Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8  78 of 2010   

Rohtash                                 …..Appellant  

Versus

State of Haryana                             ….. Respondent  

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.  

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and  

order  dated  11.1.2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  

Haryana at  Chandigarh in Criminal  Appeal  No. 146-DB of 1994,  

wherein the High Court has reversed the judgment and order of the  

Sessions Court in Session Case No. 44 of 1989 dated 3.8.1993, by  

which the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections  

304-B  and  498-A  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (hereinafter  

referred as `IPC’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

Page 2

A. On 4.7.1989 at 8.00 p.m., Jiwan (PW.1) made a statement  

(Ext.PC) before the police at Rohtak Chowk, Kharkohda to the effect  

that  his  daughter  Indro,  aged  about  21  years,  was  married  to  

appellant Rohtash about one year back and in the said marriage he  

had given sufficient dowry according to his capacity.  However, her  

husband and parents-in-law were not satisfied with the dowry. They  

always made taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry.  His son-in-

law made various demands and the complainant had to give him a  

sum  of  Rs.10,000/-.  He  had  received  information  through  Gopi  

Chand and Ram Kishan that his daughter had died by consuming  

poisonous  tablets  and  her  dead  body  had  been  cremated   in  the  

morning.  On the basis of the said statement, FIR was recorded in  

P.S. Kharkhoda on 14.7.1989 at about 8.10 p.m. under Sections 304,  

201  and  498-A  of  the  IPC.   S.I.  Inder  Lal  accompanied  Jiwan,  

complainant (PW.1) to village Mandora and went to the house of the  

accused persons.  The accused persons, namely, Smt. Brahmo Devi,  

Rajbir  and Dharampal were found present.  He made the inquiries  

from them and, thereafter, came back to the police station and added  

the offence under Section 304-B IPC.  The said accused as well as  

the appellant were arrested.  The I.O. went to the cremation ground  

and took into possession the ashes and bones in  presence of Jiwan  

(PW.1),  complainant  and  other  witnesses  and  after  putting  them  

2

Page 3

under sealed cover sent the same for FSL report. He lifted broken  

pieces of glass bangles and prepared a recovery memo in presence of  

the witnesses.  He further recorded the statement of witnesses under  

Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called  

Cr.P.C.). After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the  

chargesheet  and  trial  commenced  for  the  offences  under  Section  

304-B and 498-A IPC.   

B. The  prosecution  in  support  of  its  case  examined  Jiwan  

(PW.1) complainant, Suresh (PW.2), Fateh Singh (PW.3), Inder Lal  

(PW.4)  and  other  formal  witnesses,  however,  gave  up  certain  

witnesses  like Gopi  Chand on the apprehension that  he had been  

won over by the accused persons.   

C. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused made the statement  

that  they had been falsely implicated in the case.  Appellant was  

leading a happy married life and never ill-treated his wife for not  

bringing enough dowry. Deceased was suffering from fits, as a result  

of  which  she  died.  Accused  persons  had  informed  her  parents  

through  Rajbir  accused  and  cremation  was  done  after  arrival  of  

Jiwan (PW.1) complainant and his other relatives.  

3

Page 4

D. After  appreciating  the  evidence  and  considering  the  

documents on record, the trial court reached the conclusion that there  

were material  inconsistencies  in  the depositions  of  Jiwan (PW.1),  

complainant, Suresh (PW.2) and Fateh Singh (PW.3), particularly on  

the issue of demand of dowry as they could not exactly point out the  

amount of demand and payment.  Suresh (PW.2), though deposed  

that he had purchased the house of the complainant for a sum of  

Rs.12,000/-, however, no document could be produced in respect of  

the same as land under the house belonged to Wakf Board.   The  

prosecution case has been that the complainant has been forced to  

sell his house to meet the demand of dowry.  

The trial  court  also drew adverse  inference for  withholding  

material witnesses, particularly, Gopi Chand who had informed the  

complainant  about  the death of  his  daughter.  The trial  court  vide  

judgment and order dated 3.8.1993 acquitted all the accused persons  

of all the charges.  

3. Aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 146-DB  

of 1994 before the High Court.  The High Court reappreciated the  

entire evidence and came to conclusion that there was nothing on  

record  to  show  that  Indro,  deceased,  died  of  fits;  no  medical  

evidence had been produced to show that  she had been suffering  

4

Page 5

from fits.   There was sufficient evidence on record to show demand  

of dowry by the appellant from his father-in-law.  The appellant had  

been making taunts and caused torture to the deceased on the ground  

of inadequate dowry. The demand by the appellant had been fully  

supported  by  Suresh  (PW.2)  who  purchased  the  house  of  the  

complainant for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. Indro died within a period of  

one  and a  half  years  of  marriage.  The High Court  convicted  the  

appellant under Section 304-B IPC and imposed the punishment of 7  

years  rigorous  imprisonment,  further  under  Section  498-A  IPC  

imposed  the  punishment  of  six  months  RI.  In  respect  of  other  

persons  the  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  trial  court  was  

maintained.   

Hence, this appeal.  

4. Shri K.K. Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,  

has  submitted  that  there  has  been  no  demand  of  dowry  by  the  

appellant. The High Court did not appreciate the evidence in correct  

perspective.    There  had  been  material  contradictions  in  the  

deposition  of  the prosecution  witnesses.  Suresh  (PW.2)  could not  

purchase  the  house  of  the  complainant  as  admittedly  the  land  

belonged  to  the  Wakf  Board  and  no  document  had  ever  been  

produced in the court to show the sale.  Fateh Singh (PW.3) has no  

5

Page 6

direct relationship with the family. He has supported the prosecution  

case merely because he belonged to the village of the complainant.  

Appellant had furnished a satisfactory explanation while making his  

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus, the appeal deserves to be  

allowed.  

5. Per contra, Shri Sanjiv,  learned counsel appearing for Shri  

Kamal  Mohan  Gupta,  Advocate,  for  the  State,  has  vehemently  

opposed the appeal, contending that the Indro, deceased, died within  

a short span of one and a half years of her marriage. No evidence has  

been produced by the appellant to show that she had been suffering  

from fits.   There  has  been  persistent  demand of  dowry  as  stood  

proved from the depositions of Jiwan (PW.1), Suresh (PW.2) and  

Fateh  Singh  (PW.3),  thus,  appeal  lacks  merit  and  is  liable  to  be  

dismissed.  

6. We have considered the rival submission made by learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the records.  

It may be pertinent to make reference to the  relevant part of  

the deposition of witnesses.  Jiwan (PW.1), complainant,  deposed  

that her daughter had complained against the ill-treatment given to  

her by her husband, his parents and his elder brother Rajbir; they  

6

Page 7

even taunted her that she belonged to “Bhukha-Nanga” family and  

that her father had not given adequate dowry.  Rohtash accused also  

visited him and asked him to give Rs.  10,000/-  so that he could  

settle himself in some business.  Six months after the marriage, he  

gave Rs.10,000/- to Rohtash accused  after selling his house.   Her  

in-laws still continued to ill-treat her and raised a further demand of  

Rs.5,000/-  on  the  pretext  that  they  wanted  to  settle  Rajbir,  elder  

brother of  Rohtash, in some business. On the fateful day of incident,  

Gopi Chand and Ram Kishan of Village Mandora came to him and  

told  that  his  daughter  Indro  had consumed poisonous  tablets  and  

died.   

He  was  confronted  with  his  statement  under  Section  161  

Cr.P.C.  in respect of demand of Rs.10,000/- by appellant Rohtash as  

no such fact had been stated by him to the I.O. Even for the demand  

of Rs.5,000/- for Rajbir, he was confronted with his statement under  

Section 161 Cr.P.C. as no such fact had been mentioned therein.   

   He was also confronted with his statement under Section 161  

Cr.P.C.  as  he  had  not  stated  before  the  I.O.  that  he  had  been  

informed about the death of his daughter by Gopi Chand and Ram  

Kishan.  Regarding the sale of the house to Suresh (PW.2), he has  

7

Page 8

admitted that land belonged to the Wakf Board and, therefore, he  

could not execute any registered sale-deed in respect of the same.   

7. Suresh  (PW.2)  deposed  that  he  had  purchased  the  house  

from Jiwan (PW.1), complainant, for Rs. 12,000/-, however, no sale-

deed could be executed in his favour as the land belonged to the  

Wakf Board.  

8. Fateh Singh (PW.3) deposed that he had been told by Jiwan  

(PW.1) that he was under a great pressure to pay Rs.10,000/-  to the  

appellant to buy peace for his daughter and he had given Rs.10,000/-  

to  the  appellant.   He  was  confronted  with  his  statement  under  

Section  161  Cr.P.C.  where  he  has  not  told  the  I.O.   about  this  

transaction.  

9. S.I., Inder Lal (PW.6),  Investigating Officer, deposed that  

he went to the cremation ground and collected ashes and bones in  

presence of witnesses and sent it for chemical analysis. In his cross-

examination he has stated that no independent witness was ready to  

involve himself in the case becoming a prosecution witness as it was  

a family matter for the accused persons.  

8

Page 9

10. So far as the statement of the appellant under Section 313  

Cr.P.C. is concerned, he replied that the facts and circumstances put  

to him were not correct.  In reply to Question No. 10, he stated that  

his wife Indro did not commit suicide and the allegation of suicide  

was concocted version.  In reply to  para 21, he stated as under:  

“The deceased  Smt.  Indro  was  leading a  happy   married life with me and we never ill-treated her,   much less on account of any dowry.  The deceased   was suffering from fits as a result of which she had   died.   We  had  informed  the  parents  of  the   deceased through Rajbir accused and after Jiwan   P.W. and  his  other  relations  had  come  to  our   village,  we had cremated the dead  body of  the   deceased in their presence in our village.  There   was  no  question  of  our  demanding  any  dowry,   much less ill-treating the deceased on that account   because our financial position is very sound.”

