REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1168 OF 2005

SATYA NARAYAN TIWARI @ JOLLY & ANR.          Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.                                Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it  

shows to women.

Indian  society  has  become  a  sick  society.  This  is  

evident from the large number of cases coming up in this  

Court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in  

which young women are being killed by their husbands or by  

their in-laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them  

on  fire  or  by  hanging/strangulating  them.   What  is  the  

level of civilsation of a society in which a large number  

of  women  are  treated  in  this  horrendous  and  barbaric  

manner?  What has our society become – this is illustrated  

by this case.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  dated  

12.07.2005.

The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was  

1

married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly  

on 9th December 1997.  On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by  

the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that  

dowry  was  being  demanded  from  him  and  the  accused  was  

insisting  that  a  Maruti  car  be  part  of  the  dowry.   He  

further stated that three months before the date of the  

incident the first informant along with his relative went  

to the house of the accused and explained his financial  

difficulty in giving the Maruti car to the accused but they  

were insulted by the accused and were told to get out.

On  03.11.2000  at  about  12  noon  the  first  informant  

received  information  on  telephone  that  his  daughter  had  

died.   The  FIR  was  lodged  as  stated  above  and  after  

investigation a charge sheet was filed. The appellants  -  

the  husband  and  mother-in-law  of  the  deceased  -  were  

acquitted by the trial court but the High Court convicted  

them under Sections 304B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the  

Dowry  Prohibition  Act  and  awarded  life  sentence  under  

Section  304B  IPC,  3  years  rigorous  imprisonment  under  

Section 498A, and six months rigorous imprisonment under  

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  The sentences were  

to run concurrently.

2

We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and  

order of the High Court and the judgment of the trial court  

and other evidence on record. We see no reason to disagree  

with the judgment and order of the High Court convicting  

the  appellants.   In  fact,  it  was  really  a  case  under  

Section 302 IPC and death sentence should have been imposed  

in such a case, but since no charge under Section 302 IPC  

was levelled,  we cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of  

bride  burning,  in  our  opinion,  fall  in  the  category  of  

rarest of rare cases, and hence deserve death sentence.

Although  bride  burning  or  bride  hanging  cases  have  

become  common  in  our  country,  in  our  opinion,  the  

expression “rarest of rare” as referred to in Bachan Singh  

Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the  

act  is  uncommon,  it  means  that  the  act  is  brutal  and  

barbaric. Bride killing is certainly barbaric.

Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed  

in a fit of anger or for property.  They are social crimes.  

They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for  

harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our  

society  is  that  out  of  lust  for  money  people  are  often  

demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they  

can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they  

3

commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose.  This  

is because of total commercialization of our society, and  

lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the  

wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this  

evil from our society, with an iron hand.

In the present case, there was a post mortem done by a  

committee of three Doctors. We  have  perused  the  post  

mortem  report.  In  that  report  ante  mortem  injuries  were  

mentioned as under :-

“1. Ligature mark around the neck, 31x7 cms.  Base  slightly  grooved  with  dark  red.  On  cut  section-tissue  ecchymosed  a  tracheal  ring  compresses.  Clotted blood under soft tissue.

2. Superficial to deep burn all over body.  Blistered at places present. On cut section serus  fluid present.”

The cause of the death in that report was mentioned in  

the following terms :-

“Opinion as to cause and manner of death :  In  my opinion cause of death is suffocation with  shock  as  a  result  of  strangulation  with  simultaneous A/M burn.”

Thus, in this case the death of the deceased Geeta was  

caused  by  strangulation  and  then  by  burning.  It  is  

impossible  for  us  to  believe  that  this  was  a  case  of  

suicide.  It was a clear case of murder and hence charge  

under Section 302 IPC should have been levelled against the  

4

appellants but surprisingly enough that has not been done  

in this case.   

On the evidence on record which we are repeating here  

again, we see no reason to disagree with the view taken by  

the High Court.  

The deceased was aged about 24 years and about ½ day  

had passed since she died when post mortem was done.  She  

was  of  average  build.  Eyes  and  mouth  were  partly  open.  

Tongue  was  between  the  teeth.   The  body  had  pugilistic  

appearance. Smell of kerosene was present. Rigor mortis was  

also present.  There was a half burnt cloth around the neck  

with  knot  half  burnt.  Half  burnt  bed  sheet  and  other  

clothes  as  also  a  half  burnt  wire  mingled  with  burnt  

clothes were found.  A burnt cordless phone was also found.

