As regards the claim for parity of the case of the
appellant with his mother and brother who have been
acquitted, the High Court has rightly found his case to be
distinguishable from the case of his mother and brother.
The husband is not only primarily responsible for safety of
his wife, he is expected to be conversant with her state of
mind more than any other relative.
suicide
by
setting
herself
on
If the wife commits
fire,
proceeded
by
dissatisfaction of the husband and his family from the
dowry, the interference of harassment against the husband
may be patent. Responsibility of the husband towards his
wife is qualitatively different and higher as against his other
relatives.
The requirement
of allegations of demand of dowry against the relatives of
the husband may have to be more specific and the Court
may be more cautious in dealing with such allegations, if
there is any doubt about over implication, but responsibility
of the husband may be obvious from the circumstances. In
these circumstances, the case of the appellant cannot stand
at par with his mother and brother who have been acquitted
by the High Court, by way of caution against over
implication, as well as for want of cogent evidence against
them. Case of the husband stands on different footing.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINALL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2013
NARESH KUMAR
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)428 SC
This appeal has been preferred against Judgment and
Order dated 12th March, 2013 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appral No.S-736-SB
of 2003 upholding the conviction of the appellant under
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentence
of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.
2.
Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
married to the deceased Rekha Rani on 7 th July, 2000. After
the
marriage, she was harassed for having
brought
insufficient dowry and the appellant raised a demand for
motor cycle apart from the demands by his mother and
younger brother. After about three months of marriage, the
deceased gave a telephonic call to her father about the
demand for dowry. Her father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along
with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12), met the
husband of the deceased and his other relatives and
pleaded that she may not be harassed as he was not in a
position to give more dowry.
The accused, however,
continued to harass her. On 29th April, 2001, the deceased
again telephoned her father about the harassment on which
Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the accused and
brought back the deceased to her parental home. However,
on the next day, the appellant came to the place of his in-
laws and insisted that the deceased be sent with him,
threatening that otherwise he will divorce her. On this, the
deceased was sent with the appellant.
Next day, on 1 st
May, 2001, at about 12 O’clock, information was received
by the family of the deceased that she had received burn
injuries and was taken to the hospital.
Father of the
deceased Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) along with his younger
brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12) and brother in-law Guddar Mal
(PW-10) reached the hospital at 2.00 P.M. where the
deceased told them that she was given beatings and set on
fire by the appellant and his family members. Thereafter,
the deceased died on account of extensive burn injuries.
3.
Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report
(Exhibit PA/1).
SI Rakham Singh (PW-13) conducted the
investigation and sent up the accused for trial.
The
prosecution led evidence in support of its case comprising
of relatives to prove demand of dowry, apart from medical
evidence and evidence of investigation. The accused denied
the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased
committed suicide on account of harassment by her uncle
Raghubir Lal (PW-12) who wanted her to relinquish her
rights in the parental property.
The accused examined
Vinod Kumar (DW-1) who had taken the deceased to the
hospital and stated that her relations with the accused were
cordial. Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the appellant was
also examined who stated that at the time of alleged
incident, the appellant was on duty.
4.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence on
record, held that the prosecution case was proved beyond
reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and the co-
accused.
5.
On
further
appeal,
the
High
Court
upheld
the
conviction of the appellant but acquitted the co-accused
Champa Devi (mother of the appellant) and Lalit Kumar
(brother of the appellant).
6.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the evidence on record.
7.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel
Shri G.C. Shahpuri submitted that the prosecution failed to
prove the demand of dowry “soon before the death” which
was the necessary ingredient for the offence under Section
304 B, IPC.
He relied upon Judgment of this Court in
Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana1.
It was also
submitted that the deceased had left a suicide note (Exhibit
P-4) to the effect that nobody be held responsible if
something happened to her and in the said note there is no
allegation of demand of dowry.
He lastly submitted that
since the High Court had acquitted mother and brother of
the appellant on the same evidence, the case of the
appellant being at par, there was no justification to convict
him.
1 AIR (2014) SC 2555
8.
We have given due consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant but we do not find any
merit.
9.
There is consistent evidence on record to prove
harassment for dowry soon before the death of the
deceased. The deceased died within 10 months of the
marriage.
According to PW3, father of the deceased, after
three months of the marriage, the deceased informed him
that the appellant and his family were harassing her for
dowry.
He, along with PW-12, went to the house of the
appellant and requested them not to harass her.
