on the first floor. There is no evidence on record which would
show that the parents in-law of the deceased were residing on the same
floor along with her and her husband. I, therefore, see no reason to
disbelieve the deposition of DW-1 Shri Suraj Bhan in this regard and
consequently accept the contention of the appellants that the deceased
used to reside on the ground floor with her husband, whereas her
parents-in-law were residing at the first floor. When the father of the
complainant came in the witness-box, he attributed the demand of dowry
and harassment of the deceased to all the appellants, meaning thereby
husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law as well as married sister-in-law.

No specific act of harassment was attributed by him either to the mother-
in-law or father-in-law of the deceased. When the mother and uncle of
the deceased came in the witness-box, neither of them imputed any
particular demand or harassment of the deceased either to her mother-in-
law or to her father-in-law. It has come in evidence that when the
deceased came to the house of her parents on 05.04.2006, as noted
earlier, injury marks were found on her body. There is no evidence that
any particular injury was attributed by the deceased to her father-in-law
or mother-in-law. According to them, she claimed to have been beaten
by all the accused persons. In the deposition of the witnesses, there is a
specific reference to the demand of motorcycle. In his statement to the
SDM, the father of the deceased stated that when he went to the
matrimonial home of the deceased on 12.04.2006, the grievance of the
accused persons was that motorcycle which they had demanded had not
been given. He further stated that the aforesaid demand was the bone of
contention between them and the accused persons. The motorcycle, if
given would have been used by the husband and not by the mother-in-
law or father-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, in the normal course of
human conduct, the demand for the vehicle would have emanated from
the husband and not from the parents-in-law of the deceased.

19.
It has come in evidence that there was demand of cash though the
figure has varied from Rs 5,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. This is not the case
of the prosecution that the aforesaid money had it been paid would have
been used by the parents-in-law of the deceased. It would only be
appropriate to note here that according to the complainant, the amount of
Rs 20,000/- was paid by him to the husband and sister-in-law of the
deceased. He does not claim to have paid the said amount either to her
father-in-law or to her mother-in-law. As noted earlier, none of the
witnesses told the Court as to in what manner the mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the deceased used to harass her. They made bald
allegations of demand of dowry and harassment against all the
appellants, without telling the Court as to what exactly was their
individual role in the matter.
In these circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the
appellants Vijender Singh and Sheela Devi parents-in-law of the
deceased.
20.
As far as the appellant Yogesh is concerned, the evidence
produced by the prosecution clearly shows that he had demanded
motorcycle and had also taken Rs 20,000/- in cash from his father-in-
law. Even at the time the complainant went to his house along with the

ornaments and clothes for the child, the grievance was on account of his
failure to give motorcycle to the husband of the deceased. It has come in
the deposition of the father and uncle of the deceased that injury marks
were found on her body when she came to the house of her father, I am
excluding the aforesaid part of the evidence from consideration since
neither the complainant referred to it in his statement to the SDM nor did
the mother of the deceased claimed to have seen injury marks on her
body. It is not known on which parts of the body of the deceased, injury
marks were noticed by her father and uncle. In case the marks were on
the exposed portion of her body, they could have noticed them, but, the
marks on the covered portion of the body would have been shown by the
deceased only to her mother and not to her father and uncle.
21.
Ex.DW-2/A is the copy of the report lodged by the appellant
Yogesh, husband of the deceased, in the police station. A perusal of the
aforesaid DD entry would show that on the aforesaid date, the appellant
Yogesh had gone to the police station and lodged a report. It has come in
the deposition of DW-2 Head Constable Shiv Kumar that the complaint
was with respect to quarrel between Yogesh and his wife. He also stated
that for investigation, he visited the house of Yogesh and Yogesh stated
that compromise talks between him and his wife were going on. The

aforesaid authentic document, coupled with the deposition of DW-2,
clearly shows that the disputes were only between the husband and wife.
Nowhere did DW-2 claim that when he went for inquiring into the
complaint, the deceased complained to him against her parents-in-law.
The report lodged by the appellant Yogesh Kumar leaves no doubt
that the relations between him and his wife were far from cordial. In
fact, the relations between them must have been quite strained else he
would not have gone to the extent of making a complaint to the police
against his wife. The report lodged by the appellant Yogesh with the
police when viewed in the light of the evidence produced by the
prosecution and other facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed
hereinbefore, leave no reasonable doubt that he had subjected the
deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of cash
and motorcycle for him. It has come in evidence that the relations
between the appellant Yogesh and his wife never improved and her
harassment continued till the time she died, barring the period during
which she remained with her husband, after birth of her child.
Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased Mamta
was subjected to cruelty and/or harassment in connection with demand
for dowry by Yogesh. The Court, therefore, is required to presume, as

provided in Section 113B of Evidence Act that the appellant Yogesh had
caused her dowry death. No evidence has been led by the appellant
Yogesh which would prove that Mamta died on account of reasons other
than the cruelty and/or harassment to which she was subjected by him in
connection with the demand of dowry.
22.
In Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of A.P. (2012) 8 SCC 594, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, noticing that the ingredients of Section 304B
read with Section 498A thereof were completely satisfied, observed that
by a deeming fiction in law, the onus shifts on to the accused as to how
the deceased died and it is for him to show that the death of the deceased
did not result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused
persons. It was also observed that mere denial cannot be treated to the
discharge of onus, which can be done only by leading proper and cogent
reasons. It was further observed that it was expected of the accused to
explain as to how and why his wife died and maintaining silence cannot
be equated to the discharge of onus.
23.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, appellants Yogita, sister-in-
law, Vijender Singh, father-in-law and Sheela Devi, mother-in-law of
the deceased are acquitted, whereas the conviction of the appellant
Yogesh under Section 498A and 304B of IPC is maintained. However,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the continued
incarceration of the appellant Yogesh, the substantive sentence awarded
to him under Section 304B of IPC is reduced from 10 years to 7 years.
The other sentence awarded to the appellant Yogesh, however, remains
unaltered.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
One copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary action.
The LCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
MARCH 04, 2014

Print Page