http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1088 of 2000

PETITIONER: Devi Lal

RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J. 1.      In the year 1991, Appellant married Pushpa Devi, the deceased.  A  male child was born to them.   2.      At the time of marriage, father of Pushpa, Hazari Ram, allegedly,  spent a lot of money.  Appellant\022s family, however, was not happy with the  dowry given by the bride side.  Pushpa was allegedly tortured and  continuously harassed.  She had, however, no grievance against her father in  law, namely, Ram Swaroop.  He had all along been assuring Pushpa and her  parents that he would do his best to see that she is not harassed for not  bringing enough dowry.   3.      After the birth of the child, she came back to her matrimonial home.   A few days prior to the incident which took place on 9.5.1994 her uncle  Ranveer (PW-2) visited her.  She made complaints about the harassments  meted out to her.  Ranveer conveyed the same to her father.  On 9.5.1994,  his nephew, Madan Lal (PW-7) was going to some place.  Hazari Ram asked  him to take him to his daughter\022s place.  On reaching the house of Pushpa,  he enquired about her.  No response thereto was made but later on he was  informed that she had died and the dead body has been cremated.  Hazari  Ram allegedly came back to his village.  He went back to Umawali.  A  Panchayat was held.  Appellant\022s family accepted the purported mistake that  they should have informed Hazari Ram about the death of his daughter.  It  was agreed that some lands would be settled in the name of the son of  Pushpa.   4.      On 9.5.1994, a first information report was lodged by Hazari Ram. It  appears from the records that investigating agency had been helping the  accused.  A purported supplementary statement of Hazari Ram was recorded  wherein he had allegedly accepted that he was present at the time of funeral.   A final form was submitted.  However, a protest petition was filed  whereupon cognizance of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian  Penal Code (Code) was taken.  Charges were framed under Section 304B of  the Code and in the alternative under Section 306 read with Section 498A  thereof.  The Trial Court convicted both the accused, namely, Devi Lal and  his mother Sukh Devi.   5.      An appeal having been preferred by the accused thereagainst before  the High Court, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed; but that of Sukh  Devi was allowed.   6.      Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, would submit that the High Court committed an error in passing  the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that no  demand of dowry was made in respect of any specific item.  It was urged  that the prosecution has also not proved as to whether the purported  harassment meted out to the deceased was as a result of demand of dowry or  not.  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, whereupon reliance has been  placed by learned Trial Judge as also the High Court, Mr. Parekh would  contend, is not attracted to the facts of the present case.  7.      Mr. Naveen Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of  Rajasthan, on the other hand, submitted that from the deposition of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

prosecution witnesses, it would be evident that all the ingredients of Section  304-B of the Indian Penal Code have been proved. 8.      Defence of the accused before the learned Trial Judge was that as  Pushpa Devi delivered a child, the societal norms by way of custom  demanded that the occasion be celebrated by offering gifts and distributing  sweets, meal etc. by the maternal grand-father of the child. It was pointed  out that almost at the same time, elder brother Banwari Lal\022s wife also  delivered a child and there was a big celebration.  Pushpa wanted his father  to celebrate the function of her son in a similar manner.  But the same was  not done.  She not only came back from her parents\022 house but after a few  days committed suicide.  It was furthermore the case of the defence that  Hazari Ram was informed about the death of his daughter through one Nand  Ram, pursuant whereto, he attended the funeral.  Prior thereto, a village  panchayat was held and he was informed about his right to lodge a first  information report but he declined to do so as a representation was made that  some land would be transferred in the name of the child.   9.      The fact that death of Pushpa took place within the period of seven  years from the date of marriage is not in dispute.  Unnatural death of Pushpa  is also not in dispute. 10.     Hazari Ram examined himself as PW-1.  According to him, he gave to  his daughter at the time of her marriage articles beyond his capacity, but the  family members of the appellant were not pleased with the amount of dowry  given and, therefore, they used to harass Pushpa.  According to him, Ram  Swaroop, father of the appellant, was a gentleman and he had all along been  assuring him that they would try to make the appellant and his mother  understand but they had not been heeding his advice.  He categorically stated  that even after the delivery of child, Pushpa asked him to call his father-in- law so that would be pleased.  She had also asked him to give some gifts to  him.  Ram Swaroop came to his place and took his daughter-in-law back.   He stated that whenever he would go to his daughter-in-law\022s house, Ram  Swaroop used to assure him with folded hands that he would make Devi Lal  and his mother understand.  Five to seven days prior to the death of his  daughter, his brother Ranveer had gone to meet her.  He had informed him  about the beating and harassment to his daughter and that he was asked to  visit his daughter\022s place.  He, in his examination-in-chief, supported the  statement made by him in his first information report. 11.     We may notice that Ranveer (PW-2) in his deposition before the  learned Trial Judge, stated : \023My brother had given a good dowry and articles  to his daughter according to capacity.  Thereafter,  whenever, the girl returned back to her parent\022s  house from her in-law\022s house, she told to us that  my in-laws persons are not happy with the articles  of this dowry and trouble me.  Later on, I along  with my brother went to Umewali and said that do  not trouble and harass her.  As possible, we will  give continuously more dowry.  My brother told  me to meet my niece.  I went to meet the girl prior  to 5-7 days of death of her.  When I went to meet,  the girl started to weeping and said that they  trouble and harass to me.  I returned back after  advised to her.  I narrated this to my brother that  they (in-laws persons) trouble and harass to the  girl, taking the issue of dowry.\024

