IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177  OF 2004

RAJ KUAMR & Ors. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

This appeal by way of special leave has been filed  

on  behalf  of  Raj  Kumar,  husband  of  the  deceased  Varsha  

Rani, his mother Sita Rani and his first cousin Subhash  

Chander. The trial Court convicted them and Kaushalya Rani  

for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C.  

and sentenced Raj Kumar and Subhash Chnader to undergo R.I.  

for  10  years  while  Sita  Rani  and  Kaushalya  Devi  were

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. On appeal, the High  

Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and  

sentence  of  three  of  the  accused  but  acquitted  the  4th  

accused Kaushalya Rani, the mother of Subhash Chander.  

The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Varsha  Rani  and  Raj  Kumar  were  married  on  4th  

October, 1987. At the time of the marriage PW.7 – Munshi  

Ram, father of Varsha Rani gave dowry as per his capacity.  

It appears that soon after the marriage all the appellants,  

who resided in a one room tenement, raised demands for more  

dowry and some cash had  in fact been given by Munshi Ram  

to his daughter who had passed it on to her in laws.  On  

-2-

account of the dispute between the parties a Panchayat had  

also been called and some assurance had been held out by  

Raj Kumar that he would not misbehave in future. Pursuant  

to the proceedings before the Panchayat and about four or  

five days before the date of occurrence, PW.11 Sikandar Lal  

along with PW.7 Munshi Ram visited Varsha Rani to enquire  

about her welfare.  Varsha Rani told them that the four  

accused were harassing her continuously for more dowry and  

had threatened that in case the demand was not satisfied  

she would be done to death so that Raj Kumar could take  

another wife.  Munshi Ram however advised Varsha Rani to  

accept  the  situation  as  he  was  a  poor  person,  and  

thereafter returned home.  On 29th June, 1987 Munshi Ram  

received the news that Varsha Rani had been burnt alive by  

her  in-laws  after  sprinkling  kerosene  oil  upon  her,  on  

which he rushed to her in laws' home along with his son

Sikandar Lal and from information gathered by him was able  

to ascertain that  Varsha Rani had been burnt at about 7.30  

p.m.  on  28th June,  1988  and  that  she  had  received  very  

extensive burn injuries on almost all parts of the body and  

had been admitted to the hospital by Subhash Chander. An  

FIR was thereupon lodged in  Police Station Division No.5,  

Ludhiana and after investigation the accused were charge-

sheeted and sent up for trial. The trial Court relying on  

the evidence of PW.7 Munshi Ram and his son PW.11 Sikandar  

Lal and PW.8 Manohar Lal who too had been a witness to  

-3-

the efforts  towards effecting a  compromise between the  

parties, and  the medical evidence given by Dr. J.S. Grewal

(PW.2) and relying on the presumption raised under Section  

113-B of the Evidence Act convicted and sentenced all the  

accused for an offence under Section 304-B as indicated  

above.  This  judgment  was  largely  confirmed  by  the  High  

Court in appeal with the distinction that Kaushalya Rani  

was acquitted. The other three accused who were before the  

High Court are now before us.

Mr.  R.K.  Talwar,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants has pointed out that there was no evidence to  

suggest that the appellants were in any way involved in  

Varsha Rani's death  as it appeared from the evidence that  

her clothes had caught fire accidentally while she was in  

the  process  of  lighting  a  lantern.   He  has  further  

submitted that an FIR had been lodged after a very long  

time and after a compromise between the parties had failed  

and the story had been concocted in the interegnum.  He has

accordingly pleaded that the appeal ought to be allowed and  

an  acquittal  in  toto  in  respect  of  the  appellants  be  

granted by this Court.

Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned State counsel  has,  

however, supported the judgment of the High Court and has  

pointed out that it was clear from the evidence of PW.7  

-4-

Munshi Ram that all the appellants had been involved in  

treating  Varsha Rani with cruelty and as all of them were  

living together in a room tenement, it had to be assumed

that the cruelty had been jointly meted out to her and  

that no interference was thus  called for with the impugned  

judgment.

We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  

learned counsel for the parties. It is true, as contended  

by Mr. Talwar, that there is some delay in the lodging the  

FIR.  To our mind, however, the delay in such like matters  

cannot be fatal to the prosecution. It has to be borne in  

mind that matters arising out of a matrimonial dispute are  

always  extremely  sensitive   and  it  is  after  serious  

consideration and debate amongst the victims family that  

the FIR is lodged. It has come in the evidence of Munshi  

Ram that they too had considered the matter in its entirety  

and it was only after he had been advised by his relatives,  

that a formal FIR had  been lodged.

On the contrary, we find that the medical evidence

supports  the  view  that  the  burns   could  not  have  been  

accidental in nature. We have gone through the evidence of  

Dr.  J.S.  Grewal  (PW.2)  and  he  reported  that  there  were  

superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body  and  

the smell of kerosene was present and the condition of the  

deceased was very serious  and that in the case of  

-5-

accidental burn injuries as suggested by the defence, the  

injuries would have been on the front portion of the body  

and not all over as a lantern ordinarily can hold only a  

small  quantity of kerosene oil.  The presence of injuries

on the front and the rear of the body to our mind indicates  

that  the  kerosene  had  been  poured  on  the  body  and  had  

caused the very severe injuries over the lumbar portion.  

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the medical evidence  

supports the view that the unnatural death could not be  

attributed to an accident. The presumption raised against  

the appellants under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,  

thus, stares the appellants squarely in the face.

We have also examined the argument of Mr. Talwar  

with respect to the involvement of the various appellants.  

We have gone through the evidence of PW.7 and PW.11 as also  

the First Information Report.  We observe that the primary  

role  in  the  incidents  of  harassment  has  been  given  to  

Subhash Chander and there is no specific allegation either  

against the husband Raj Kumar or his mother Sita Rani. In

the light of this fact we believe  that the involvement of  

these two persons is suspect.  To our mind therefore they  

are entitled to the benefit of doubt and having said so we  

acquit them by allowing the appeal.  The involvement of  

Subhash Chander is however explicitly spelt out from the  

evidence of PW.7 and  PW.11.  Mr. Talwar's argument that  

Subhash Chander had carried the injured Varsha Rani to the  

hospital and had admitted her therein was an indication of  

-6-

his innocence is to no avail and this fact by itself will  

not absolve him of this involvement in the incident which  

happened only about 8 months after the marriage.  However,  

keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in

respect of  an offence under Sec.304-B of the IPC we reduce  

the  sentence  of  Subhash  Chander  from  10  years  to  seven  

years R.I. With this minor modification in the sentence his  

appeal is dismissed.

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

     .................J.

                                    (B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, October 8, 2009.