http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  849 of 2004

PETITIONER: Taiyab Khan & Ors.                                               

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)                                   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/11/2005

BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & Arun Kumar

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

ARUN KUMAR, J.

       This is an appeal against a judgment of conviction under Section  304B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the VIth Additional Judicial  Commisisioner, Ranchi and confirmed by the High Court of the State of  Jharkhand at Ranchi.  The three appellants were sentenced to 10 years R.I.  each.  The appellant No.1 Taiyab Khan is the husband of the deceased while  appellants No.2 and 3 are his parents.  The deceased was named Noorjahan.   Marriage of appellant No.1 with Noorjahan took place in April, 1991.  The  incident leading to death of Noorjahan is of 9th February, 1994.  Death of  Noorjahan is said to have been caused by poisoning.  The main ingredients  of Section 304B IPC are: (a)     Death of a woman; (b)     By burns or bodily injury or occurrence otherwise than under  normal circumstances;

(c)     Within seven years of her marriage; (d)     Soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or  harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in  connection with demand for dowry.

Present is a case of death of a woman having taken place within three  years of her marriage.  It is a case of an unnatural death, that is, death which  occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances.  The first three  ingredients are clearly established.  The only other ingredient which needs to  be considered is the harassment of the woman by the husband or his relatives  in connection with demand for dowry.  The prosecution examined seven  witnesses.  PW1 and PW2 were the brothers of the deceased, PW3 was her  maternal uncle while PW4 was the mother of the deceased, PW 5 was a  villager, PW6 was the Investigating Officer of the case and PW7 was the  doctor who examined the deceased in the hospital.  PW 1 to PW 5 have  spoken about the dowry demands made by the appellants and the harassment  of the deceased on account of such demands by the appellants.  It is clear  from the evidence of these witnesses that the deceased was being constantly  harassed for demands on account of dowry.  The deceased was being asked  to bring further cash and gold/silver ornaments and on account of non- compliance of such demands, she was being denied food.  On the fateful day  she had been removed to hospital in an unconscious state.  PW 2, one of the  brothers of the deceased was also the informants to the police at whose  instance the FIR was recorded.  He works in a garage where he was  informed that his sister was lying unconscious in the Mandar Hospital.  He  went home and informed other family members and they all went to the  hospital to find out about the condition of the deceased. The defence tried to suggest that the deceased took poison on her own  and committed suicide.  However, this was disbelieved by both the courts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

below.  It is a case of unnatural death.  The learned counsel for the appellant  argued that the vicera report would have shown as to whether the death  occurred on account of consumption of poison.  This report was never  received and therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of death by poisoning.   In our view, the absence of vicera report does not make any difference to the  fate of the case.  The fact remains that it is a case of unnatural death.   Section 304B IPC refers to death which occurs otherwise than under normal  circumstances.  It cannot be said to be a case of normal death.  No other  point was urged.  We find no merit in this appeal.  The same is dismissed. After holding them guilty of the offence under Section 304B, the  courts below have sentenced the three accused to imprisonment for ten years  each.  Keeping in view the advance age of appellants 2 and 3, who are  parents of appellant No.1, we consider it appropriate that their sentences be  reduced.  Accordingly in case of appellants 2 and 3 the sentence of ten years  awarded by the courts below is reduced to seven years.   The appeal is  disposed of accordingly.