Crl. A.  583 of 2004 1

     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2004

AYODHYA PRASAD ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal is by the father-in-law of the deceased  

who stands convicted for offences punishable under Section  

304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of  

ten years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively,  

and  under  Section  4  of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act  to  a  

sentence  of  six  months,  all  the  sentences  to  run  

concurrently.  The facts leading to the appeal are as under:

2. Kamlesh  Kumari  Prasad,  the  deceased  daughter  of  

Ayodhya Prasad P.W. 1 was married to Chandrika Prasad about  

two  years  prior  to  the  incident  in  question.   Kamlesh  

Kumari died due to 100 per cent burn injuries on the 4th  

September,  1989.   A  First  Information  Report  was,  

accordingly, lodged by P.W. 1 in which he spelt out that  

his son-in-law i.e. Chandrika Prasad was posted in Kashmir

Crl. A.  583 of 2004 2

and the appellant-Ayodhya Prasad and his wife Sarju Devi,  

his parents were harassing her by demanding a Vicky Motor  

Cycle.   This  demand  was  repeated  several  times  in  the  

presence of P.W. 4 Babulal, the brother  of P.W. 1 as well.  

It  is  further  in  evidence  that  on  account  of  the  non-

satisfaction of the demand Kamlesh Kumari was subjected to  

cruelty  and  was  also  denied  her  food.   It  is  the  

prosecution  story  that  on  account  of  this  situation  she  

committed suicide on the day in question.  The trial court  

by its judgment dated 6th September, 1991, held that there  

was no categoric evidence against Sarju Devi, the mother-

in-law as the primary evidence was against the appellant  

herein.  The trial court, accordingly, acquitted Sarju Devi  

and convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.  An  

appeal was thereafter taken by the appellant to the High  

Court which has confirmed the judgment of the trial court  

and dismissed this appeal.  It is in this situation the  

matter is before us, after the grant of special leave.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out  

that there was no categoric evidence against the appellant  

and the trial court having found that Sarju Devi was not  

involved,  there  was  no  circumstance  in  the  present  case  

which could inculpate the appellant.  He has submitted that  

the defence evidence given by D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 had not  

been considered by the High Court and if this was taken

Crl. A.  583 of 2004 3

into account it was evident that no demand whatsoever had  

been made from the deceased or her parents and that the  

deceased had committed suicide on account of frustration as  

she wanted to join her husband in Kashmir which was not  

possible  under  the  circumstances.   It  has  further  been  

pointed out that the husband had left for Kashmir only two  

days prior to the incident which fortified the submission  

about  the  mental  state  of  the  deceased.    Mr.  Pramod  

Swarup,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  State,  has,  

however, supported the judgment of the trial court and the  

High Court.   

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

gone through the record.   

5. We have absolutely no reason to doubt the statements  

of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4.  It has been categorically, deposed  

that soon after the gona ceremony (which had been held a  

year  before the incident) the accused had made a demand  

for a Vicky Motor Cycle from the parents of the deceased  

and on the failure of the complainant to provide the motor  

cycle, she had been grossly maltreated which had driven her  

to  suicide.   It  is,  therefore,  apparent  that  the  facts  

spell out the applicability of Section 304B IPC and the  

presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act has thus  

to be drawn against the appellant.  The question is whether  

that presumption has been rebutted  by the evidence of D.W.

Crl. A.  583 of 2004 4

1  and  2.   The  statement  of  D.W.  1  that  he  had  made  a  

statement to the Daroga at the time of  the Panchnama about  

the frustration of the deceased is not borne out by the  

document.  We are of the opinion that a cumulative reading  

of  the  defence  evidence  does  not  reveal  any  hint  with  

regard to the frustration felt by the deceased on account  

of the absence of her husband.   

6. It has been held by this Court repeatedly that the  

normal period of sentence for an offence under Section 304B  

is seven years.  The award of a sentence of ten years in  

the  present  matter  is  to  our  mind  not  justified.   We,  

accordingly,  while  dismissing  the  appeal,  reduce  the  

sentence imposed on the appellant from ten years to seven  

years.  With this modification in the sentence the appeal  

is  dismissed.   The  appellant  to  be  taken  into  custody  

forthwith to complete the remaining part of the sentence.   

7. Bail bonds stand cancelled.

........................... J

      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................... J

      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI

Crl. A.  583 of 2004 5

OCTOBER 26, 2010.