At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.  

Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was the father of the deceased and  

maker  of  the  F.I.R.  who  as  well  as  his  relative  Jaideo  

Awasthi PW 2 gave evidence about the demand of Maruti Car  

by  the  accused  respondents  since  after  six  months  of  

marriage and about the demand of Maruti Car being repeated  

and pressed by both the accused, when both of them had gone  

to the Sasural of the deceased and had been turned out by  

the two accused after being insulted on their expressing  

inability  to  meet  the  demand  of   a  Maruti  Car.  

Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 stated that he was included in the  

panel of doctors conducting the autopsy on the dead body of  

5

the deceased and he proved the post mortem report. Head  

Constable Mohar Pal Singh PW 4 had scribed the check report  

on the basis of the FIR lodged by Surya Kant Dixit PW 1.  

Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5, Tehsildar of Tehsil Farrukhabad  

prepared  the  inquest  report  of  the  dead  body  of  the  

deceased and other related papers. S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6  

had  collected  bloodstains  etc.,  from  the  spot  at  the  

instance  of  Shiv  Bahadur  Singh  PW  5  and  Circle  Officer  

D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 was Investigating Officer of the case.  

The defence also examined three witnesses. Vidushi Tiwari  

DW 1 was the real sister of the husband of the deceased.  

Devendra  Misra  DW  2  and  Sushil  Kumar  Misra  DW  3  were  

non-family members of the two accused.

As held by the Apex Court in the case of Kunhiabdulla  

Versus  State  of  Kerala,  2004  (4)  SCC  13,  in  order  to  

attract  application  of  Section  304B  IPC,  the  essential  

ingredients are as follows :

1. The  death  of  a  woman  should  be  caused  by  burns  or  

bodily  injury  or  otherwise  than  in  normal  

circumstances;

2. such a 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;

4. Such  cruelty  or  harassment  should  be  for  or  in  

6

connection with demand of dowry;

5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have meted out  

to the woman soon before her death.

As generally happens in a crime of dowry death, this  

case is also based on circumstantial evidence.  As regards  

ingredients No. 1 and 2 of a crime of dowry death detailed  

above, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Geeta died  

otherwise than in normal circumstances vide her post mortem  

report and that the death had occurred within seven years  

of her marriage in her Sasural in the bedroom.  As per the  

prosecution  case,  she  had  been  married  to  the  accused  

respondent  No.  1-  Satya  Narain  Tewari  alias  Jolly  about  

three years before this incident occurring on 3.11.2000.  

Even  Vidushi  Tiwari  DW  1,  sister  of  the  husband  of  the  

deceased  in  paragraph  2  of  her  statement  said  that  the  

deceased  Geeta  was  married  to  her  brother  Satya  Narain  

Tiwari alias Jolly on 9.12.1997.  Thus, her unnatural death  

in her Sasural occurred within three years of her marriage.

7

As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant  

testimony is contained in the statement of the deceasd's  

father Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 (son-

in law of Bua of Surya Kant). Both of them have deposed  

about the persistent demand of Maruti Car in dowry by the  

accused persons (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased)  

since  after  six  months  of  the  marriage  and  

harassment/maltreatment of the deceased over the score of  

non-fulfilment  of  the  said  demand.   The  gist  of  the  

testimony  of  Surya  Kant  Dixit  PW  1  was  that  he  had  

performed  a  decent  marriage  spending  Rs.  4  Lacs  giving  

household  goods  in  dowry  but  after  six  months  of  the  

marriage, the two accused started torturing his daughter  

Geeta pressing for the demand of a Maruti Car.  On her  

visits  to  her  parental  house,  she  (deceased)  used  to  

narrate to him (this witness) her torture and maltreatment.  

She  had  also  informed  him  in  this  behalf  on  telephone.  

About  three  months  before  the  incident,  he  and  Jaideo  

Awasthi  had  gone  to  Geeta's  Sasural  at  Farrukhabad  on  

getting message from Geeta about the atrocities of the two  

accused  heaped  upon  her  rendering  her  life  miserable  

because  of  non-fulfilment  of  the  demand  of  Maruti  Car.  

Both the accused were there at their home at Farrukhabad  

and repeated the demand of Maruti car. On his expressing  

inability to meet this demand, he and Jaideo Awasthi were  

8

insulted and humiliated and turned out of the house.  Both  

the  accused  told  them  not  to  visit  their  house  again  

without meeting their demand of a Maruti Car.  Surya Kant  

Dixit PW 1 then went to Geeeta's father-in-law at the place  

of his employment-State Bank because he was a gentleman.  