Again,
three days before the occurrence, on 28 April, 2001, the
deceased informed her father about the dowry harassment
on which her uncle PW-12, along with his wife, went to the
house of the accused and brought the deceased to her
parental home. The appellant took her away on the threat
of divorce and on the next day, she died of burn injuries.
Similar version has been given by Guddar Mal (PW-10) and
Raghubir Lal (PW-12).
death by burning.
The version is supported by her
There is no other cogent reason to
explain the cause of her death except the harassment for
dowry.
There is live and proximate link between the
demand of dowry and death.
In these circumstances, it
cannot be held that there is no evidence of demand of
dowry “soon before the death”.
In Manohar Lal (supra)
relied upon on behalf of the appellant, this Court noted that
there was neither any specific instance suggesting cruelty
or harassment nor any of the witnesses had stated that the
deceased
was
harassed
“soon
before
the
death”
in
connection with the demand of dowry. Contrary to the fact
situation noticed in the said case, in the present case, all
the three witnesses mentioned above – Kashmiri Lal,
Guddar
Mal
and
Raghubir
Lal
have
specifically
and
categorically deposed about demand of dowry soon before
her death.
10.
We may now refer to the suicide note. It, inter alia,
states :
“All the doors are closed for me. Besides
this, no other way is available to me and
I adopted the way which I liked.”
The tenor of the suicide note clearly shows that the
deceased was in helpless condition and she found no other
way to come out of the situation. The suicide note cannot
be taken to be encyclopaedia of the entire situation in which
the deceased was placed. It is not possible to infer from the
said note that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial
home. Mere mention that nobody may be held responsible,
while also stating that all the doors were closed for her and
she had no other way available (except to leave the world),
is not enough to exonerate the appellant.
When a young
married girl finds herself in helpless situation and decides to
end her life, in absence of any other circumstance, it is
natural to infer that she was unhappy in her matrimonial
home.
A suicide note cannot be treated as conclusive of
there being no one responsible for the situation when
evidence on record categorically points to harassment for
dowry. One cannot lose sight of the fact that unfortunately
the menace dowry deaths still exists in our society and has
been subject of expert studies. The Law Commission, in its
91thst Report dated 10th August, 1983, recommended reform
of the law to deal with the situation which led to
incorporation of Sections 304 B in IPC, making ‘dowry death’
an offence and Section 113B in the Evidence Act which
provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case
of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when
it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for
dowry soon before her death.
These aspects have been
considered by this Court in Hira Lal and Ors. vs. State
(Govt. of NCT) Delhi2 and other judgments.
11.
The circumstances have thus to be appreciated in the
light of the above social and legislative background.
As
already noted, in the present case, there is plethora of
evidence to prove the demand of dowry “soon before the
death” giving rise to the presumption against the appellant.
12.
As regards the claim for parity of the case of the
appellant with his mother and brother who have been
acquitted, the High Court has rightly found his case to be
distinguishable from the case of his mother and brother.
The husband is not only primarily responsible for safety of
his wife, he is expected to be conversant with her state of
mind more than any other relative.
suicide
by
setting
herself
on
If the wife commits
fire,
proceeded
by
dissatisfaction of the husband and his family from the
dowry, the interference of harassment against the husband
may be patent. Responsibility of the husband towards his
wife is qualitatively different and higher as against his other
relatives.
13.
On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned in
Section 113 B, if the statutory presumption arises against
2 (2003) 8 SCC 80
the accused which shifts the burden on the accused, the
accused must give cogent explanation. Failure to give an
explanation or giving of false explanation can be taken as
an additional circumstance against him.
The requirement
of allegations of demand of dowry against the relatives of
the husband may have to be more specific and the Court
may be more cautious in dealing with such allegations, if
there is any doubt about over implication, but responsibility
of the husband may be obvious from the circumstances. In
these circumstances, the case of the appellant cannot stand
at par with his mother and brother who have been acquitted
by the High Court, by way of caution against over
implication, as well as for want of cogent evidence against
them. Case of the husband stands on different footing.
14.
Thus,
we
have
no
hesitation
in
upholding
the
conviction and sentence of the appellant as we do not find
any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders of the
courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant.
15.
The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is
directed to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence
failing which he may be arrested and committed to custody
to complete the sentence awarded to him.
..........................................J.
[ T.S. THAKUR ]
...........................................J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR
GOEL ]
..........................................J.
[ R. BANUMATHI ]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 14, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment