IN THE  SUPRE M E  COU RT  OF   INDIA           CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION   

     CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO.  296    OF  2005

ASHA  DEVI &  ANR. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE  OF  BIHAR ..  RESP O N D E N T(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NOS. 297 OF  2005 AND  1256 OF  2007

O  R   D  E  R

These  appeals arise from  the following facts:

Sudhia Devi deceased  was  married with Hare Ram  Jha  about 3-4  

years before the incident happened  and  was  pregnant at the time  of the  

occurrence.  On  22 nd September, 1997. PW.5  – Meena  Devi, Sudhia Devi's  

aunt, received  information  that Sudhia  Devi was  being  beaten  by  her  

husband  and  his parents and  sisters.  Meena  Devi along with her relatives  

rushed  to  Sudhia Devi's home  and  was  told by  her mother-in-law  Meera

Devi and  her daughters Asha  Devi and  Mithilesh Devi that she  was  in the  

process  of delivering a  child. Meena  Devi, however, insisted that she   

should be  allowed  to see Sudhia Devi on  which  she  was  restrained from   

doing  so  by  Asha  Devi and  Mithilesh Devi and  was  also threatened  with  

dire consequences  if she  tried to enter the room.   A  heated  argument  

ensued  between  the parties  

-2-

and  the resultant noise attracted some  residents of the village.  Meena   

Devi however managed  to enter the room  and  having  done  so  found  the  

dead  body  of Sudhia Devi lying in the courtyard.  Meena  Devi then rushed  

to the  police station and  lodged  the  FIR.  On  the  completion  of the  

investigation the accused  Hare  Ram  Jha, Sudhia Devi's husband, Durga  

Nand  and  Meena  Devi, his parents &  Asha  Devi &  Mithilesh  Devi, his  

sisters were charged  for offences punishable under Sec.304-B  and  498A  of  

the Indian Penal Code  and  brought to trial.

The  prosecution in support of its case  relied upon  the evidence  

of PW.5- Meena  Devi and  several other persons  who  had  accompanied  her  

to the house  of the deceased  on  the crucial day and  also on  the evidence   

of Ram  Saran Mishra-PW.11  the father of the deceased, PW.13-Jeevo  Devi-  

her mother, and  PW.15-Phoolo  Devi, her Mousi.   The  prosecution also  

produced  in evidence PW.16  Dr. Dhrub  Ku mar  Dheeraj who  had  conducted  

post-mortem  on  the dead  body  of the deceased  and  PW.17-B.P.Singh, the  

Investigation Officer.  In the course of the trial PW.1-10 i.e. Meena  Devi and   

all the others who  had  rushed  to the rescue  of Sudhia Devi on  the crucial  

day were  declared hostile. A  letter Ext. P.2 written by the deceased  to her  

mother on  25/6/1995, alleging maltreatment was  also produced  in evidence

by the  

-3-

prosecution.  The  trial court relying  upon  the evidence  of PW.11, PW.13   

anmd  PW.15  and  the documents  which  had  been  produced  on  record,  

convicted  the accused  under  Sec.304-B  and  Sec.498-A  of the IPC  and   

sentenced  Asha  Devi, Mithilesh Devi and  Meera  Devi to seven  years R.I.  

under Sec.304-B  and  Durga  Nand  Jha  and  Hare  Ram  Jha  – the father-in-

law  and  the  husband  of  the  deceased  respectively, to  undergo   

imprisonment for life.

The  accused  thereupon  filed an  appeal in the High  Court which   

has been  dismissed  by the impugned  judgment dated 23/4/2004.   

Three  appeals have  been  filed in this Court:  Criminal Appeal

No.296/2005 by Asha  Devi and  Mithilesh Devi, Criminal Appeal No.297/2005  

by  Meera  Devi and  1256/2007  by  Durga  Nand  Jha  - father-in-law  of the  

deceased, whereas  Hare Ram  Jha  has  filed no  appeal.  All these matters  

are being disposed  of by this judgment.

The  learned  counsel for the appellants has, at the very outset,  

argued  that as per the facts on  record, a case under Sec.304-B  of the IPC   

was  not spelt out as there was  no demand  for dowry soon  before the death  

which was  a sine qua  non  for the applicability of that Section. On  facts,  

the  learned counsel has brought to our notice that the marriage had  taken  

place in the year 1993 and  the death had  occurred on  22/9/1997 and  even if  

Ext. P.2 which was  the primary piece of evidence on record, was  taken into  

consideration, this   too  had    been    written   on  25/6/1995  which  was

-4-

about two years and  three months  before the death and  such  as this could  

not form  basis of the conviction.  He  has  also submitted that in any case  

there was  no  evidence  to connect the accused,  more  particularly Asha   

Devi, Mithilesh Devi and  Meera Devi, with the incident and  that in any case  

the sentence  awarded  to Durga  Nand  Jha  was  excessive as  it was  the  

settled position that in a case of conviction under Sec.304 seven  years R.I.  

was  the normal rule with a higher sentence  being  awarded  in exceptinal  

cases. For  the  last submission  reliance  has  been  placed  upon  the  

judgment Hem  Chand  vs. State of Haryana in 1994 (6) SCC  727  

The  learned counsel for the State has, however, pointed out that  

a clear finding of fact had  been  recorded  by  the two  courts below  on  an  

appreciation of the evidence  and  the fact that the deceased  had  met  an  

unnatural death and  had  been  tortured prior to the strangulation indicated  

that all the accused  had  been  involved in the incident.  She  has brought to  

our notice the evidence  of the Doctor - PW.16  who  deposed  of  epidermal  

burn  injuries 4”  x  3”  x  3  x  2”  on  the upper  part of the abdomen  and   

contusions  on  the chest wall in an  area  of 7”  x  3” and  observed  that  

ultimate cause  of death was  traumatic asphyxia and  strangulation and  that

the mark  of hanging  was  post mortem  in nature.  On  internal examination  

it was    found  that upper  lobes  of both  lungs  were  bruised  and  other  

internal organs were  congested.  It  

-5-

is also clear from  the post-mortem  report that a female foetus of about 36  

weeks  was  also found  in the dead  body. She  has  accordingly urged  that  

instead of  presenting a case  of murder, the accused  have  already been   

dealt with in a very light manner.  She  has also emphasized that the words   

`soon  before  the  death' occurring  under  Sec.304-B  could  not  be  

mechanically applied and  the chain of circumstances  and  the conduct of  

the accused  were  extremely relevant factors in evaluating the evidence in  

a case under Sec.304-B, more  particularly, on  account of the presumption  

laid against the accused  by virtue of Sec.113-B  of the Evidence Act.

We  have heard learned counsel for the parties  and  have perused   

the record.  At the very outset we  must  observe  that a  perusal of the  

statements of PWs.11   and  15 who  are father and  mother of the deceased   

respectively, do  not show  any involvement of Asha  Devi and  Mithilesh Devi  

– two  of the sisters-in-law.  Even  a perusal of the letter – Annexure  P.2  

does  not indicate any  cruelty  on  their part. As  a matter of fact, it has been   

brought  to our  notice by  the  learned  counsel for the  appellants that  

Mithilesh Devi had  been  married in the year 1976  and  Asha  Devi in 1979  

and  they were living in their matrimonial homes  at some  distance from   the  

village in which the incident happened.

-6-

We,  therefore, find that there is absolutely nothing to connect these two   

accused  with the incident.  Criminal Appeal No. 296/2005 must, therefore,  

to our mind  be allowed.  Asha  and  Mithilesh are ordered to be acquitted.

The  evidence  against  the  other  accused  however  is  un-

exceptional.   Meera  Devi is the mother-in-law  and  Durga  Nand  Jha  is the  

father-in-law and  Hare Ram  Jha-the husband.  It has  come  in the evidence  

that the deceased  was  being harassed  by these three persons  for having  

brought inadequate dowry and  repeated demands  were made  for a T.V. set  

etc. and  further that a sum  of Rs.51,000/- had  been  given after the marriage  

pursuant  to a  demand.   The  learned  counsel for the  appellants has,  

however, submitted that as a Panchayat had  been  organized to sort out the  

dispute, the best evidence in this case would have been  the appearance of  

some  me m bers  of the Panchayat to show  that such  a problem  had  arisen.  

It is true that if a statement from  a Panchayat me m ber  had  come  on record,  

the case  of the prosecution  would  be  strengthened  but this omission  

would  not mean  that the evidence  available was  insufficient to record a

conviction, more  particularly, in the  back  drop  of  Sec.113-B  of the  

Evidence Act.

We  also  find from  Ext. P.2 referred to above  that the primary  

villain  was  the mother in law  Meera  Devi and  that Her husband  and  son   

were in fact acting as tools at her behest.   

-7-

Moreover, from  a  reading  of Ext. P.2  with   the  statements  of ocular  

evidence  it appears that the demands  had  been  made  over for a period of  

time. The  presence  of burn  marks  on  the  abdomen  of the  deceased   

indicate  torture and  cruelty  meted  out to  the deceased  even on  day when   

she  met  her death.  Moreover,  as  already  observed  above,  from  the  

doctor's evidence  it transpires that the deceased  was  first  strangulated,

and, thereafter (to camouflage the cause of death) she had   been  hanged  in  

the bedroom  to make  it look as  a case  of suicide.  It has  come  in the  

evidence of PW.17, the I.O. B.P.Singh, that he had  entered the room  to find  

the dead  body  hanging  from  the roof.  In this view  of the matter and   

keeping in mind  the presumption under Sec.113-B  of the Evidence Act, we   

find absolutely no  merit in the other two appeals.   

The  appeals  of Meera  Devi and  Durga  Nand  Jha  (Crl.A.Nos.  

297/2005 and  1256/2007 respectively), are accordingly, dismissed.  We  are  

told that Meera Devi is on bail.  She  shall be taken into custody forthwith to  

serve out the remaining period of sentence.

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

     ...............................J.                                        (J.M. PANC H AL)

New  Delhi, July 22, 2009.