12.     PW-7, Madan Lal, was the nephew of Hazari Ram.  He took Hazari  Ram to the village Umewala on 9th May, 1994.  After visiting the house of  his daughter, Hazari Ram came back and told him \023they have murdered to  pushpa (sic) and cremated\024.   13.     We need not notice the deposition of other witnesses who had turned  hostile. 14.     Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant.  According  to them, Hazari Ram when asked by the elders of the village as to whether  he had any doubt on any person as regards the death of Pushpa or whether he  intended to inform the Police, answered in the negative stating that he would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

not take recourse thereto.  The said witnesses, however, accepted that they  had come to depose in court only at the instance of the appellant.   15.     It is significant to note that even in the first information report, Hazari  Ram categorically stated that no assistance had been rendered to him by the  villagers.   16.     Two courts have concurrently accepted the evidence of the  prosecution witnesses.  The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have  been relied on for arriving at the finding of guilt of the appellant.  We do not  see any reason to take a different view.   17.     The core question which has been raised for our consideration in this  appeal is as to whether a case had been made out for application of Section  113B of the Indian Evidence Act (the Act). 18.     The Parliament by Act No.46 of 1983 and Act No.43 of 1986 inserted  Sections 113A and 113B in the Act.  They read as under : \023113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide  by a married woman.\027When  the question is  whether the commission of suicide by a woman  had been abetted by her husband or any relative of  her husband and it is shown that she had  committed suicide within a period of seven years  from the date of her marriage and that her husband  or such relative of her husband had subjected her  to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard  to all the other circumstances of the case, that such  suicide had been abetted by her husband or by  such relative of her husband. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,  "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section  498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.\027When  the question is whether a person has committed the  dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon  before her death such woman has been subjected  by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in  connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court  shall presume that such person had caused the  dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section  "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in  section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of  1860).\024       19.     Section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and  306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof.   Whereas in terms of Section 113A of the Act, the prosecution is required to  prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in terms of Section 113B,  the prosecution must prove that the deceased was \023subject by such person to  cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry\024.   20.     The question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of  Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are :  (1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or  in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within  7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to  cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4)  such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand  of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was  made soon before her death. {See Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006) 1  SCC 463]; Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar [(2006) 10 SCC 115]} 21.     In T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through SHO, Pondicherry [(2006) 9  SCC 467], this Court held : \023It is now well settled in view of a catena of  decisions of this Court that what would constitute  \023soon before her death\024 depends upon the facts  and circumstances of each case.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

