REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1327   OF 2003

SUDHIR KUMAR ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

The prosecution story is as under:

Kamlesh Rani deceased, daughter of PW.3-Tej Ram was  

married to Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein, on 28th July,  

1989  at  Maur  Mandi,  District  Bhatinda.  At  the  time  of  

marriage, ornaments and cash befitting the status of the  

families,  were   given   in  dowry.   A  month  after  the  

marriage, however, the appellant and his parents Angoori

Lal and Kaushalya Devi and sisters Neelam Kumari and Urmila  

Devi started maltreating Kamlesh Rani for having brought  

insufficient dowry. Sudhir Kumar also demanded a scooter  

for himself and a gold ring each for his sisters Neelam and  

Urmila. The demand was duly conveyed by Kamlesh Rani to her  

parents at Maur Mandi.  Tej Ram  promised to fulfill the  

demand on which Kamlesh Rani returned to her matrimonial  

home and was immediately questioned by her mother-in-law as  

to the scooter and the gold rings.  Bhim Sain, brother of  

Kamlesh Rani, however, told them that the family was not in  

a position to fulfill the demand on account of financial  

difficulties. He, however, returned to Maur Mandi after  

-2-

leaving Kamlesh Rani in the matrimonial home. About 10 days

prior to the incident Ramji Das-PW.2, Tej Ram's younger  

brother,  came  to  Maur  Mandi  and  told  Tej  Ram  that  the  

accused had given slaps to Kamlesh Rani in his presence on  

which he had promised that the demand for a  scooter and  

gold rings would be fulfilled within a few days.  Sudhir  

Kumar also came to Maur Mandi and once again reiterated the  

demands to his father-in-law failing which he threatened  

dire consequences for Kamlesh Rani.  On 30th November, 1989,  

Bhim Sain went to the house of the accused  and found the  

outer gate shut. On persistent ringing of the bell, Angoori  

Lal came out but moved away and when Bhim Sain entered the  

house  he  noticed  Kamlesh  Rani's  dead  body  lying  in  the  

latrine. Bhim Sain immediately came to the house of his  

uncle Ramji Das PW.2 and the two then went to the police  

station where the former lodged the report Exh. PD on the  

basis  of  which  an  FIR  was  registered.   Sub-Inspector

Santokh Singh thereupon reached the place of incident and  

made  the  necessary  inquiries.  On  completion  of  the  

investigation  a challan was duly presented against Angoori  

Lal, Kaushalya Devi and Neelam and Urmila for an offence  

punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and the matter  

was brought for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Court  

of Sessions, however, charged the accused under Sections  

302/149 IPC read with Section 304(B) of the IPC in the  

alternative.

-3-

The prosecution in support of its case relied on the

evidence of PW.1 Dr. S.S. Malik who had performed the post-

mortem on the dead body, the three primary witnesses PW.2-  

Ramji Das, PW.3-Tej Ram and PW.4-Sat Paul, also an uncle of  

the deceased, in addition to the formal evidence of Santokh  

Singh  the  I.O.   The  statements  of  the  accused  were  

thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and  

they  denied  the  allegations  simplicitor.   Sudhir  Kumar,  

however, took up additional plea:

”I  am  innocent.   I  have  been  falsely  

involved.  This occurrence has taken place before  

noon time and at that time myself and my father  

Angoori Lal were present at our medical store while  

my  sister  Neelam  Kumari  was  teaching  at  private  

school and Urmila was at her in-laws house.  I was  

suffering from Epilepsy and used to be treated by  

Dr.  Sohan  Lal  Grover  and  other  senior  doctors  

before and after marriage and due to the effect of  

the  drugs  I  was  unable  to  perform  the  sexual

intercourse and for that reason my wife used  to  

remain under depression. After the occurrence we  

were summoned from the shop.  I never maltreated or  

demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased.”

They  also  produced  some  evidence  in  defence.  The  

trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence convicted  

the appellant and Kaushalya Devi, his mother under Section  

304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to R.I. of seven years.  

-4-

Angoori Lal, Urmila and Neelam were, however, acquitted.  

An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court which in

its judgment dated 7th April, 2003, which has been impugned  

in the present proceedings, allowed the appeal of Kaushalya  

Devi  as  well.  This  appeal  by  way  of  special  leave  is,  

therefore, confined only to Sudhir Kumar, the husband of  

the deceased.   

We  have  heard  Mr.  A.  Sharan,  the  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned  

counsel  for  the  State  of  Punjab.   We  find  that  the  

prosecution story is fully proved by the evidence of PW.2-  

Ramji Das, the uncle of the deceased, PW.3 Tej Ram, her  

father and PW.4. Sat Paul, another uncle of the deceased.  

The medical evidence shows that the deceased had suffered  

95% burn injuries and the dead body had been found in the  

bathroom of the house.  Keeping in view the fact that the  

presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to

be raised in such matters, it is for the defence to dispel  

the presumption.  We find that the trial Court and the High  

Court have gone through the evidence and given the benefit  

of  doubt  to  three  of  the  accused  while  maintaining  the  

conviction  only  against  one  i.e.  the  husband  of  the  

deceased. We also see from the evidence that the marriage  

had been performed on 28th July, 1987 and death had occurred  

on 30th November, 1987, that is just four months after the  

marriage.   

-5-

Mr. Sharan, the learned counsel for the appellant  

has, however, submitted that in the light of the fact that  

the prosecution story had been disbelieved with respect to  

four of the five accused, the presumption under Section

113-B of the Evidence Act had been rebutted and as such the  

appellant  was  entitled  to  acquittal  on  parity  with  the  

other accused.  It is true that four of the five accused  

have been acquitted but we find that primary evidence is  

against Sudhir Kumar, the appellant herein. A reading of  

the evidence shows that it was the appellant who had, just  

a few days' before the incident, visited the house of his  

father-in-law  and  threatened  Kamlesh  Rani  with  dire  

consequences if his demand for a scooter and two gold rings  

was not fulfilled and   Bhim Sain, the brother of the  

deceased had told him that his father Tej Ram was not in a  

position  to  meet  the  demands  on  account  of  financial  

difficulties. A few days later Ramji Das (PW.2) too had  

visited Kamlesh Rani's in-law's home and had also informed  

Tej  Ram  thereafter  that  the  appellant  had  been  found  

beating his wife at that time and had once again threatened

that if the demands were not satisfied  Kamlesh Kaur would  

pay dearly for it.  It  is  true,  as  contended  by  Mr.  

Sharan, that in a case where the peculiar evidence has been  

discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the  

presumption under Section 113-B could to some extent be  

-6-

said to be dispelled, but on an over view we find that the  

primary role and the weight of the  evidence has been on  

the appellant herein.   

We, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal.  

Dismissed.

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

.................J.                                      (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi, January 14, 2010.