He  apprised  him  of  the  conduct  of  his  wife  and  son  

(accused) pressing the demand of Maruti Car. He, however,  

offered consolation, Geeta, daughter of Surya Kant Dixit DW  

1, also advised him not to take any action and he went  

away.  The victim might have thought that making of FIR by  

her father at that juncture would ruin her matrimonial life  

and so she advised him not to take any legal step at that  

time.

Then he received a telephonic message from someone at  

about 12 O'clock in the noon on the day of incident about  

the  death  of  his  daughter  Geeta  in  her  Sasural  at  

Farrukhabad, he at once rushed from Mainpuri to Farrukhabad  

covering  a  distance  of  about  80-85  km.   Reaching  the  

Sasural of his daughter he found her dead in the bedroom of  

the first floor of the house.

Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has corroborated the statement of  

Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 in all the essential particulars.  He  

had accompanied Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 about three months  

before  the  incident  to  the  Sasural  of  Geeta  as  related  

above  while  giving  the  gist  of  testimony  of  Surya  Kant  

Dixit PW 1 and thereafter on the day of the incident on the  

9

receipt of telephonic message at about 12 O'clock at  noon.  

It is pertinent to state that this witness used to reside  

in Mainpuri in a separate portion of the house of  PW 1. He  

being a close relative of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1, it is  

quite  believable  that  he  had  acquired  knowledge  of  the  

persistent demand of Maruti Car by the accused on Geeta's  

visits to her parental house and he had also accompanied PW  

1 to her Sasural three months before the incident as also  

on the day of the incident. The testimony of Surya Kant  

Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 is thus quite credible  

regarding the illegal demand of a Maruti Car as in dowry by  

the two accused since after six months of the marriage and  

that  they  subjected  her  to  harassment,  maltreatment  and  

humiliation on non-fulfilment of the said demand. It goes  

without saying that cruelty or harassment may not only be  

physical but also mental.

There  is  an  important  feature  of  the  case.  In  the  

present case, Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 has described Ghanshyam  

Tiwari (father-in-law of his daughter) as a gentleman.  He  

has all the respect and regard for him.  Even when he was  

humiliated by the two accused about three months before the  

incident on his expressing inability to meet their demand  

of Maruti Car in dowry, he (PW1) had gone to him at his  

employment place in State Bank and had not taken any action  

on the consolation offered by him. He mentioned this fact  

in  the  FIR  too.   It  appears  that  Ghanshyam  could  not  

10

control  the  disposition  of  his  wife  and  son  (the  two  

accused)  and  they  continued  to  pursue  their  greed  by  

tormenting and maltreating the young lady (deceased) to get  

a Maruti Car in dowry from her parents. She (Geeta) had to  

pay the price of non-fulfilment of this demand of theirs,  

losing her life at their hands.

Only the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have  

been accused of the offences in question.  Besides them,  

there  were  three   other  family  members  i.e.,  Ghanshyam  

Tiwari (father of accused No. 1 and husband of accused No.  

2), Km. Vidushi DW 1 (sister of the accused No. 1) and Km.  

Shalini, another unmarried sister of accused No. 2.  Such  

composition of the family has been related by Vidushi DW1.  

The circumstance that only the husband and mother-in-law of  

the deceased have been made accused of the offence, sparing  

the other three, is an indication that Surya Kant Dixit  

(father of the deceased) has not acted out of malice, anger  

or  to  wreak  vengeance,  as  otherwise  he  would  have  

implicated the entire family including the father-in-law of  

the deceased and two unmarried sisters of the husband of  

the deceased as is often done by the parental side of the  

bride in a dowry death case. Indeed, the prosecution could  

not be expected to bring forth any other evidence as to the  

persistent demand of dowry in the form of Maruti Car by the  

two  accused  after  about  six  months  of  the  marriage  and  

11

maltreatment,  harassment  and  torture  heaped  upon  her  

(deceased) by the two accused on non-fulfilment of the said  

demand.  The  evidence  on  this  aspect  of  the  matter  as  

contained in the statements of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and  

Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has the natural aura of the truth.

