REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  516   OF 2006                                                                        

Pradeep Kumar ..Appellant  

versus

State of Haryana ..Respondent              

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant

for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal

Code,  1860 (in  short  the ‘IPC’).  He was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment  for  life  for  the  first  offence  but  no  separate  sentence  was

imposed for the second offence.

2. Appellant  alongwith  two others  faced trial.   Each was charged for

having  committed  offences  punishable  under  Section  304(B)  IPC  and

Section  498A IPC.   Appellant  alone  was  separately  charged  for  offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC.  

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident of Ambala

City. He is the Director of G.G. Flour Mills. He had four daughters and two

sons.  Marriage  of  his  eldest  daughter  Suman  Rani  alias  Anamika

(hereinafter  referred to  as  the  ‘deceased’)  was solemnized with  appellant

Pardeep Kumar alias Raju on 19.10.1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per

asking of the accused persons dowry and streedhan was given according to

the  capacity  of the complainant  on  the  festival  of  Karva  Chauth,

complainant's  daughter  Anamika  along  with  appellant  and,  Anamika's

father-in-law and mother-in-law came to their residence. Sufficient articles

were given on Karva Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant

that her husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna Nagar

in  the  name  and  style  of  New  Punjab  Tractors,  wanted  to  take  her  to

2

Yamuna  Nagar.  He  demanded  colour  T.V.,  washing  machine,  Godrej

almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter his daughter went to her in-law's place

in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab). Ten to fifteen days thereafter,

complainant's daughter rang them up from Dhanola that she along with her

husband were shifting to Yamuna Nagar and the articles demanded should

be sent to her at Yamuna Nagar. Complainant Kewal Krishan along with

Mohinder Pal son of Bachan Lal resident of Ambala City came to Yamuna

Nagar. They purchased colour T.V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a

refrigerator  and  handed  them  over  to  the  appellant  in  his  house.

Complainant's  wife  was  operated  upon  at  Ambala  for  some  ailment.

Anamika came to see her mother. Anamika did not look well. Complainant

Kewal Krishan enquired about her health. Anamika stated that her husband,

father-in-law and brother-in-law Parveen Kumar were threatening that if she

wanted to remain alive, she should get Rs.2 lacs from her father, as they

wanted to expand their business at Yamuna Nagar. This demand was met

and complainant gave Rs.50,000/- and requested for some time so that he

will pay the remaining amount after arranging for it. This amount was given

about a month prior  to the death of Anamika.  About  15 days before her

death, Anamika made a telephone call to the complainant that her father-in-

law Prem Nath had told her husband Pardeep Kumar that if Anamika did not

3

arrange  for  the  remaining  amount,  she  should  be  eliminated,  he  would

arrange  for  everything  and  perform  his  second  marriage.  Again  on

23.1.1997,  complainant's  daughter  gave  a  telephonic  call  to  the

complainant,  that  if  'the  remaining  amount  was  not  arranged  within  2/3

days, she would be eliminated.

On  25.1.1997  at  about  9.30  p.m.,  Anil  Kumar  (PW-3)  gave  a

telephonic  call  to  the  complainant  that  Anamika had  got  burnt  by a  gas

cylinder. Complainant made a telephonic call to his brother Suresh Pal and

his  father  Rameshwar  Dass  at  Cheeka  to  reach Ambala.  On their  arrival

from  Cheeka,  complainant  along  with  them  left  for  the  house  of  his

daughter at Yamuna Nagar. On reaching there, he saw his daughter lying

dead on a double-bed. Besides her were lying a gas-cylinder, match- sticks

and halt burnt papers.

Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet

was filed.

As accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.

4

In order to further the accusations fifteen witnesses were examined.

The trial court found the appellants and the co-accused persons guilty.  By

the  impugned  judgment  High Court  directed  acquittal  by the  co-accused

persons  Prem Nath  and  Parveen  Kumar,  but  upheld  the  conviction  and

sentence of appellant as aforenoted.

The trial court and the High Court placed reliance on the evidence of

PWs 2, 3 & 4.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that there was no evidence of the appellant having committed offences as

alleged. There is no direct evidence to hold that the appellant has committed

murder of the deceased.   

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the

judgment of the High Court confirming that of the trial court.   

6. It is  undisputed that  the marriage took place on 9.10.1996 and the

date of occurrence is 25.1.1997.  The co-accused persons were the father

5

and  the  brother  of  the  appellant.   The  only  evidence  adduced  by  the

prosecution  to  substantiate  the  allegation  of  commission  of  offence

punishable  under  Section  302  IPC is  that  the  accused  and  the  deceased

stayed in the same house.  That according to us is not sufficient to hold the

appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts

of the present case.  However, the accusations related to Section 304 B IPC

are satisfied.

7. Section 304 B IPC reads as follows:

“304B. Dowry Death – (1) Where the death of a woman is  caused  by  any  burns  or  bodily  injury  or  occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband  or  any  relative  of  her  husband  for,  or  in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be  called  “dowry death”,  and such  husband  or  relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”     

5. The necessary ingredients of Section 304 B IPC are as follows:

(1) The  death  of  the  woman  was  caused  due  to  burns,  bodily

injuries or due to unnatural circumstances.

6

(2) The death should be within seven years of marriage.  

(3) It  is  shown  that  soon  before  death  victim was  subjected  to

cruelty  or  harassment  by her  husband  or  any relative  of  the

husband.

(4) The cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any

demand for dowry.

8. Therefore while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC, we uphold the  conviction,  so  far  as  it  relates  to

Section 304 B IPC.  Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the ends of

justice.  The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

……..……..............................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..……..............................J. (ASOK KUAMR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 31, 2009  

7