        22.     Distinction between Section 113A and 113B was noticed by the Court  in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab [(2001) 8 SCC 633], stating  : \023No doubt, Section 306 IPC read with Section  113-A of the Evidence Act is wide enough to take  care of an offence under Section 304-B also. But  the latter is made a more serious offence by  providing a much higher sentence and also by  imposing a minimum period of imprisonment as  the sentence. In other words, if death occurs  otherwise than under normal circumstances within  7 years of the marriage as a sequel to the cruelty or  harassment inflicted on a woman with demand of  dowry, soon before her death, Parliament intended  such a case to be treated as a very serious offence  punishable even up to imprisonment for life in  appropriate cases. It is for the said purpose that  such cases are separated from the general category  provided under Section 306 IPC (read with Section  113-A of the Evidence Act) and made a separate  offence.\024

23.     In Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257], this Court held:

\02313. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian  Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not  arise by operation of law merely on proof of the  circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the  Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the  Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to  establish that the woman concerned committed  suicide within a period of seven years from the  date of her marriage and that her husband (in this  case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these  facts are established the court is not bound to  presume that the suicide had been abetted by her  husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the  court to raise such a presumption, having regard to  all the other circumstances of the case, which  means that where the allegation is of cruelty it  must consider the nature of cruelty to which the  woman was subjected, having regard to the  meaning of the word \023cruelty\024 in Section 498-A  IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed  suicide within seven years of her marriage and that  she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband,  does not automatically give rise to the presumption  that the suicide had been abetted by her husband.  The court is required to look into all the other  circumstances of the case. One of the  circumstances which has to be considered by the  court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such  nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit  suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,  limb or health of the woman.\024  

24.     Submissions of Mr. Hegde that as Hazari Ram (PW-1) in his  deposition did not categorically state that Pushpa was subjected to  harassment for and in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her  death, no case for convicting the appellant under Section 304-B has been  made out.   25.     Indisputably, before an accused is found guilty for commission of an  offence, the Court must arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

been established.  The statement of a witness for the said purpose must be  read in its entirety.  It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in  consonance with the wording of the section of a statute.  What is needed is  to find out as to whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the  ingredients thereof.   25.     Evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that  Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the  ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage.   For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular  item should have been made.   27.     Evidence of Hazari Ram (PW-1) and his brother Ranveer (PW-2) go a  long a way to establish the ingredients of offence.  Reading their testimonies  in their entirety, we have no doubt in our mind that the harassment and  cruelty meted out to Pushpa was for and in connection with the demand of  dowry. Demand of dowry did not abate at any point of time.  Demands were  made both before and after the birth of the son.  A plain reading of the  deposition of Hazari Ram (PW-1) would categorically show that Pushpa\022s  father-in-law, Ram Swaroop had all along been apologetic.  He persuaded  the appellant and his mother not to insist for dowry or at least not harass her  therefor.  He, however, did not succeed in his efforts.  Sentimental  attachment of Pushpa to her father-in-law becomes apparent when we find  that after giving birth to a male child she requested her father to invite him  and give him some gifts so that he would be pleased.   28.     It is not one of those cases, where omnibus allegations have been  made against the members of the family.  First information report was  lodged against the accused persons only.  Nobody else was implicated.   Hazari Ram (PW-1) has been categorical in stating that Pushpa\022s father-in- law was a gentleman.  His effort to persuade his wife and son not to harass  Pushpa might not have ultimately succeeded but his attempt in that behalf  was appreciated by him (PW-1) and other members of his family with  gratitude.  It is, therefore, cannot be said to be a case where Hazari Ram  (PW-1) has falsely implicated anybody.  His evidence was supported in  material particulars by his brother Ranveer (PW-2).  The very fact that  harassment or cruelty on Pushpa did not abate even after her coming back to  the matrimonial home with a son and the fact that she had been assaulted  even a few days prior to the incident, in our opinion,  tests of Section 304-B  of the Indian Penal Code stood satisfied.  Ranveer (PW-2) informed his  brother, Hazari Ram (PW-1), about the harassment meted out to Pushpa.  He  was asked to go there.  He went there to find his daughter dead; her  cremation having already taken place.   29.     Learned Trial Judge, as also the High Court commented upon the  manner in which the Police made all efforts to help the accused.  The  investigating officer purported to have recorded a supplementary statement  of Hazari Ram (PW-1) which, according to the learned Trial Judge, was not  at all necessary.  Recording of the said supplementary statement has been  disbelieved by the courts below. 30.     In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case has been  made out for interference with the impugned judgment.  The appeal is,  therefore, dismissed.