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  argued  that  the  

alleged demand of Maruti Car made after about six months of  

marriage does not answer the test of 'soon before'  the  

death of the deceased. She reasoned that as per the own  

case of the prosecution, there was no interaction between  

the two sides since before three mnonths of the death of  

the deceased when Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi  

PW 2 had allegdly been humiliated and turned out by the two  

accused from their house with the direction not to come  

there  again  without  a  Maruti  Car  and  that  there  was  no  

evidence that any such demand was made during the period of  

three months intervening between the alleged incident of  

turning them out of the house by the accused and the death  

of the deceased.  The counsel for accused made reference to  

the case of Balwant and another  Vs.  State of Punjab  AIR  

2005  SC  1504  to  stress  the  point  that  proximity  

test  has  to  be  applied.   The  argument,  in  our  opinion,  

cannot be accepted.

As held by this Court in Kunhiabdullah and another Vs.  

State  of  Kerala,  2004  (4)  SCC  13,  'soon  before'  is  a  

12

relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of  

each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as  

to  what  would  constitute  a  period  of  'soon  before  the  

occurrence'.  It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed  

period and that brings in the importance of a proximity  

test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as  

well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of  

the Evidence Act.  The determination of the period which  

can  come  within  the  term  'soon  before'  is  left  to  be  

determined  by  the  courts,  depending  upon  facts  and  

circumstances of each case. Suffice, however,  to indicate  

that the expression, 'soon before'  would normally imply  

that the interval should not be much between the concerned  

cruelty or harassment and the death in question.  There  

must be existence of a proximate and live link between the  

effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned  

death.  If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in  

time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental  

equilibrium  of  the  woman  concerned,  it  would  be  of  no  

consequence.

There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the  

proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts  

and  circumstances  of  each  case.  Regarding  the  aforesaid  

decision,  the  facts  were  somewhat  different  in  that  the  

deceased was not shown to have been subjected to cruelty by  

13

her husband for at least 15 months prior to her death.  On  

the fact of that case, it was held that Section 304B IPC  

was not attracted.

On the other hand, the present case fully answers the  

test  of 'soon' before'. There is the testimony of demand  

of  Maruti  Car  being  pressed  by  the  two  accused  persons  

after  about  six  months  of  the  marriage  of  the  deceased  

(which took  place about three years before the incident)  

and of her being pestered, nagged, tortured and maltreated  

on non-fulfilment of the said demand which was conveyed by  

her to her parents from time to time on her visits to her  

parental home and on telephone. Things had reached to such  

a  pass  that  on  getting  a  message  from  her  about  three  

months  before  the  incident,  Surya  Kant  Dixit  PW  1  

accompanied by Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 had to go to her Sasural  

in Farrukhabad in an attempt to dissuade the two accused  

from  pressing  such  demand,  but  they  (the  two  accused)  

humiliated them and turned them out of the house with the  

command not to enter their house again  without meeting the  

demand of  a Maruti Car. He did not take any action on the  

consolation offered by the father-in-law of his daughter  

and also on the advice of his daughter.  It was natural  

that the victim also did not want her father to take any  

extreme  step  against  the  two  accused.  She  might  have  

thought  that  things  would  improve  with  the  passage  of  

14

timebut  it  seems  that  that  did  not  happen.   Surya  Kant  

Dixit  PW  1  was  in  a  helpless  state  after  suffering  

humiliation at the hands of the accused persons about three  

months before the actual incident. He could simply wait and  

watch in the hope of things to improve, but the situation  

did not improve at all.  It, however, cannot be taken to  

mean that the demand made by the two accused persons had  

subsided or was given up by them. It can justifiably be  

inferred  from  what  happened  subsequently  that  they  

continued to torture the unfortunate lady because of non-

fulfilment of the demand of Maruti Car.  In our opinion,  

the  test  of  'soon  before'  is  satisfied  in  the  facts,  

evidence and circumstances of the present case.

Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5 for attraction of  

Section  304B  IPC,  are  also  established  by  satisfactory  

evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  in  the  form  of  the  

testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 corroborated by Jaideo  

Awasthi PW 2.

As regards the important question whether the death of  

Geeta  was  homicidal  as  alleged  by  the  prosecution  or  

suicidal  as  claimed  by  the  defence,  there  is  a  popular  

adage that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances will  

not. In the present case, certain recoveries made from the  

spot  strongly  indicate  that  the  death  of  Geeta  was  

homicidal. There are two important recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10  

15

and  Ka-11.  The  recovery  memo  Ex.Ka-10  relates  to  the  

recovery of blood and bloodstained Bindia from the Chhajja  

(balcony) situated outside the room in which the dead body  

of the deceased was found lying.  The said recovery is a  

pointer that the deceased had been subjected to violence  

there and there was struggle btween her and her captors.  