11. The  aforesaid  depositions  make  it  crystal  clear  that  the  

version  given  by  the  prosecution  witnesses  regarding  demand  of  

Rs.10,000/- by the appellant  did not find mention in the statement  

under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  of  either  of  the  witnesses.  The  facts  

regarding the sale of house by Jiwan (PW.1) to Suresh (PW.2) does  

not  also  inspire  confidence  as  the land belonged to  Wakf  Board.  

More so, the demand of Rs.5,000/-  for establishment of a business  

of Rajbir was made by the in-laws of the deceased Indro, and not by  

the  appellant,  who had been  acquitted  by  both  the  courts  below,  

therefore, that issue cannot be considered by us.   

9

Page 10

Only question remains for our consideration  is as to whether  

there was a dowry demand by the appellant and for that purpose the  

deceased Indro had been ill-treated to the extent that she had to take  

a drastic step of committing suicide.    

12. This Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharasthra, (2007)  

1 SCC 721, while dealing with the similar issue and definition of the  

word `dowry’ held as under:   

“A demand for money on account of some financial   stringency  or  for  meeting  some  urgent  domestic   expenses  or  for  purchasing  manure  cannot  be   termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is   normally understood.”

13. The aforesaid judgment was reconsidered by this Court in  

Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 427, wherein  

this Court held that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down a  law  

of  universal application.  Each case has to be decided on its own  

facts  and  merit.   If  a  demand  for  property  or  valuable  security,  

directly or indirectly, has nexus with marriage, such demand would  

constitute demand for dowry. The cause of raising of such demand  

remains immaterial.  

14. In view of  above,  we have to  examine as to  whether  the  

demand by the appellant for establishment of his tailoring business  

10

Page 11

could be held to be a demand for dowry and further whether for that  

demand, the ill-treatment  given by the appellant to his wife was so  

grave that she had been driven to the extent that she has to commit  

suicide.    

The  prosecution  case  has  been  that  Indro,  deceased,  

committed suicide by taking pills/poison. There is ample evidence  

on record and it has specifically been mentioned by the prosecution  

witnesses, particularly, Jiwan (PW.1), Fateh Singh (PW.3)  and S.I.,  

Inder Lal,  I.O.,  (PW.6),   that  some broken pieces of  bangles had  

been collected by the I.O.  from the place of occurrence and broken  

bones and articles were collected from the cremation site and sent  

for  chemical  analysis  to  Forensic  Science  Laboratory.  

Unfortunately, none of the courts below has taken note of the FSL  

report though the documents  had been marked as Ext.PH and Ext.  

PH1. The first document is report No. FSL(H) dated 29.5.1990 by  

the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory,  Haryana,  Madhuban,  Karnal,  

wherein the result of examination of bones and ashes is as under:  

Ext.1 – some burnt bones alongwith ash (Approximately 1 Kg.)  

Result of the examination – no common metallic poison could  

be detected in Ext. 1.

Ext. PH1 dated 16.8.1989 revealed that the fragments of bones  

in  Ext.  PH1  were  identified  that  they  belonged  to  human  

individual.   

11

Page 12

The  aforesaid  reports  do  not  support  the  case  of  the  

prosecution,  rather  leans  towards  the  defence  taken  by  the  

appellant.  

15. The  High  Court  interfered  with  the  order  of  acquittal  

recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the judgment  

of acquittal is well-settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional  

cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in  

appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with  

the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind  

the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial  

court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference  

in  a  routine  manner  where  the  other  view is  possible  should  be  

avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide: State  

of  Rajasthan  v.  Talevar  &  Anr.,  AIR  2011  SC  2271;  and  

Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station  

& Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 722).  

16. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that in  

the instant case there had been major improvements/embellishments  

in the prosecution case and demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant  

does not find mention in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  

More so, even if such demand was there, it may not necessarily be a  

12

Page 13

demand of dowry.  Further,  the chemical analysis report falsifies the  

theory  of  suicide  by  deceased  taking  any  pills.   In  such  a  fact-

situation, the defence taken by the appellant in his statement under  

Section 313 Cr.P.C. could be  plausible.   

Thus,  appeal  succeeds  and  is  allowed.   The  appellant  is  

given the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of the High  

Court dated 11.1.2007 is set aside.  The appellant is acquitted of all  

the charges.

       ………………………..J.              (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                       ………………………..J.             (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi,  May 22, 2012    

13