IMPORTANT POINT
Wife dying within one year of marriage raising presumption u/s 113B, Evidence Act. Accused not offering any explanation for death. Suicide note indicating helpless situation of deceased. Conviction u/s 304B, IPC is justified.

JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against Judgment and Order dated 12th March, 2013 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appral No.S-736-SB of 2003 upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to the deceased Rekha Rani on 7th July, 2000. After the marriage, she was harassed for having brought insufficient dowry and the appellant raised a demand for motor cycle apart from the demands by his mother and younger brother. After about three months of marriage, the deceased gave a telephonic call to her father about the demand for dowry. Her father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12), met the husband of the deceased and his other relatives and pleaded that she may not be harassed as he was not in a position to give more dowry. The accused, however, continued to harass her. On 29th April, 2001, the deceased again telephoned her father about the harassment on which Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the accused and brought back the deceased to her parental home. However, on the next day, the appellant came to the place of his in-laws and insisted that the deceased be sent with him, threatening that otherwise he will divorce her. On this, the deceased was sent with the appellant. Next day, on 1st May, 2001, at about 12 O’clock, information was received by the family of the deceased that she had received burn injuries and was taken to the hospital. Father of the deceased Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) along with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12) and brother in-law Guddar Mal (PW-10) reached the hospital at 2.00 P.M. where the deceased told them that she was given beatings and set on fire by the appellant and his family members. Thereafter, the deceased died on account of extensive burn injuries.

3. Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit PA/1). SI Rakham Singh (PW-13) conducted the investigation and sent up the accused for trial. The prosecution led evidence in support of its case comprising of relatives to prove demand of dowry, apart from medical evidence and evidence of investigation. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment by her uncle Raghubir Lal (PW-12) who wanted her to relinquish her rights in the parental property. The accused examined Vinod Kumar (DW-1) who had taken the deceased to the hospital and stated that her relations with the accused were cordial. Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the appellant was also examined who stated that at the time of alleged incident, the appellant was on duty.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and the co-accused.

5. On further appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but acquitted the co-accused Champa Devi (mother of the appellant) and Lalit Kumar (brother of the appellant).

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

7. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri G.C. Shahpuri submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of dowry “soon before the death” which was the necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 304 B, IPC. He relied upon Judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana, AIR (2014) SC 2555. It was also submitted that the deceased had left a suicide note (Exhibit P-4) to the effect that nobody be held responsible if something happened to her and in the said note there is no allegation of demand of dowry. He lastly submitted that since the High Court had acquitted mother and brother of the appellant on the same evidence, the case of the appellant being at par, there was no justification to conv