Such recovery leads to the justifiable inference that she  

had received injuries, and blood had oozed in drops found  

at the Chhajja. She was a young lady of about 24 years of  

age.  The instinct of self preservation is strongest in all  

human beings. Seemingly, violence had first been applied to  

her  inside  the  bedroom  by  the  accused  and  offering  

resistance she had somehow run out to the Chajja (balcony)  

adjoining the room and the blood dropped there.  Another  

recovery memo Ex.Ka-11 related to the findings inside the  

room in which the dead body was found. Amongst them, there  

were broken pieces of bangles also.  With the application  

of force and violence, she was brought back from the Chajja  

(balcony) to the bedroom where she was done to death. It is  

noted from the Panchnama Ex.Ka-6 that the receiver of the  

telephone was stuck under the left arm of the deceased and  

burnt telephone wire was found stuck with the dead body.

The post mortem report also makes mention of the burnt  

wire and burnt cordless phone being found stuck with the  

dead body along with a half burnt scarf around the neck.

16

The  recovery  memoes  Ex.Ka-10  and  Ka-11  had  been  

prepared by S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 at the dictationof  

ShirBahadur singh PW 5. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5 (Tehsildar  

Magistrate) is a witness to the recovery memoes. Inquest  

report (Panchayatnama) was prepared by himself. One of the  

witnesses  of  the  recovery  memoes  and    Panchnama    is  

Keshav  Tiwari,  advocate  uncle  of  accused  No.  1.   These  

recoveries were not challenged in the cross-examination of  

Shiv  Bahadur  Singh  (Tehsildar  Magisttrate)  PW  5  or  SI  

Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6.  These recoveries amply indicate that  

the deceased had been subjected to violence in the bedroom  

and  she  had  succeeded  in  coming  out  on  the  Chhajja  

(balcony)  to  save  herself.   The  signs  of  struggle  and  

application  of  violence  in  the  form  of  broken  bangles  

inside the room and the blood and bloodstained Bindia on  

the Chhajja were found.  Not only this, it appears that the  

deceased had even tried to make use of the phone to  inform  

someone about what was happening with her but she could not  

succeed. The presence of burnt  cordless phone stuck in the  

arm  and  the  burnt  wire  of  phone  with  the  dead  body  

indicates that she had tried to contact someone on phone,  

but in vain.  There is nothing to cast doubt on the said  

recoveries.

The argument of the learned counsel for the accused,  

however, ignores other important aspects of the matter.  We  

have  dealt  with  the  above  that  there  was  struggle  and  

17

application  of  violence  on  the  deceased  on  the  Chhajja  

(balcony) and in the bed room where she was forcibly taken  

for  being  done  to  death.   To  incapacitate  her  of  any  

meaningful resistance, the accused persons interfered with  

her breathing process with the compression of the windpipe  

of  her  neck  before  burning  her.   Respiration  had  not  

completely stopped. In other words, the air passage was not  

completely blocked by the ligature pressed by the accused  

around the neck of the deceased.  She was strangulated, but  

not to death. Strangulating her half way to overpower her  

and  to  render  her  incapable  of  offering  any  meaningful  

resistance, the two accused then poured kerosene over her  

and  burnt  her.   This  explains  the  presence  of  sooty  

particles in her larynx, trachea and bronchi.  A half burnt  

cloth around her neck with a knot had been found by the  

panel of doctors conducting post mortem on her dead body.  

Her tongue was between the teeth. Ligature mark of large  

dimension measuring 31 x 7 cm all around the neck had been  

found by the doctors.  As stated above, the doctors found a  

half burnt piece of cloth around her neck with a knot half  

burnt. It was the constricting material used by the accused  

for compressing the neck of the deceased.

Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 explained that strangulation would  

mean  pressing  the  neck  with  force.  He  also  emphatically  

stated  that  strangulation  was  made  by  the  cloth  found  

around the neck of the deceased which was bearing a knot.  

18

As a matter of fact, ligature mark was the impression left  

by the constricting object around the neck.  The sign of  

“tissue ecchymosed and tracheal ring found compressed” was  

explained  by  the  Doctor  that  it  occurred  on  account  of  

tying the cloth around the neck with toughness.  These were  

the signs of violence and force applied by the assailants  

on the neck of the deceased strangulating her to render her  

immobile  and  to  overpower  her,  but  half  way.    They  

sprinkled kerosene on her and burnt her to accomplish their  

objective of causing her death.  Nothing could be brought  

out of the  cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 to  

displace the facts emerging from the post mortem report.

