http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  371 of 2007

PETITIONER: Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of West Bengal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.1580 of 2006)   

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

                Appellants call in question legality of the judgment  rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court  dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, but  modifying the sentence. Appellants faced trial for  commission of offences punishable under Section 304B  read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in  short the ’IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry  Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the ’DP Act’).   

       The prosecution version in brief is as follows:

Rupali, sister of informant Dilip Patra (PW-1) was  married to appellant Biswajit Halder-appellant no.1  on 6th  March, 1992. Appellants Dulal Chandra Halder and Maya  Halder are the parents of Biswajit.  At the time of marriage  dowry i.e. of Rs.43,000/-, gold ornaments and the  household articles were given to the appellants, but they  were not satisfied with the dowry items. Since marriage  Rupali was put under pressure to bring one colour  television, English Khat and VIP bag for her father-in-law  and other relatives. Rupali time and again had reported  about the persistent demand of the appellants to her  father and brothers. Rupali’s brother (PW-1) on different  occasions requested the appellants not to harass Rupali  for non-payment of those items. On 27th July, 1992 Rupali  committed suicide at the house of the appellants by  consuming poison and after getting the sad news from his  relatives, PW-1, who being a member of Indian Armed  Forces was posted at Punjab, came to his native village  and lodged the FIR on 6th August, 1992.

On receipt of the FIR, police started investigation and  on completion of investigation, charge sheet was  submitted against the appellants for their trial.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after framing  charges against all the three appellants examined 17  witnesses in all, including PW-1, relatives of the victim  woman, two doctors and the investigating officer.

On examination of the prosecution evidence and after  hearing both the prosecution and defence, the learned  Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient materials  against all the appellants to convict them for offences  punishable under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 of the  IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.  Learned trial Judge, after convicting the appellants,  sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten  years each for the offence punishable under Section 304B  of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine  of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section  498A of the IPC. In default of the payment rigorous  imprisonment for three months was stipulated. Learned  trial Judge also sentenced the appellants to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a  fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 3(1) of the DP Act  and that apart, the appellants were also sentenced to  suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to  pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each for the offence under  Section 4 of the DP Act with default stipulation. Learned  trial Judge directed that all the sentences were to run  concurrently.         Questioning correctness of the conviction and the  sentences imposed appellants preferred appeal before the  Calcutta High Court which held that the appellants were  to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under  Section 304B IPC, but there was no necessity for  separately sentencing the appellants on either Section  498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that there was no finding that there  was demand for dowry and/or that deceased was  subjected to cruelty or harassment, or that harassment  was for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

       Leaned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that Section 304B IPC has to be read in the  context of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  (in short ’Evidence Act’). The court could presume the  death of the deceased to be dowry death and it was open  to the Court to presume further that the appellants being  members of the matrimonial home at the relevant were  responsible for the dowry death of the deceased.  Reliance  was placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Shanti and  Anr. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1991 SC 1226).

        The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of  Section 304B are as follows:-

(1) The death of a woman should be caused by  burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under  normal circumstances; (2) Such death should have occurred within  seven years of her marriage; (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or  harassment by her husband or any relative of  her husband; and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or  in connection with demand for dowry.

Alongside insertion of Section 304B in IPC,  legislature also introduced Section 113B of Evidence Act,  which lays down when the question as to 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 appended to Section 113 B lays down  that "for the purpose of this section ’dowry death’ shall  have the same meaning as in Section 304 B of  IPC".

If Section 304 B IPC is read together with Section  113 B of the Evidence Act, a  comprehensive picture  emerges that if a married woman dies in an unnatural  circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years  from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or  harassment upon such married woman for or in  connection with demand of dowry by the husband or  relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come  under "dowry death" and there shall be a presumption  against the husband and the relatives.          In this case we find that there is practically no  evidence to show that there was any cruelty or  harassment for or in connection with the demand of  dowry. There is also no finding in that regard.  This  deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution  case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and  harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of  Section 304B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that  such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with  the demand for dowry. (See: Kanchy Ramchander v. State  of A.P.  (1996 SCC (Crl.) 31).  Since the prosecution failed  to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be  maintained.   

       The appeal is allowed.