VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution has failed to prove its case of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt against in-laws and husband of the deceased. In-laws, who have appealed, are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. The husband who has not appealed because he has already undergone the entire sentence is also entitled to abolition of stigma caused by conviction for a heinous crime under Section 304B IPC 1860.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304B and 306-Offence of dowry death within 2-1/2 months after marriage-Trial Court as well as High Court convicted parents of the husband and the husband for dowry death of Geetu-Appeal only by father and mother of husband to Supreme Court-Supreme Court finding that demand of dowry made out in oral evidence but it is neither supported by documentary evidence of letters and suicide note-Whether Courts below were right in recording conviction u/ss 304B and 306 IPC? (No)-Result-Acquittal.
       Held : A perusal of the oral evidence on record creates an impression that the appellants as well as the husband of the deceased were constantly taunting Geetu, (deceased) for the failure of her father to provide them with a car despite his prosperity and status, and ultimately this led her to commit suicide. However, the documentary evidence on record of contemporaneous nature some of them written by Geetu herself give quite a different picture. They do indicate that Geetu was unhappy and depressed for some reason, but they also reveal that so far as the appellants are concerned they treated her with love and affection and there is no complaint in any of the letters against their conduct. There is not even a whisper in any of the letters written by the deceased or anyone else about a demand for a car. On the other hand the letters indicate that Geetu (deceased) was finding some difficulty in adjusting herself to her new surroundings in her matrimonial home. (Para 14)
       Held after referring to letters : These letters which we have noticed above do not support the case of the prosecution that Geetu was being subjected to torture and harassment or was being constantly taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. On the contrary, it appears from these letters that she was loved by all members of her matrimonial family who showered affection on her. The only indication, if at all, is about her finding it difficult to adjust in the new surroundings for which she found herself guilty for entertaining such feelings. She has referred to the freedom that she enjoyed in her parental home but now feels suppressed because she cannot do all that she used to do in her parental home. As we have observed earlier these letters were written during the period when, according to the prosecution, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture and a consistent demand for a car was being made. These letters, however, do not support the case of the prosecution and on the other hand are indicative of the fact that she was well looked after in her matrimonial home and that all members of her matrimonial family showered on her love and affection. So much so that she was very keen to get her brother-in-law married to a good girl of fair complexion as there was no other demand. (Para 24)
       Held on suicide note : The suicide note does not contain any statement which can be used against the accused, as there is nothing in the suicide note which may even remotely suggest that she was ending her life because of the mal-treatment meted out to her by the members of her matrimonial family. (Para 26)
       Held thereafter : Much was sought to be made by the counsel for the State of Ex.P-33, the parcel allegedly sent by PW-4 to her daughter on the 13th July, 1990. That was supposed to be a gift parcel sent to Parvin Kumar, husband of the deceased, whose birthday fell on 19th July, 1990. The parcel contained a letter in which there is mention of a car being repaired for being sent to the deceased. Nothing much turns on this. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that Geetu may have felt the absence of a car as she was accustomed to moving about on her own in her father s car. The accused could not afford a car and therefore could not provide her with a car. In these circumstances if the parents of the deceased thought of sending her an old car after repairs, it does not necessarily follow that car was being sent in response to any demand by the husband or in-laws of the deceased. (Para 27)
       Held further : Unfortunately, the High Court has not even referred to the aforesaid letters and was content to reach its conclusion on the basis of the oral evidence on record. We are satisfied after having read the letters placed before us that the case projected by the prosecution at the trial about the demand of a car cannot be accepted. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was being mal treated or tortured, except that she was constantly being taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. Even the story about PW-1 having asked PW-5 to get a demand draft prepared for the purchase of a car appears to be an afterthought because PW-5 admitted that he neither got a demand draft made nor was he paid any amount by the father of the deceased for the purpose. Moreover, no one informed the deceased that demand draft was about to be sent for the purchase of a car. In normal circumstances one would have expected that the deceased would have been informed of the fact that a demand draft was being sent for the purchase of a car, particularly when it is the case of the prosecution that Geetu was under a terrible strain and depression on account of her being consistently taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. (Para 28)
       Held also : Moreover, the informant has not mentioned about the decision to send a demand draft for purchase of a car either in the F.I.R. or in his two subsequent statements before the police. Moreover, this story is not consistent with the version given out in the letter Ex. 33 of 13.7.90 wherein it was stated that a car was being repaired for being sent to Geetu. The letters which we have noticed are substantially contemporaneous, written at a time when it is alleged she was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law. Rather than supporting the case of the prosecution, these letters support the case of the defence that so far as they were concerned they had showered love and affection on Geetu and not subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. We are of the view that Geetu may have committed suicide, as she was unable to adjust herself in the changed surroundings of her matrimonial home being a highly emotional person. The evidence on record does not suggest that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by her father and mother-in-law for or in connection with any demand for dowry. (Paras 29 and 30)
       Held consequently : We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court as well as that of the trial court and acquit the appellants of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. (Para 31)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304-B-Constitution of India-Article 136-In-laws and husband convicted for dowry death-In-laws preferred appeal to Apex Court which was allowed-Husband did not appeal as he had served his sentence-Whether benefit be given to husband by obliterating the stigma that attaches to him for such conviction? (Yes)-Acquittal recorded for him also.
       Held : As noticed earlier accused Parvin Kumar, husband of the deceased, Geetu has not preferred an appeal before this Court, on account of the fact that he has already served out the sentence imposed against him. However, though we cannot obliterate the sufferings of Parvin Kumar, we can certainly obliterate the stigma that attaches to him on account of his conviction for a heinous offence under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. This Court has laid down a judicious principle that even in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his Special Leave Petition is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the remaining accused and the case of the accused, who has either not appealed or whose Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. This has been held in Harbans Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 101, Raja Ram & Ors. vs. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568, Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69 and Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2002 (2) SC 158. In the instant case we find that the case of Parvin Kumar, who has not filed an appeal, is not distinguishable from the case of the appellants. Since we have acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, we also set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the said Parvin Kumar and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. This appeal is accordingly allowed. (Paras 32 and 33)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-Deceased Geetu was married to Parvin Kumar on 20.04.1990 at Yamunanagar. Her father Ved Prakash, PW-1 is a lawyer of standing at Yamunanagar. After the marriage she started residing with her husband and his parents at Sriganganagar. Only 2½ months later, on 13th July, 1990 Geetu committed suicide by hanging. Her parents were informed and they came to Sriganganagar. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Geetu was conducted on the 14th July, 1990, whereafter her body was cremated in the presence of her parents who had come to Sriganganagar along with other relatives. After the cremation at about 4 p.m., Ved Prakash, PW -1, father of Geetu drafted an F.I.R., Ex.P-5 and lodged the same at police station, Sadar, Sriganganagar at 8.30 p.m. After investigation the appellants herein who are the parents of Parvin Kumar, the husband of the deceased, along with Parvin Kumar were put up for trial before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.40 of 1991, charged of offences under Sections 304 B and 306 I.P.C.. By judgment and order dated 16th May, 1992 the trial court found them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 306 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 B I.P.C. and 5 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The appeal preferred by the appellants and Parvin Kumar (husband of the deceased) was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 21st March, 1996.

3. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by Gurucharan Kumar and Smt. Sudesh, the parents of Parvin Kumar only. We were informed that Parvin Kumar has not preferred an appeal to this Court since he had already undergone the entire sentence.

4. The prosecution has examined several witnesses to prove its case, but considerable reliance is placed on the evidence of Ved Prakash, PW -1 the father of the deceased, Anju Ahuja PW -3, the sister of the deceased and Yashoda PW-4, the mother of the deceased. The prosecution has also brought on record several letters written by deceased Geetu to her mother, sister and Minu, a friend, as also several letters written by her mother and sister to her. These letters and some other documents have been marked as Exhibits without objection. The letters said to have been written by Geetu have been duly proved to be in her hand-writing. There is also a suicide note left behind by the deceased, which has been marked as Ex. P-4 and has been proved to be in her hand- writing. These documents have been produced by the prosecution and the defence has not objected to the same nor has it challenged the genuineness of those documents. There is only a challenge to Ex. P-33, a letter said to have been written by Yashoda, PW-4 to her daughter on 13.7.90 just before the incident, which according to the defence was falsely got prepared to support the case of demand of dowry. We shall deal with these documents later after noticing the oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

5. The F.I.R which is a detailed report drafted by PW-1, Ved Prakash, father of the deceased, who is a lawyer by profession was lodged at 8.30 p.m. on 14th July, 1990 after they had cremated the body of the deceased. It appears to be the case of the prosecution that deceased Geetu committed suicide at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. on 13.07.1990.

6. In the FIR, it is stated by PW-1 that they came to know soon after the marriage that the appellants as well as Parvin Kumar, her husband were not satisfied with the dowry given by the informant. They felt aggrieved by the fact that the deceased had not brought sufficient dowry despite the fact that her father was a prosperous advocate and could have given more cash and also a Maruti car, if he so desired. These facts he came to know 10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 15

Cases Referred (4)