IMPORTANT POINT
Section 304B, IPC, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only provide what the Court shall presume if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied, but if the evidence in any case is such that the presumptions stand rebutted, the Court cannot hold that the accused was guilty and was punishable for dowry death

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J.-This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 28.02.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.157-SB of 1997.

2. The facts very briefly are that an FIR was lodged by Chhotu Ram (the informant) in P.S. Gannaur on 07.08.1992 at 4.45 P.M. In the FIR, the informant stated thus: He got his daughter Krishna married to Devinder @ Kala Ram of village Rajpur on 19.05.1989. From after a month of the marriage, Krishna kept coming to the house of the informant at village Tihar Malik complaining of demands of dowry and harassment by the members of the family of Devinder. On 06.08.1992, Jai Beer Singh informed the informant that Krishna was dead. The informant came straightway to the hospital at Sonepat and found Krishna dead because of burns. A case was registered in P.S. Gannaur under Section 304B/341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). Investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against Devinder, his mother Chand Kaur and his brother’s wife Roshni. The appellants were put on trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat. At the trial, amongst other witnesses the informant Chottu Ram was examined as PW-2, his wife Smt. Shanti was examined as PW-3 and his two sons, namely, Balraj and Jai Beer, were examined as PW-4 and PW-5 respectively. By the judgment dated 06.02.1997, the Sessions Court held all the three appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 498A as well as 304B, IPC. By order dated 08.02.1997, the Sessions Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498A, IPC, and for ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304B, IPC, and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.157-SB of 1997 before the High Court, but by the impugned order the High Court maintained the convictions and sentences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC.

3. At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Dr. B.D. Chaudhary, the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, who was examined as PW-7, has said in his evidence that Krishna was brought to the hospital by her husband Kala Ram and there was smell of kerosene in the body of Krishna when she was brought to the hospital. He also referred to Ext. DD, which is the bed-head ticket pertaining to Krishna in the hospital in which PW-7 has endorsed that the patient had told him that she has sustained the burns while cooking meals on a stove. He submitted that Devinder has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) that on the day of the alleged occurrence Krishna caught fire while she was preparing tea and he extinguished the fire and as a result he received burn injuries and he immediately brought her to the hospital. He submitted that this is, therefore, a case of the deceased getting burnt by kerosene from a stove and the appellant no.1 had rushed the deceased to the hospital with a view to save her and this is not a case of an offence under Section 304B, IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are all near relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses and their evidence on the demands of dowry and harassment and cruelty to the deceased ought not to have been believed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. He argued that the evidence of these interested witnesses moreover are only bald statements and are not supported by any material. He submitted that in the absence of any material produced to show that the deceased was subjected to electric shock, the Trial Cou