So far as the alleged manipulation in the post mortem  

report  is  concerned,  the  contention  for  the  accused  is  

wholly unfounded. It was a panel of three doctors formed by  

the District Magistrate to conduct post mortem of the dead  

body of the deceased.  The complainant was an outsider from  

another city.  It would be preposterous to assume that he  

had such monstrous influence that he could win over the  

three  doctors  to  produce  a  port  mortem  report  of  his  

choice, falsely showing the signs of strangulation on the  

dead body of the deceased.  Keshav Tiwari (uncle of accused  

No. 1) was an Advocate, practising at Farrukhabad who was  

even  present  at  the  time  of  preparation  of  the  inquest  

report. He was also a witness of Fard of recovery Ex.Ka-10  

and  Ka-11.   Naturally,  he  would  have  been  watching  the  

19

interest  of  the  accused  persons.  It  was  practically  

impossible for PW 1 (father of the deceased) to maneuver  

any manipulation in the post mortem report. We also cannot  

accept the argument that the doctors were incompetent.

The  theory  of  suicide  put  forth  by  the  defence  

completely  falls  through  on  careful  analysis  of  the  

evidence  and  the  attending  circumstances.  Two  different  

types of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased,  

i.e., the ligature mark of large dimension and the body  

being badly burnt because of the ante mortem burns with  

smell of kerosene coming out of the body completely rule  

out the theory of suicide. A half burnt piece of cloth with  

a knot was also found tied around the neck.  If a cloth is  

suddenly tightened around the  neck, it is likely to cause  

loss  of  consciousness,  rendering  it  impossible  for  the  

victim to perform any action because of the interference  

with her breathing process.  Owing to constricting of neck  

by a ligature, it could not at all be possible for the  

victim to catch hold of the container of the kerosene and  

pour it upon her with the lighting of match stick setting  

her ablaze.  Her mental faculty would not have been in such  

a position to have undertaken such an activity.  It is also  

to  be  taken  note  of  that  her  body  was  found  by  the  

Investigating Officer at point “A” was depicted in the site  

plan  in  the  lonely  corner  of  the  bedroom  where  she  was  

20

rendered immobile and in a helpless state.

Vidushi DW 1 sister of accused No. 1 tried to support  

the theory of suicide by  her  statement that her sister-

in-law  (deceased)  used  to  bear  Tabiz  in  her  neck.  She  

stated  that  she  allegedly  enquired  from  Geeta  about  the  

same and she had replied that she was being haunted by evil  

spirits having bad dreams in the night and further that a  

month before her marriage, her father had taken her to a  

Tantrik who had given Tabiz of her marriage.  According to  

her, the deceased remained in mental tension because she  

had not been able to give birth to any child.

We have not the slightest doubt that the theory of  

suicide put forth by the defence is a crude concoction.  

Ours is a superstitious society.  A number of males and  

females  wear  Tabiz  over  their  persons  on  the  advice  of  

hermits,  astrologers,  fortunetellers,  palmists,  tantriks,  

etc., for general well being. It is preposterous that even  

before her marriage, the deceased was taken by her father  

to  some  tantrik  for  such  treatment  of  sorcery  so  as  to  

ensure the birth of a child to her within three years of  

marriage.  It also cannot be accepted that she was living  

under gloom or depression for having not given birth to a  

child.  She was only 24 years of age when she died. She was  

educated upto B.Sc. Standard.  She had not passed child  

21

bearing age. She had been married about three years back.  

No  evidence  could  be  led  by  the  defence  that  she  was  

suffering from some gynaecological problem running counter  

to her child bearing capacity.  Had there been any such  

problem,  there  would  have  been  some  history  of  her  

consultation  with  medical  experts  and  related  treatment.  

The accused being her husband and the mother-in-law would  

have definitely been in a position to put forth documentary  

evidence in this behalf.  A bald assertion from the mouth  

of the sister of the accused No. 1 could not be believed  

that the deceased was suffering from some mental depression  

for having not conceived.

