IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption u/s 113-B is rebuttable.
Supreme Court may evidence may re-appreciate the evidence where conclusions are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.
Presumption u/s 113-B cannot apply unless it is established that soon before her death the woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
“Soon” does not mean “immediate”. All that is necessary is that demand for dowry should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B.

JUDGMENT

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The appeal after granting special leave to appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment of the High court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC but reducing the sentence from 8 years rigorous imprisonment to a period of 7 years under the aforesaid section. The appellant who was tried along with his parents and two brothers was acquitted of the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. In view of his conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the trial Court did not find it necessary to record a separate conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

2. We heard Dr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

3. There is no dispute that the marriage between the appellant and his deceased wife took place on 24th January, 1998. It is also not in the region of controversy that she died well within seven years of her marriage. It is undisputed that the death of the appellant’s wife was unnatural and she died along with her child by way of drowning in a river. In fact, PW8 ASI in his deposition stated that both the dead bodies were secured together with one chunni. The only question is whether the death is to be attributed to cruelty/harassment on the part of the appellant arising out of demand for dowry as contemplated under Section 304-B of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Court did not consider the evidence given by the appellant and that neither cruelty nor any demand for dowry is made out. It is contended that the appellant’s wife apparently took her life along with that of her daughter on account of the fact that she was consistently taunted by PW3 – the sister of the appellant’s wife who was married to an industrialist. The appellant was earning a sum of Rs.3000/-per month. However, notwithstanding the same, the appellant had taken care of her by fulfilling the desire of the deceased wife to pursue education and she was, in fact, doing her Post- Graduation at the time of her untimely death. The appellant’s father (we note that the appellant along with his two brothers and mother were tried by the trial Court and the trial Court convicted the appellant and his mother under Section 304-B but appellant’s mother stood acquitted by the High Court) had in fact financed the education of the deceased wife.

5. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that no reliance is to be placed on the evidence of the DW6 and DW8. They were neighbours. Their evidence supporting the case of the appellant should be perceived as born out of their need to maintain cordial relationship with their neighbours. As to what happened within the four walls of the house, she would question as to how could they depose before the Court. She sought support from the evidence of PW1 and PW3. The evidence would indicate that there is a proximity in a point of time between the acts, as complained of, against the appellant and the untimely death of the deceased.

6. Before we embark on the examination of the case it becomes necessary to remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal which is maintained after grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Does the Court have the duty as a regular court to consider an appeal or is its jurisdiction circumscribed by the consideration that this Court is dealing with the appeal on the basis of grant of special leave.

7. We may profitably advert to the views of the majority expressed in Saravanabhavan and Govindaswamy Vs. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1273, which is as under:-

“7. This is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and we shall first state what this Court will ordinarily consider in such an appeal. It is not to be forgotten that this Court’s ordinary appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases is to the extent laid down in Article 134 of t