REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.           OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 950/09)

Rajesh Pandey ...Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of

the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.  He

was the appellant alongwith three others before the Allahabad High Court.

The accused was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’).  

3. Background facts,  as  projected  by prosecution  in  a nutshell  are  as

follows:

The  accused appellant  is  the  resident  of  Village  Budhanna,  Police

Station  Chandpur,  District  Fatehpur.   The  complainant-informant,  Shiv

Balak Tiwari is resident of village Garhi, Police Station Jafarganj, district

Fatehpur.  Smt.  Rekha  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘deceased’)  was

daughter  of  complainant,  Shiv  Balak  Tewari,  who  was  married  with  the

accused-appellant, Rajesh Pandey about five years back to the occurrence in

question.  The  accused-appellant  Kallu  @  Shivdhani  is  the  father  of

appellant Rajesh Pandey, Smt. Rama is daughter of Kallu @ Shivdhani and

Smt. Shanti Devi is his wife, meaning thereby, Rajesh Pandey is husband,

Kallua @ Shivdhani is father-in-law, Smt. Shanti Devi is mother-in-law and

Smt. Rama is sister-in-law of deceased.

The marriage had been performed according to the Hindu rites. In the

marriage, dowry etc. was given by the complainant-informant according to

2

his  capability  but  the  accused-persons  were  not  happy.  They  were

demanding Buffalo, golden chain and Rs.20,000/- in cash in dowry and for

that  they  were  torturing  the  deceased,  who  used  to  make  complaints

regarding her  harassment  and torture  by her  husband  and in-laws  to  her

parents. The complainant  informant repeatedly made attempts to persuade

the appellants to not torture his daughter. He also told them that he was no

in a position to fulfill their demands.

On 07.07.2000 at  about 1.00 P.M., the complainant  informant was

informed that in-laws of his daughter burnt her alive by pouring kerosene

oil on her. It was also informed that before burning, she was beaten by them.

When the complainant-informant with his associates went to the house of in

laws of his daughter, the village people told him about the incident. No one

was available  at  the  house of  accused-persons  except  the  minor  child  of

deceased Smt.  Rekha.  The village people  told  the complainant-informant

that the neighbors had taken Smt. Rekha to some hospital in Qasba Amauli,

district  Fatehpur  on  a  Tractor,  where  she  died.  The  dead  body  of  the

deceased was lying at the house of accused-persons.

3

Just before the day of occurrence i.e. on 06.06.2000, Vinay Kumar, the

youngest son of complainant-informant had gone to the house of accused-

appellants and met his sister Smt. Rekha who had told him about harassment

and torture etc.  made by the accused-appellants  for dowry. The deceased

had given a letter in which the entire facts were disclosed.

The complainant-informant lodged report of occurrence to the Police

Station,  Chandpur,  district  Fatehpur  on  07.07.2000.  The written F.I.R. is

Ext. Ka-1. The police registered a case under Section 498-A 304-B IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, against the accused appellants which is evident

from the copy of G.D. Ext. Ka16. Chik report is Ext.Ka-15. The matter was

investigated by the police concerned. The Investigating Officer visited the

spot and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-8, photo of dead body Ext. Ka-11,

Challan Ext. Ka-12 and after that he sealed the dead body and wrote letter

Ext.Ka-9  and  Ka-10  to  the  R.I.  Police  Lines  and  C.M.O.  Fatehpur

respectively for post mortem examination of deceased. Dr. A.S. Khan and

Dr. B.K. Sharma conducted the post mortem examination of deceased on

08.07.2000. The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-5. The Investigating Officer

took  burnt  clothes  of  deceased  and  the  plastic  container  which  were

recovered  from  the  spot  and  prepared  memo  Ext.Ka-13  and  Ka-14

4

respectively. He interrogated the prosecution witnesses and after concluding

investigation,  submitted  charge  sheet  Ext.Ka-7  against  the  accused

appellants.  

The accused-appellants admitted this fact that Smt. Rekha, daughter of

complainant  informant,  Shiv  Balak Tewari  was married with the accused

appellant Rajesh Pandey according to Hindu rites in the year 1995.  But they

denied the allegation regarding demand of dowry, torture and about causing

death  of  deceased.  They  further  stated  that  all  the  proceedings  were

conducted  by  the  police  on  false  consideration.  The  accused-appellant

Rajesh Pandey further alleged that Smt. Rekha was desirous of partition of

ancestral house and when she failed in her designs, she committed suicide

by burning herself.  He further  stated that  the prosecution witnesses have

given  evidence  against  him under  undue  pressure  of  one  Ram Bharosey

Tiwari. Smt. Shanti Devi stated that she was residing separately in a temple

and she did not know how the deceased died. She also stated about factum

of partition of the house as alleged by her son, Rajesh Pandey. The accused-

appellant,  Shivdhani  also  took same defence  as  taken by his  son  Rajesh

Pandey. Smt. Rama Devi stated that she was a married lady and had come to

5

the house of her parents and was living in a temple separately. The deceased

was not even on talking terms with her. She did not know how she died.

After  completion of investigation  chargesheet  was filed.  Trial  court

convicted the appellants under Section 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Act.   

4. Section 304 B IPC reads as follows:

“304B. 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.”     

5. The necessary ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are as follows:

(1) The  death  of  the  woman  was  caused  due  to  burns,  bodily

injuries or due to unnatural circumstances.

(2) The death should be within seven years of marriage.  

6

(3) It  is  shown  that  soon  before  death  victim was  subjected  to

cruelty  or  harassment  by her  husband  or  any relative  of  the

husband.

(4) The cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any

demand for dowry.

6. High Court allowed the appeal of the co-accused persons.  But the

appeal was dismissed so far as it relates to the present appellant.  Trial Court

and  the  High  Court  have  with  reference  to  the  evidence  on  record

categorically  held  that  it  was  not  a case of  suicide.   The victim died  of

burns.  They have referred to letter Ext.Ka-2 to conclude about the demand

of  dowry and the  torture  meted out  to  the  deceased.   The  conviction  as

recorded  cannot  be  faulted.   However,  the  sentence  is  reduced  to  eight

years.   If  the  appellant  has  served  said  period  of  sentence  he  shall  be

released  from custody forthwith  unless  required  to  be  in  custody in  any

other case.          

7. While  issuing notice  on 2.2.2008, it  was indicated  that  notice  was

issued  limited  to  the  quantum of  sentence.   In  the  instant  case  there  is

practically  no  discussion  of  the  evidence  by  the  High  Court.   It  simply

reiterated  the  analysis  made  by  the  trial  court.  Therefore,  we  have 7

considered the evidence on record. We find that the accusations have been

established by cogent evidence. Minor variations in evidence cannot affect

the credibility of the prosecution version.   

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

…...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…….......................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 25, 2009

8