RAJINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (CrPC)
Section 161 - Examination of witnesses by police
Section 498 - Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman
Section 304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 799 of 2011, Judgment Date: Jan 14, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2011
RAJINDER KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st September,
2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No.238-SB of 2002 alongwith another case. By the impugned judgment,
the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and
affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court u/s
304B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as
follows:
Raj Rani, youngest sister of complainant Ganpat Rai was married with
accused Rajinder Kumar on 10th May, 1996 as per Hindu rites. At the time
of marriage, the complainant had given handsome dowry and spent a sum of
Rs.2,25,000/-. When Raj Rani went to her in-laws second time, her husband-
Rajinder, mother-in-law Darshna Devi, sisters-in-law Murti and Chirya and
brother-in-law Binder started taunting and harassing her. On getting
information, complainant Ganpat Rai alongwith his brothers Ghansham and
Hari Chand came to village Dharsul and advised the accused not to harass
Raj Rani. On this, accused persons stated that they will behave in this
very manner and if they want to take away Raj Rani, they should get
divorce. After that also, they continued to harass Raj Rani in the same
manner. Again complainant Ganpat Rai along with Balak Ram went to the in-
laws of Raj Rani and on 21st October, 1996 on the festival of Dushera Raj
Rani was brought to complainant's house. At that time, accused-Rajinder and
his family members asked Raj Rani that she should bring Rs.20,000/- while
coming back, otherwise it will not be good. On 28th October, 1996 Chanan
Ram uncle of Rajinder and Binder came to village Chatha Nanhera at the
house of the complainant along with customary gifts on the festival of
Karwa Chauth. He stayed there for two days. On 30th October, 1996 i.e.
one day before the occurrence, Raj Rani was brought back to her matrimonial
house at Dharsul. Hari Chand brother of the complainant and Gurmel Singh
also came along with her. Raj Rani told Hari Chand that her husband and in-
laws had demanded Rs.20,000/- and since the same has not been paid, they
(accused) will kill her once Hari Chand and Gurmel Singh leave the place
On this Hari Chand assured her that they will come back after 2/3
days and pay the money and returned to the village of the complainant
alongwith Gurmel Singh. On 31st October, 1996 at about 6.00 AM, Tek Chand
son of Krishan, resident of village Kulan came to the house of the
complainant and told that Raj Rani has been murdered on the night
intervening 30/31st October, 1996 by Rajinder, Binder her mother-in-law
Darshna and sisters-in-law Murti and Chirya on account of bringing less
dowry. On this information, complainant, his brother Hari Chand and Sukhpal
Bansal reached village Dharsul Kalan and saw the dead body of Raj Rani was
lying on a cot in Chubara.
On the statement of complainant Ganpat Rai FIR (Ex.PA/1) was
registered and investigation was started by Chander Singh, Sub Inspector.
Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) conducted the post mortem. After receiving report of
the Chemical Examiner the cause of death was shown to be poisoning due to
consumption of aluminium phosphide.
The appellant was charge-sheeted alongwith his mother and sisters for
the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses including Ganpat Rai
(PW-7) complainant and Harichand (PW-13). Other witnesses are Ishwar Singh-
ASI(PW-1), Mahipal-Constable (PW-2), Girish Kumar-Draftsman(PW-3), Wazir
Singh-SI(PW-4), Jai Prakash-Constable(PW-5), Dr. P.L. Verma- Medical
Officer(PW-6), PW-8 to 9 and 11-Constables; Rajender Kumar-Photographer(PW-
10), Jai Chand Shastri who performed marriage ceremonies of deceased with
accused-appellant (PW-12) and Chander Singh-SI(PW-14). On behalf of the
defence three witnesses i.e. Dr. Jasbeer Singh-(DW-1), Santosh-(DW-2) and
Chajju Ram-(DW-3) were produced.
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 22nd January, 2002 convicted the
appellant u/s 498A and 304B IPC and acquitted other accused. For the
offence u/s 304B IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and for the offence u/s 498A he was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-. Both the sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently.
3. On appeal the High Court by impugned judgment partly allowed the same
and the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 498A IPC was set aside
while upholding conviction and sentence u/s 304B IPC.
4. The main argument of the appellant is that the death of deceased-Raj
Rani is a natural death and that the entire evidence on record believes the
version of death by Aluminium Phosphide (AIP) Poisoning. To support his
case it was pointed out that Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) who conducted post
mortem stated in his testimony that if the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory regarding the presence of poison would have been negative then
the Board would have concluded it to be a case of natural death. It was
submitted that in normal circumstances in a dead body there is always a
possibility of presence of poisonous substance like aluminium phosphide and
therefore no definite conclusion can be derived at that the deceased-Raj
Rani died as a result of poisoning due to consumption of aluminium
phosphide.
