IMPORTANT POINT
Where deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and evidence to show that she was harassed on account of dowry demand conviction of husband and father-in-law for dowry death was liable to be upheld.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 201 — Dowry death — Deceased got married to appellant on 26-10-1993 died of poisoning on intervening night of 17th and 18th November, 1993 in matrimonial home — Body was cremated by appellants without calling any doctor, informing police or informing parents of deceased — Conviction of husband and father-in-law by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court — Appeal — Overwhelming evidence that there was persistent demand of dowry and because of non-fulfilment of said demand, there was harassment and continuous beating of deceased by accused — Accused persons clandestinely, secretly and hurriedly cremated deceased without informing parents of deceased strongly proved and lent immense credibility to prosecution version — Deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage — Conviction of appellants called for no interference.
       Held : When the evidence of the instant case is closely examined, then the conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused persons becomes irresistible. There is an overwhelming evidence to establish that there has been persistent demand of dowry and because of non-fulfillment of the said demand, there was harassment, humiliation and continuous beating of the deceased by the accused persons.(Para 32)
       There are three main ingredients of this offence; (a) that, there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused on that count; (b) that, the deceased died; and (c) that, the death is under unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage. When these factors were proved by reliable and cogent evidence, then the presumption of dowry death under section 113-B of the Evidence Act clearly arose. The aforementioned ingredients necessarily attract Section 304-B IPC. Section 304-B is a special provision which was inserted by an amendment of 1986 to deal with a large number of dowry deaths taking place in the country. In the instant case, if the circumstances of the case are analyzed on the touchstone of Section 304B IPC, all the three basic ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are present in the instant case. There has been persistent demand of dowry and harassment, humiliation and physical violence and beating by the husband and her in-laws. The deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage.(Para 34)
       In our considered opinion, the trial court has properly analyzed the evidence and justly convicted the appellants under Section 304B I.P.C. The High Court also examined the entire evidence on record and came to the same conclusion. No infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the High Court. (Para 35)
       Looking to the seriousness of the matter, we also independently examined the entire evidence on record. On critical examination of the evidence, we also arrived at the same conclusion. The trial court was justified in convicting the accused persons under Section 304-B IPC and that the conviction of these two appellants has been rightly upheld by the High Court.(Para 36)
       In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the deceased was killed by administering poison to her on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993. Neither the deceased was taken to any doctor nor any doctor was called to examine her nor any kind of medical treatment was given to the deceased. This is extremely unnatural human conduct. The dead body was secretly and clandestinely cremated causing disappearance of evidence of offence, without even intimating the parents of the deceased who were living only a few miles away from their village. They learnt about the murder of the deceased from a Barber on 20.11.1993 after about three days. The appellants secretly and clandestinely cremated the deceased to wipe out the entire evidence of murder. This clearly attracted Section 201 IPC. The trial court was wholly justified in convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC also. The High Court was also justified in affirming the judgment and order of the trial court.(Para 38)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. — These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2002.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:

On 20th November 1993, at 4.30 p.m., the brother of the deceased Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, PW2 filed a written complaint at the Police Station Chandi alleging that his sister Sanju Kumari (who was married in the year 1989) was poisoned by her husband Surya Kant Sharma, her father-in-law Ram Badan Sharma and mother-in-law Saraswati Devi. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage, Surya Kant Sharma, Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi demanded a colour TV, Yamaha motor-cycle and cash of Rs.20,000/-. The informant and his family could not fulfill their dowry demands. The customary Durgaman (second marriage) had taken place on 26.10.1993 and at that time, the same demands were repeated by the accused persons.

3. In the report, it was also mentioned that on 17.11.1993, brother-in-law of the deceased (sisters husband) Ramakant Chaudhary, PW1, visited Lodipur on the request of the deceaseds mother to meet the deceased. The accused persons told PW1 that no one would be permitted to meet Sanju Kumari unless their dowry demands are fulfilled by the parents of the deceased. On persuasion for sometime, he was permitted to meet Sanju Kumari. She wept before him and narrated that she was harassed and tortured by the accused persons for not getting motor-cycle, colour TV and Rs.20,000/- from her parents. On return from the house of the deceased, PW1 narrated to his mother-in-law and brother-in-law the entire story of harassment of the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands. It is further stated in the report that only after a few hours, on the intervening night of 17th and 18th of November, poison was administered to the deceased in the Prasad and consequently she died.

4. On 20.11.1993, a Barber from Lodipur brought a letter which disclosed that Sanju Kumari had died on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993. The informant rushed to the village Lodipur where he came to know that the accused persons had killed his sister by administering poison to her. The FIR was filed at the Chandi Police Station by the brother of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons Surya Kant Sharma and Ram Badan Sharma. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Initially, no charge-sheet was filed against Saraswati Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased. However, after examination of the witnesses, Saraswati Devi was also summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial.

5. The accused persons denied the allegations and a defence was taken that Sanju Kumari had died due to stomach pain. It was alleged on behalf of the defence that she complained of stomach pain on 16.11.1993 and that she was taken to the clinic where she was treated by Dr. K.N. Singh and Dr. B.K. Jain. It was also stated that the informant and his relatives attended the Shradh of Sanju Kumari. The informant wanted to get back all the ornaments given to Sanju Kumari at the time of her marriage but when the accused persons did not agree, this false case was filed against them. It was also asserted that during the relevant period, Saraswati Devi was under treatment at Calcutta.

6. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, Ramakant Chaudhary PW1, brother-in-law of the deceased, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary PW2, brother of the deceased, who proved the FIR (Ext.1), Gautam Chaudhary PW3, the cousin of the deceased, Malti Devi PW4, mother of the deceased. Malti Devi proved one letter (Ext.2) written by the deceased Sanju Kumari to her. In the letter, she wrote that she was facing harassment and humiliation by the accused persons because their demands for dowry had not been fulfilled. Anita Devi, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased was examined as PW5. All these witnesses had supported the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 745

IMPORTANT POINTWhere deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and evidence to show that she was harassed on account of dowry demand conviction of husband and father-in-law for dowry death was liable to be upheld.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where deceased died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and evidence to show that she was harassed on account of dowry demand conviction of husband and father-in-law for dowry death was liable to be upheld.