“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1645 OF 2009

Dasrath … Appellant

Versus

State of M.P. … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. The present  appeal  is  directed against  the  judgment  of  the  High  

Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant Dasrath.  He was convicted  

by the Trial Court of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code  

(IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and  

pay  a  fine  of  Rs.  5,000/-  and  in  default  directed  to  suffer  further  

imprisonment for one year.  He was also convicted for the offence under  

Section 201, IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one  

1

year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer three month’s further  

imprisonment.

2. Initially, as many as three accused persons came to be tried by the  

Sessions Judge, they being accused No.1, Kalyan, accused No.2, Dasrath  

and  accused  No.3,  Smt.  Usha.   While  accused  No.2,  Dasrath  is  the  

present appellant, accused No.1, Kalyan Singh and accused No.3, Smt.  

Usha are  his  father  and sister,  respectively.   The Trial  Court  had also  

convicted  Kalyan  Singh  for  the  same  offence.   However,  it  acquitted  

accused No.3, Smt. Usha from all the charges.  Both the accused had filed  

an appeal challenging their conviction and the sentences before the High  

Court.  However, during the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 Kalyan  

Singh expired and his appeal, thus, abated.  The appeal of Dasrath, the  

present appellant came to be dismissed by the High Court and that is how  

he is before us.

3. Shortly stated, the prosecution story was that Dasrath was married  

to Pinki who died under suspicious circumstance of burning.  An intimation  

regarding death came to be given to the Police Station Pandhokhar, Distt.  

Gwalior.  The said intimation was given by the complainant Vadehi Saran  

s/o Ramanand Kaurav who was none else but the father of the deceased  

Pinki.   It  was,  inter  alia,  stated  that  on  that  day  i.e.  12.8.1992  in  the  

morning  his  son  Jitendra  Singh  had  gone  to  village  Saujna  for  Rakhi  

2

festival to his daughter Pinki’s house.  But he returned at about 7 p.m. and  

told him that Pinki had caught fire and was sent to Daboh for treatment.  

Vadehi Saran further stated that on hearing the news, he along with some  

co-villagers went to Daboh.  However, one Santosh belonging to his village  

met him near Dugdha Dairy and told him that Pinki had died.  Then Vadehi  

Saran along  with  others  went  to  village Saujna.   But  by the  time they  

reached there, Pinki’s cremation was over.  It was because of this that they  

came to the Police Station and further action was requested on the basis  

of the death report.

4. On  this  basis,  a  First  Information  Report  was  got  registered  on  

16.8.92 wherein it  was recorded that the death intimation was given on  

12.8.92 at 23.15 hours orally about the death of Pinki.  It was recorded on  

a preliminary inquiry made by Head Constable Jaswir  Singh by visiting  

village Saujna and the Station House Officer R.S. Purohit had also made  

inquiries relating to the death.  The place of occurrence was examined by  

SDOP R.K.  Hirodia  and  inquiry  was  made  from the  deceased’s  father  

Vadehi  Saran,  uncle Uttam Singh,  brothers  Janved Singh and Jitendra  

Singh, mother Vidya Devi and sister Pratibha.  During this inquiry, it was  

found that the deceased was married 2 years prior to the date of incident  

and because of the non-payment of dowry, her husband Dasrath, father-in-

law Kalyan Singh and Sister-in-law Usha were harassing her.  The earlier  

3

statement given by Vadehi Saran was repeated.  It was then mentioned  

that on 12.8.1992 the sister-in-law Usha, husband Dasrath caught hold of  

Pinki and father-in-law Kalyan Singh poured kerosene oil on her and set  

her  on  fire  because  of  which  she  got  burnt.   The  accused  thereafter  

cremated her and cleaned the place where occurrence had taken place.

5. On  the  basis  of  this,  further  investigation  ensued  and  after  its  

completion, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court for offences under  

Sections  302,  304  B  and  201  IPC.   The  accused  were  charged  

accordingly.  The prosecution, during the trial, examined as many as 11  

witnesses.  The accused persons abjured the guilt  and as stated earlier  

only  two  of  them  came  to  be  convicted,  namely,  Kalyan  Singh  and  

Dasrath.  However, due to the death of Kalyan Singh during the pendency  

of the appeal, the appeal filed by Dasrath alone is to be considered.

6. Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. J.N. Singh appearing on behalf of the  

accused  attacked  the  judgment  of  both  the  Courts  below,  firstly,  

contending that conviction under Section 304B, IPC and Section, 201, IPC  

was wholly incorrect as it was not proved that Pinki had died a suspicious  

or un-natural death within the seven years of her marriage nor was her  

body found.  He also contended that there was no question of demanding  

any dowry as no complaint was ever made for dowry nor was there any  

evidence regarding the demands of dowry.  Lastly, he suggested that there  

4

was no question of any offence having been committed.  He pointed out  

that  the Trial  Court  had acquitted all  the accused of  the offence under  

Section 302, IPC though a charge was also framed under that Section and  

there was no appeal by the State Government against the acquittal under  

Section  302,  IPC.   Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  clear  that  the  

accused persons could not be held responsible for the death of Pinki.   

7. As against this, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Counsel appearing on  

behalf of the respondent pointed out that it could not be said that the death  

did not take place within seven years of marriage as the accused himself  

had admitted that the marriage had taken place six years prior to the trial.  

She  further  pointed  out  that  there  was  a  clear  assertion  made  by  the  

witnesses  in  their  evidence.  More  particularly,  Vadehi  Saran  (PW  4),  

Janved Singh (PW-5),  Pratibha (PW-6)  and Jitendra Singh (PW-8) had  

clearly asserted that the dowry was asked for by the accused persons.  

Learned Counsel  further  contended that  if  Pinki  had died of  burning,  a  

report ought to have been made for un-natural death which the accused  

did  not  bother  to  make,  instead  they  had  cremated  the  body  of  Pinki  

without  even  intimating  the  relatives  of  the  deceased  and  also  without  

waiting for the police.  This was the most suspicious circumstance which  

pointed towards the guilt of the accused.

5

8. It is on the basis of these rival versions that it is to be seen as to  

whether the appellant Dasrath was rightly convicted for the offence.

9. The first contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the defence  

regarding the corpus delicti not being found was countered by Ms. Bhati by  

saying that there can be no dispute about the death of Pinki.  It is not the  

defence of the accused that Pinki was still living.  On the other hand, the  

accused persons admittedly  had cremated her body on the fateful  day.  

Therefore, this is not a case, according to her, of  corpus delicti not being  

found  and,  therefore,  there  being  a  serious  suspicion  about  the  death  

having taken place at all.  The question is, in the absence of corpus delicti,  

could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for  

the death of Pinki.  We must hasten to add here that the accused persons  

have already been acquitted of the murder charge.  What remains to be  

seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of  

her marriage and whether  her death was attributable to the demand of  

dowry  and  further  whether  she was  dealt  with  cruelly  soon  before  her  

death.   If  these  ingredients  are  proved  by  the  prosecution  then  the  

conviction of the accused under Section 304B, IPC will be complete.

10. There can be no dispute that Pinki had died an un-natural death.  In  

fact  there  is  enough  evidence  to  suggest  that  Pinki  suffered  the  burn  

injuries.  It is not the defence of the accused that she died a natural death.  

6

Both the Courts have very specifically held that Pinki suffered burn injuries  

and died because of the same.  In fact Jitendra Singh (PW-8) was specific  

in his evidence that Pinki was burning on account of the kerosene having  

been poured on her body.  In fact it is apparent from his cross-examination  

that when Pinki shouted, neighbours rushed to her house.  There can be  

no dispute that this witness has been dis-believed and rightly so, insofar as  

his evidence about the accused deliberately burning Pinki is concerned.  

However, there can be no dispute that Pinki was burnt and it was clear that  

she had died an un-natural death.  Again, it is clear from the report of the  

chemical analyzer that the kerosene residues were found from Packet-A  

which  contained  the  clothes  of  Pinki  which  were  seized  during  the  

investigation.  Therefore, it is clear that Pinki’s death was caused because  

of the burns and not in the normal circumstances.  The finding of the Trial  

Court and the appellate Court in that behalf is correct.  For this reason we  

are not impressed by the argument of the Learned Counsel that  in the  

absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand.  Similarly, there  

can be no dispute  that  Pinki  died  within  seven  years  of  her  marriage.  