5. Further, according to the learned counsel for the appellant-accused,
evidence of Ganpat Rai (PW-7), complainant and Harichand (PW-13) who were
the brothers of the deceased are unreliable as they are interested
witnesses. All other independent witnesses from village have deposed in
favour of the appellant, stating that the deceased was never treated in
cruel manner nor any demand of dowry was made. An application had also been
written and signed by more than 20 villagers stating about the innocence of
the appellant and his family.
6. In normal circumstances, in the Indian Society demand for dowry or
harassment for the same takes place within four corners of the house. Even
the parents or relatives of the girl will not be aware of these, unless
they are informed either by the girl herself or demand is made directly to
them. The Police Officials or others cannot depose anything about the
harassment in connection with demand of dowry in the absence of any
complaint or statement made by witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Seldom, the
villagers-neighbours may come to know of the same. In this background,
statement of family members of the deceased-lady cannot be discarded on the
ground that they are relatives and are interested witnesses, till a
contradiction is shown in their deposition or cross-examination.
7. The complainant-Ganpat Rai(PW-7) brother of the deceased-Raj Rani
stated that the accused harassed the deceased since her marriage and he
always taunted her for bring less number of sarees and inadequate money.
The accused also had demanded Rs.20,000/- from the deceased. On knowing
this, complainant (PW-7) along with his brother went to the house of the
appellant-accused and tried to persuade the appellant to stop harassing
their sister. However, the appellant and his family members asked them to
take away their sister with them. On 21st October, 1996, complainant (PW-7)
took Raj Rani to his house at Chattha Nanhera. On 28th October, 1996,
Chanan Ram, the elder brother of the father of appellant-Rajinder came to
the complainant's house with the customary gifts of Karwa Choth for Raj
Rani and stayed there for two days. On 30th October, 1996, Hari Chand (PW-
13) younger brother of the complainant (PW-7) and Gurmel Singh left Raj
Rani in her matrimonial home. While Hari Chand(PW-13) and Gurmel Singh were
leaving the house they were told by Raj Rani that since they had not paid
Rs.20,000/- to the accused, he would kill her. Hari Chand told Raj Rani
that they would make the payment within two or three days. On 31st October,
1996, the complainant (PW-7) received information that his sister had died
on previous night. When the complainant (PW-7) went to the house of the
appellant, he found his sister dead lying on the Chobara. There was froth
coming out of the mouth of the deceased and a piece of brick was lying
there. The police found some broken bangles lying near the death body.
After leaving Hari Chand and Sukhpal Bansal near the dead body he reported
the matter to the Police.
8. Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement made by the
complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in their statements. Defence
also could not make out anything to disprove the same during their cross-
examinations. From the statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand
(PW-13), we find that the deceased-Raj Rani had been harassed on account of
demand of dowry soon before her death.
9. Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) has conducted the post mortem on the dead body
of deceased Raj Rani. He deposed that the eyes and mouth of the deceased
were semi open. After receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner, he
stated that the cause of death of deceased Raj Rani was a result of
poisoning due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. Dr. P.L. Verma(PW-6)
and the Chemical Examiner who are experts in the field have not stated that
the death was in the normal course or aluminium phosphide can be
automatically generated in the dead body.
10. Section 304-B of IPC relates to dowry death. For the purpose of the
said Section, a presumption as to dowry death can be raised only on proof
of the following essentials.
(a) the death of woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or
has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(b) The said death has occurred within seven years of her marriage
(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or his relatives.
(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry and
(e) She was meted out with such cruelty or harassment soon
before her death.
In this connection, we may refer to this Court decision in
Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 157.
11. In the case of Hira Lal & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
(2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court analyzed Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act and made the following observations:
"8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as
follows:
"304-B. 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 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
caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall
have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
The provision has application when 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 before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or
in connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract
application of Section 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as
follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection
with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out
to the woman soon before her death.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at
hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act
43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry
deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows:
"113-B. 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 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.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'dowry death'
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)."
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply
analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-
8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform". Keeping in view the
impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove
dowry-related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a
provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of
certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive
Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the
definition of "dowry death" in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in
the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the
essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is
that the woman concerned must have been "soon before her death"
subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with the
demand of dowry". Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption
of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes
obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused
caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on
proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused
has committed the dowry death of the woman. (This means that the
presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for
the offence under Section 304-B IPC.)
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any
demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."
12. In the present case the death of Raj Rani occurred within seven years
of her marriage. It is not disputed that her death is not under normal
circumstances. Statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13)
are specific about the harassment of the deceased-Raj Rani by the accused
in connection with the demand of dowry. It is also evident from the
evidence on record that she was meted out with such harassment soon before
her death.
13. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold that
the prosecution was successful in proving the ingredients of Section 304-B
IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the accused has caused the dowry
death of the victim and the High Court rightly upheld the conviction and
sentence.
14. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
serve remainder period of sentence.
.................................................J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
.................................................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 14, 2015.