REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282  OF 2008

RAKESH CHAND & ANR. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

The facts are as under:

Neelam  Kumari  and  Anil  Kumar  were  married  on  4th  

December 1998 and as per the prosecution story sufficient  

dowry had been given to the accused at the time of the  

marriage.  They were however dissatisfied with what had  

been given to them and in July 2000, a demand was made for  

Rs.20,000/-  for  the  purpose  of  buying  a  motor  cycle  or

scooter.  As this demand was not satisfied Neelam Kumari  

was turned out up her  matrimonial home  although she was  

in  an  advanced  stage  of   pregnancy.  A  motor  cycle  was  

thereafter purchased for  Anil Kumar. It is further the  

prosecution story that on 22nd April, 2003 Neelam Kumari and  

Anil Kumar visited Rajni Bala (PW.16), sister of Neelam  

Kumari,  also  a  resident  of  village  Ladda  Kothi,  where  

Neelam  Kumari  told  her  sister  that  her  husband  was  now  

demanding Rs.50,000/- in order to construct a room in the  

-2-

house and was misbehaving with her as this amount was not  

being provided by her parents. As per the prosecution story

Neelam Kumari's dead body was spotted on the embankment of  

a  seepage drain in the area of Barnala  by one Komal Singh  

on 25th April, 2003. A FIR was duly registered and after  

investigation a charge sheet was filed and a charge under  

Sections 302/34 and 201 and in the alternative 304-B/34 &  

201 of the IPC was framed against Anil  Kumar and his  

parents, the appellants herein.

The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Chunni  

Lal (PW.15), the father of the deceased, her mother  Sudesh  

Kumari  (PW.1)  the  complainant  and  Rajni  Bala,  (PW.16)  

convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under  

Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC but acquitted them of the  

offence of murder and they were sentenced accordingly.

An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court.

The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.  

A special leave petition was filed by the three accused but  

leave  was  granted  qua  the  appellants  only.  We  have  

accordingly heard this appeal today assisted by the learned  

counsel for the parties.

Mr. Rajeev Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the  

appellants,  has  pointed  out  that  one  of  the  essential  

ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B was that the  

demand for dowry had to be made soon before the death of  

-3-

the deceased. He has referred us to the evidence of Chunni  

Lal,  Rajni  Bala  and  Sudesh  Kumari  and  pointed  out  that  

there  were  two  sets  of  demands  allegedly  made  by  the

accused; the first one in the year 2000 being a demand for  

Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle and  

there appeared no demand thereafter by the appellants as  

the  demand  for  Rs.50,000/-  had  been  made  by  Anil  Kumar  

alone shortly before the death of Neelam Kumari and the  

appellants thus had no roll to play on this score.  We find  

merit in this submission. In their examinations-in-chief,  

PW.1- Sudesh Kumari and PW.16-Rajni Bala have deposed that  

the demand for Rs.50,000/- had also been made by Rakesh  

Chand and Pushpa Devi. They were however confronted with  

their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein  

no  such  details  had  been  spelt  out  and  the  demand  for  

Rs.50,000/- had been confined only to Anil Kumar.  Likewise  

we  have gone through the statement of Chunni Lal.   Even  

in his examination-in-chief he very categorically stated  

that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made only by Anil

Kumar and not by the two appellants.  In the light of the  

fact that the only demand that could be foisted on the two  

appellant was of the year 2000, it could not be said that  

the appellants had made any demand soon before the death of  

the  deceased  so  as  to  be  liable  for  conviction  under  

Section 304-B  of the IPC.

-4-

Mr.  Kuldeep  Singh,  the  learned  State  counsel  has  

however very vehemently argued that even if there was no  

evidence with respect to the offence under Section 304-B  

there was ample evidence to maintain the conviction of the  

appellants for the offence under Sec.201 of the IPC.  In

this connection he has referred us to the statement of PW.6  

Dildar Khan who deposed that sometime before the 10th May  

2003 he had seen Anil Kumar carrying something in a gunny  

bag on his motor cycle.  This story is, in the facts,  

unacceptable. The incident happened on 24th April 2003 and  

Dildar Khan's vague statement that he had seen something  

amiss before 10th of May, 2003, is an absurdity  and cannot  

be accepted.  We accordingly feel that the conviction of  

the  appellants  was  not  justified  on  the  evidence.  We  

accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of  

the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  vis.a-vis.  the  two  

appellants herein and order their acquittal.

In   the  meantime,  we  direct  that  the  appellant-

Rakesh  Chand,   who  is  in  custody,  shall  be  released  

forthwith  if  not  required  in  connection  with  any  other  

case.  As regards  Pushpa Devi, her bail bonds shall  stand

discharged.

                     .................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J.                                      (C.K. PRASAD) New Delhi,

    August 11, 2010.