1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1623 OF 2008

RAJA MISHRA ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR TR. OFFICER IN CHARGE ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The appellant, and his son and co-accused, were  

sentenced  to  ten  years  rigorous  imprisonment  under  

Section  304B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  three  years  

rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A and 201 of the  

Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment  

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; all the  

sentences to run concurrently.   

2. The  appellant  is  the  father-in-law  of  the  

deceased.  The trial court as well as the High Court  

have concurrently held on the basis of the evidence of  

P.W. 4 Ramadhar Tiwari, the father of the deceased, that  

a case under the aforesaid provisions was made out and  

that it was on account of the harassment meted out to  

the deceased in relation to dowry that she had met an

2

unnatural  death.   The  evidence  reveals  that  the  

appellant and his son i.e. the husband of the deceased  

had on several occasions demanded a motor cycle and in  

lieu thereof Rs. 17,000/- from the complainant and his  

family and that the last demand had been made twenty  

days prior to the incident which happened sometime on  

the 17th September, 1989.  It appears that the police was  

not informed about the death and the body was cremated  

and the remains thrown into the river without informing  

the  family  of  the  deceased.   As  a  result  of  the  

cumulative effect of the evidence, the aforesaid order  

was recorded.

3. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, the learned counsel for  

the appellant has put forth various submissions and has  

pointed  out  that  the  prosecution  case  rested  almost  

exclusively on the evidence of P.W. 4, R.D. Tiwari as  

the brothers of the deceased  P.Ws' Sanjay Tiwari and  

Pramod Tiwari were virtually infants on the date when  

the incident had happened and were not aware as to the  

plight of their sister.  He has further pleaded that  

P.W. 3  and P.W. 5, the two independent witnesses, had  

not supported the prosecution and the story, therefore,  

rested on the evidence of one interested witness.

4. The learned State Counsel has, however, supported  

the judgment of the courts below and has pointed out

3

that the special le18/11/2010ave petition filed by the  

husband  of  the  deceased,  Prakash  Mishra,  had  been  

dismissed while granting leave in the present matter and  

that the allegations against the appellant were similar  

to the one's against his son.   

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the  

learned  counsel.   It  is  true,  as  contended  by  the  

learned counsel, that the case rests on P.W.4 alone.  

However, in the light of the fact that the incident  

happened within seven years of the marriage and there  

had been demands for dowry soon before the death of the  

deceased,  a  presumption  under  Section  113B  of  the  

Evidence  Act  has  also  to  be  raised  against  the  

appellant.  The evidence of P.W. 4 clearly reveals that  

demands were made from him and his family and he had  

repeatedly refused to satisfy the demands stating that  

he  was  a  person  with  a  limited  income  and  a  large  

family  to  support. Notwithstanding these pleadings,  

however,  both  the  accused  continued  to  harass  the  

deceased  which  led  to  her  death.   Faced  with  this  

situation, the learned counsel has pointed out that the  

normal period of sentence in a case under Section 304B  

was seven years and only in extraordinary circumstances  

a higher sentence could be awarded.  The learned counsel  

has also pointed out that the appellant was more than 80

4

years of age and completely immobilised as he was blind  

and  could  not  discharge  his  daily  chores  without  

assistance  and  was,  thus,  a  burden  on  the  jail  

administration as well. He pleads on this ground that  

the sentence awarded to him under Section 304B of the  

IPC be reduced from ten to seven years.  We accept this  

submission. We, accordingly, confirm the conviction of  

the appellant, but reduce the sentence  from 10 years to  

seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under  

Section 304B of the IPC.

6. With the above modification in the sentence, the  

appeal is dismissed.

    ........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

   .........................J     [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 18, 2010.