We record with dismay that the trial judge has taken  

it to be a ground against the prosecution that the knot  

found  around  the  neck  of  the  deceased  was  not  produced  

before the Court.  It is beyond comprehension as to how the  

knot of cloth found wrapped around the neck of the deceased  

could  be  produced  before  him.  It  is  obvious  that  he  

completely misinterpreted the matter relating to the knot  

and  took  it  as  a  circumstance  against  the  prosecution.  

While  conducting  post  mortem,  the  knot  found  around  the  

neck  of  the  deceased  was  untied  and  removed.   In  other  

words, the body was freed from the knot so as to facilitate  

the post mortem. Therefore, there could be no question of  

the knot bring produced before the court.

On  close  scrutiny  and  careful  appreciation  of  the  

22

evidence,  we  are  of  the  firm  view  that  the  trial  judge  

wrongly accepted the plea of alibi put forth by the two  

accused persons to get away from the consequences of the  

serious  crime  committed  by  them.   Their  conduct  also  

voluminously spoke against them.  As a matter of fact, only  

these  two  accused  had  an  opportunity  to  commit  this  

offence. The father-in-law of the deceased having gone to  

State Bank, Farrukhabad (the place of his employment) and  

his two daughhters including DW 1 Vidushi having gone to  

their educational institution, the two accused persons only  

(husband  and  mother-in-law  of  the  deceased)  had  the  

opportunity to commit this crime inside the bedroom of one  

of  the  them,  i.e.,  accused  Satya  Narayan  Tiwari  alias  

Jolly.  No one else could have access there.  The manner in  

which  the  deceased  was  done  to  death,  i.e.,  by  first  

strangulating  her  and  then  setting  her  afire,  needed  at  

least two persons, because she (deceased) was also a young  

lady aged about 24 years.  As is well known, the instinct  

of self preservation is natural in all living beings. A  

single  person  could   not  have  possibly  overpowered  the  

victim  to  strangulate  her  and  to  set  her  afire.   As  a  

natural  instinct,  she  was  bound  to  offer  resistance  and  

having regard to the two types of the injuries found on her  

person at the time of post mortem, it was the handiwork of  

at least two persons,  who undoubtedly were the husband and  

mother-in-law of the deceased.  The conduct of the mother-

23

in-law  of  the  deceased  was  that  she  lodged  a  false  

information at the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. that her  

daughter-in-law had committed suicide. In this report, she  

stated that she had gone to supervise the construction work  

at her other house and noticing smoke emitting from the  

first floor of the bedroom of the house of the incident and  

on the shouts of the residents of the locality, she came  

rushing to the scene.  In our opinion, this statement is  

false as per the own showing of her daughter DW 1 Vidushi.  

She stated that the house to which her mother had gone, was  

situated in another locality.  She also stated that it was  

not  visible  from  the  house  of  the  incident.   It  also  

emerges from her statement that the distance of that house  

under construction from the old house of the incident was 1  

or 2 furlongs.  This being so, there could be no question  

of her (accused appellant No. 2) noticing emission of smoke  

from  the  bedroom  of  first  floor  of  the  house  where  the  

incident took place. She (accused appellant No. 2) falsely  

stated  in  the  report  lodged  at  the  Police  Station  to  

misguide the machinery of law through false plea of alibi.  

The  story  of  seeing  smoke  coming  out  of  the  home  and  

hearing  the  alarm  of  the  respondents  of  the  locality  

mentioned in the report of Bhuvaneshwari Devi was a stark  

lie. She had taken a false excuse to support her baseless  

plea of alibi of herself as also her son-husband of the  

deceased.

24

The interested testimony of DW 1 Vidushi also cannot be  

believed that her brother accused No. 1 – husband of the  

deceased  had  gone  to  his  shop  at  about  8  P.M.  After  

committing this crime, the two accused vanished from the  

scene, but before doing that, one of them (Bhuvaneshwari-

mother-in-law of the deceased) lodged a false report at the  

police  station  that  her  daugther-in-law  had  committed  

suicide.   It is in the testimony of D.P.N. Pandey PW 7  

(C.O/Investigating Officer) that the accused Satya Narayan  

surrendered  in  Court  on  7.11.2000  and  the  other  accused  

Rani alias Bhuvaneshwari on 13.11.2000.  Earlier thereto,  

the attempts to find and arrest them turned to be futile.  

