IMPORTANT POINT
Omnibus allegations by exaggeration ought to be identified and taken into consideration.

Judgment

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. The appellants stand convicted under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (“RI”) for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. In default, to undergo further imprisonment for two years. They also stand sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment for three months under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar Roy on 20th February, 1994. According to the prosecution, Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters and brother raised a demand of Rs.5000/-and since the said demand was not fulfilled, Shanti Roy was harassed and even kept without food. On 31st July, 1995, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire. She was pregnant carrying eight months’ old foetus. Chittaranjan Saha (PW1), brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report. After conducting investigation, appellants Monju Roy, Anju Roy, sisters of Sekhar Roy, Tulshi Roy, brother of Sekhar Roy, Sumitra Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy and Sekhar Roy, husband of the deceased were sent up for trial. Sumitra Roy died on 27th August, 2001 during pendency of the trial.

3. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also produced documents in support of its case. The witnesses examined included brother of the deceased PW 5 and mother of the deceased PW 14 to prove that the deceased was harassed by demand of dowry. Accepting the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the three appellants as mentioned above and also Sekhar Roy who has not preferred appeal and is said to have undergone the sentence awarded to him. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence with the modification that instead of life imprisonment under Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for ten years was awarded.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants Shri Pijush K. Roy and Shri Kabir S. Bose for the State of West Bengal and with their assistance have gone through the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that omnibus allegation against all the family members could not be taken at the face value, having regard to the well known tendency of naming all the family members by the family of an unfortunate victim. In such circumstances, the court may be cautious in accepting such omnibus allegations against all the family members unless there is an independent corroboration of such allegation. He submitted that in the present case, the allegation is that all the five family members raised a demand of Rs.5000/-and beyond stating that all the family members harassed her, no individual role in harassment has been specified. The benefit of dowry could go either to the husband or at best his mother and not to the siblings who are alleged to have joined in such demand. There is no independent corroboration of the allegation as such allegation has been made for the first time in the FIR. The allegation is based on the version given to the witnesses three months after the marriage or thereafter, though it is stated that the witness continued to receive information about such demand even thereafter upto 15-20 days prior to the occurrence. He submitted that mother-in-law of the deceased has already died and husband of the deceased has undergone the sentence. The appellants who are two sisters and one brother of the husband of the deceased have been in custody for more than four years and two months. The possibility of exaggeration about the number of family members who raised demand of dowry was not ruled out. Even if demand was jointly made, the appellants have not been assigned any role in harassment in absence of which, presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be raised against them. Reliance has been placed on observations of this Court in Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 (5) SCC 207.

6. Learned counsel for the State