Gandharv Singh (PW-1) had specifically asserted that the marriage was  

performed  3-4  years  prior  to  the  incident.   Though  this  witness  was  

declared hostile, at least the fact that marriage had taken place 3-4 years  

prior to the incident can be safely accepted. According to PW-2, Bhagwati  

Saran also the marriage had taken place within 5-6 years prior to trial.  

7

Again  even  this  witness  was  declared  hostile.   However,  that  claim  

remained un-controverted.  Third witness PW-3, Hari Saran asserted that  

the marriage was performed 6-7 years earlier to the date of his evidence.  

His evidence was in May, 1997 and even taking that the marriage took  

place somewhere in the year 1990, it  would still  be within seven years.  

Vadehi Saran, the father also said that the marriage had taken place 6-7  

years  prior  to  the  date  of  his  evidence  which  was  again  30.09.1997.  

Therefore, according to his evidence even if the marriage could date back  

to the year 1987, it would still put the death of Pinki within seven years of  

her marriage.  

11. Therefore, it is certain that Pinki died an un-natural death by burning  

within seven years of her marriage.  As regards dowry, Learned Counsel  

for the defence pointed out that there was no specific evidence nor was  

any allegation made in the First  Information Report.   We are not much  

impressed as we have seen from the evidence that there were demands of  

Buffalo  made to Vadehi  Saran,  father  of  Pinki  who  did  not  accept  that  

demand.  Vadehi Saran has also specifically stated in his evidence that  

after 1 ½ years of the marriage when he went to the house of Pinki in the  

month of Shravan, door was closed and the appellants were beating Pinki  

and that the floor was smeared with blood and blood was also oozing out  

from the mouth of Pinki.  He also asserted about the demand of a large  

8

size television as the television which was given in marriage was a small  

colour  television.   This  evidence  of  torture  is  well  supported  by  the  

evidence of Pratibha (PW-6), Anant Ram Singh (PW-7) and Uttam Singh  

(PW-9).   In  view  of  this,  the  Trial  court  and  the  appellate  Court  have  

recorded that, firstly, Pinki  died an un-natural death because of burning  

within seven years of her marriage and, secondly concluded that she was  

subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and/or relatives in  

connection  with  the  demand for  dowry  and  that  she  was  subjected  to  

cruelty soon before her death.   

12. Similar is the case as regards the offence under Section 201, IPC.  

In fact it  was incumbent upon the accused persons to firstly, inform the  

police about the un-natural death of Pinki.  They did not do so.  On the  

other hand, even after her death, they did not inform either the police or  

even the relatives like her father etc., though they could have done so.  In  

stead they hurriedly conducted the funeral thereby causing destruction of  

evidence.

13. In State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram [2008 (12) SCC 51], this Court  

has considered the circumstance about the non-information to the parents  

and the hurried cremation.  This was also a case where accused persons  

were tried for offence under Section 304B, IPC, where the accused, after  

the death of the unfortunate lady did not bother to inform her parents.  In  

9

paragraph 26, this Court took a serious note of the manner in which the  

body was disposed of.  The Court observed “the disposal of the dead body  

in a hush-hush manner clearly establishes that the accused had done so  

with the sole object of  concealing the real cause of death of Shanti  @  

Gokul.”

14. In that case, the funeral was conducted in the wee hours.  In this  

case, funeral was conducted in the evening.

15. From all this, it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the  

offence  under  Section  304B,  IPC with  the  aid  of  Section  113B,  Indian  

Evidence  Act  but  also  the  offence  under  Section  201,  IPC.   We  are  

satisfied that all the three ingredients of Section 304B, IPC, they being:

1. that the death of a woman has been caused by burns or  bodily  injury  or  occurs  otherwise  than  under  normal  circumstances;

2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within  seven years of her marriage; and

3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to  cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her  husband in connection with any demand for dowry.”

as also the presumption under Section 113B of India Evidence Act are fully  

established the case of prosecution.   

10

16. We have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court as well as  

the appellate Court carefully and we find that both the Courts have fully  

considered  all  the  aspects  of  this  matter.   We,  therefore,  find  nothing  

wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. The appeal is, therefore,  

dismissed.

…………………………………J.     (V.S. Sirpurkar)

………………………………..J.      (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

New Delhi; July 29, 2010

11