It is in his testimony that both of them were absconding  

and  for  this  reason,  on  6.11.2000  a  report  had  been  

submitted for issuing process against them under Section  

82/83 Cr.P.C.  None of the two accused is witness of the  

inquest report or Fards. Absconding by both of them after  

the  incident  cannot  be  termed  to  be  normal  conduct  of  

innocent persons.  The report by the accused Bhuvaneshwari  

Devi, as we said, was given at the Police Station at 1.10  

P.M. On 3.11.2000.   In our opinion, it was the outcome of  

deliberation and consultation with legal experts who had  

already  gathered  at  the  scene  of  occurrence  along  with  

Keshav Tiwari , Advocate-uncle of the accused Satya Narayan  

Tiwari,  DW  2  Devendra  Misra,  Advocate,  and  few  other  

25

lawyers.  We note from the testimony of DW 2 Devendra Misra  

that the news of the death of daughter-in-law of Ghanshyam  

Tiwari was received in the District court at 11.30 A.M.,  

itself  i.e.,  much  before  the  lodging  of  the  report  by  

Bhuvaneshwari. This   witness stated that when he arrived  

at the scene of occurrence, a group of lawyers was already  

there. The false report made by the accused Bhuvaneshwari  

Devi was obviously the outcome of the legal advice to save  

the  culprits  from  the  consequences  of  the  criminal  act  

committed by them.

Learned counsel for the accused also argued that it was  

the accused Bhuvaneshwari who had passed on the information  

of the deathof the deceased to her parents on telephone.  

Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 (father of the deceased)  denied that  

the telephone received by him was from Bhuvaneshwari Devi.  

According to him, he had received the telephone call from  

some  stranger.   Even  if  it  is  taken  for  the  sake  of  

argument that she had telephoned to him, in our opinion, it  

is of no  consequence and the defence does not score any  

point on this premise. The reason is that the crime was  

committed by the two accused with preplanning, so much so  

that Bhuvaneshwari Devi even lodged a false report at the  

police  station  to  misguide  the  machinery  of  law  and  to  

create a false defence. Telephoning to the father of the  

deceased could only be a part of the scheme to project it  

26

as a case of suicide.

We are of the view that the presumption of Section 113-

B of the Evidence Act is attracted in this case and the  

discussion  that  we  have  made  hereinabove  makes  it  

abundantly clear that the defence could not displace the  

said presumption.   The culpability of the two accused in  

committing this crime is established to the hilt by the  

facts  and  circumstances  proved  by  the  prosecution.  They  

undoubtedly are the authors of this crime. The irresistible  

conclusion is the the demand of Maruti Car raised by the  

two  accused  after  about  six  months  of  the  marriage  

persisted  as  it  was  not  settled  by  the  father  of  the  

deceased  by  supplying  the  same.   The  prosecution  has  

successfully proved the persistent demand of Maruti Car as  

a part of dowry by the two accused and continuous cruelty  

and harassment heaped upon the deceased by them over this  

score.

To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove the  

following :

(1)the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation  

and burning within seven years of her marriage;

(2)the  deceased  had  been  subjected  to  cruelty  by  her  

husband and mother-in-law (the two accused appellants)  

27

over  the  demand  of  Maruti  Car  in  dowry  raised  and  

persistently pressed by them after about six months of  

the marriage and continued till her death.

(3)The cruelty and harassment was in connection with the  

demand of dowry i.e. Maruti Car.

(4)The cruelty and harassment is established to have been  

meted out soon before her death.

(5)The Two accused were the authors of this crime who  

caused her death by strangulation and burning on the  

given date, time and place.

In our opinion, the trial Judge recorded an acquittal  

adopting a superfluous approach without indepth analysis of  

the evidence and circumstances established on record. On  

thoroughly  cross-checking  the  evidence  on  record  and  

circumstances  established  by  the  prosecution  with  the  

findings  recorded  by  the  trial  court,  we  find  that  its  

conclusion are quite inapt, unjustified, unreasonable and  

perverse.  Proceeding  on  wrong  premise  and  irrelevant  

considerations, the trial court has acquitted the accused.  

The accused are established to have committed the offences  

under Sections 498-A and 304 B IPC and under Section 4 of  

Dowry Prohibition Act and the findings of the High Court  

are correct.

As a result of the above discussion, this Appeal is  

28

dismissed accordingly.

On  27.10.2005  this  Court  had  granted  bail  to  the  

appellants.  Their bail bonds are cancelled.  They shall be  

taken into custody forthwith to serve out remaining period  

of sentence.

Application for impleadment is allowed.

......................J.  (MARKANDEY KATJU)

......................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 28, 2010.

29