2007 Supreme(SC) 672

2007(3) Supreme 1037
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jharkhand High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Raja Lal Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2006
With
Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 2006
Decided on 8-5-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.S. Mishra, Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advocates, Ashok Kumar Singh, Awanish Sinha, Ms. Anita Kanungo and Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Manish Kumar Saran and C.P. Yadav, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Words “soon before her death” in Section 304-B IPC do not necessarily mean immediately before her death but rather elastic enough that there should be a perceptible nexus between death of deceased and dowry related harassment.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B/34 — Dowry death — Conviction of husband and father and mother-in-law of deceased — Deceased got married to appellant on 24-4-2000 committed suicide by hanging in matrimonial home on 28-11-2000 — Evidence of PW5, father of deceased, that deceased narrated to him that accused used to harass her for demand of Bed and Almirah and informant talked to accused and promised them to fulfil the demand — Trial Court found charge proved and convicted all three accused and sentenced them 10 years imprisonment — High Court upheld conviction — Appeal — Appellants, parents in law of deceased were living in ground floor and appellant husband used to live on 1st floor — Deceased was found dead due to hanging on 1st floor — No evidence that these appellants had any hand in incident — They deserved benefit of doubt — Appellant husband used to live with deceased and it was for him to explain now deceased met with her death — Even a case of suicide could be covered u/s 304-B IPC — For satisfaction of ingredient “soon before her death”, there should be a perceptible nexus between death of deceased and dowry related harassment — Conviction of appellant husband called for no interference.

       Held : It has come in evidence that Raja Lal Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 513/2006 used to live on the first floor of the building along with his wife, deceased Gayatri, whereas Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi were living in the ground floor. Admittedly, the deceased Gayatri was found dead due to hanging on the first floor in the room of her husband. There is no evidence to show that the appellant Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi had any hand in the incident which led to her death, and at any event we are of the opinion that benefit of doubt has to be given to them, as they were living on the ground floor of the building in question. (Para 13)

       No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court, e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388 etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and trial court in so far as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case. (Para 14)

       However, we are of the opinion that the appeal of Raja Lal Singh has to be dismissed. Raja Lal Singh is the husband of the deceased Gayatri and he used to live with her on the first floor of the building in question. Hence, it was for him to explain how Gayatri met with her death. She was found hanging by a Sari on a ceiling fan in the very room where she used to live with her husband Raja Lal Singh. Raja Lal Singh, however, did not enter into the witness box to depose in this connection. (Para 15)

       It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court that so far as Section 304-B is concerned, it is not relevant whether it is case of homicide or suicide vide Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2001) 8 SCC 633. (Para 16)

       It may be mentioned that the words “soon before her death” do not necessarily mean immediately before her death. As explained in Satvir Singh (supra), this phrase is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before death of the deceased or within a few days or few weeks before death. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between the death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. (Para 18)

       In the present case, we are of the opinion that there is a clear nexus between the death of Gayatri and the dowry related harassment inflicted on her. As mentioned earlier, even if Gayatri committed suicide, S. 304-B can still be attracted. A person commits suicide in a fit of depression due to extreme unhappiness. Thus, even if Gayatri committed suicide, it was obviously because she was extremely unhappy, and unless her husband gave a satisfactory alternative explanation for the suicide we have to take it that it was the persistent demand for dowry which led to her suicide. It is evident from the evidence that Gayatri’s father was a poor man and he did not have the money to give the dowry immediately and he wanted time up to January, 2001 so that he could collect some funds from somewhere, but the appellant, Raja Lal Singh was heartless and he wanted immediate compliance of his demand. Since that was not fulfilled, he either killed Gayatri or harassed her so much that she was driven to suicide on account of the said dowry demand. The writing on Gayatri’s palm is, in our opinion, not very relevant. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of Raja Lal Singh. (Para 19)