REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2004

Bansi Lal                                                          …Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana                                      …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment  

and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated  

5th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998, by which the  

conviction of the appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon,  

vide judgment and order dated 22nd August,  1998 and 25th August,  

1998 for  offences  under  Sections 498-A,  304-B and 306 of  Indian  

Penal Code, 1860  (hereinafter referred as `IPC’) and awarding the  

sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a  

fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo  

1

rigorous imprisonment for two months, has been upheld. However, for  

the  offence  under  Section  304-B  IPC sentence  to  undergo  for  ten  

years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to  

further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six  months,  has  been  

reduced to seven years with fine.      

2. Facts  and circumstances  giving rise  to  this  case  are  that  the  

appellant was married to Sarla (deceased) on 4th April, 1988. An FIR  

was lodged by Shyam Lal (PW.4) father of Sarla (deceased) on 25th  

June, 1991 making allegations that the appellant, his mother, brother  

and  sister-in-law  had  consistently  harassed  his  daughter  Sarla  

(deceased) by making dowry demand i.e.  a scooter.   She had been  

maltreated  by  them.   After  one year  of  marriage,  Sarla  (deceased)  

came and stayed with her family for about 14 months.  It was only  

after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she had returned  to her  

matrimonial  home.   Again  they  maltreated  and  insisted  for  the  

demand  of  a  scooter,  thus,  she  had  been  subjected  to  cruelty,  

harassment  by  demand of  dowry  to  the  extent  that  she  committed  

suicide on 25th June, 1991, at her matrimonial home.    

2

3. After  investigation  of  the  case,  the  prosecution  filed  the  

chargesheet against the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and  

charges were framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and  

306 IPC.  The said two accused pleaded not guilty, thus, they were put  

on trial.  It was on 17th May, 1995, that in view of the evidence of the  

prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his  

power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  1973  

(hereinafter called Cr.P.C.)  summoned the other two accused Ashok  

Kumar,  brother  and Smt.  Shakuntala,  sister-in-law of  the  appellant  

and charges were reframed against all the four accused under Sections  

498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC vide order dated 6th July, 1995.

4. In  order  to  substantiate  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  

several witnesses including complainant Shyam Lal (PW.4), Gulshan  

(PW.5), brother of Sarla (deceased), Dr. B.B. Agarwal (PW.1), Shri  

Arjun  Singh  Yadav,  ASI,  (PW.6),  Constable  Jai  Pal  (PW.2),  Shri  

Mool Chand Punia, Draftsman (PW.3), and other formal witnesses.  

5. While making their  statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,  the  

accused persons denied all the allegations against them and set up the  

defence as under:  

3

“Sarla was in love with some other person.  She  was  forced  to  marry  with  accused  Bansi  Lal   against her will, due to which she felt suffocated  and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note to  that effect.  There was no demand of Scooter.”

Further,   accused  Ashok Kumar  (A.3)  and  Shakuntala  (A.4)  

pleaded that they had been living separately from the appellant and his  

mother and they had no involvement so far as the demand of dowry  

was concerned.  In defence only three witnesses i.e. Bal Kishan, an  

official  of  HSEB (DW.1),  Vidya  Nand,  an  Inspector  of  Food  and  

Supplies  Department  (DW.2)  and Surender  Singh,  Sarpanch of  the  

village Gram Panchayat (DW.3) were  examined only to prove that  

accused  Ashok  Kumar  (A.3)  and  Shakuntala  (A.4)  were  living  

separately from the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi.

6. After  considering  the  entire  evidence  on  record  and  the  

submissions  made  by  the  prosecution  as  well  as  defence,  the  trial  

court convicted the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi under  

Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and awarded the sentences as  

referred  to  hereinabove.  The  court  acquitted  Ashok  Kumar  and  

Shakuntala of all the charges against them. The Trial Court did not  

award any separate sentence under Section 306 IPC.  

4

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi  

preferred  Criminal  Appeal  No.  708-SB  of  1998   which  has  been  

disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2004,  

acquitting Smt. Shanti Devi,  not being beneficiary of the demand of  

dowry, as only scooter had been demanded but dismissed the appeal  

so far as the present appellant is concerned.  However, considering the  

facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence under Section 304-B  

IPC has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Hence, this appeal.  

8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

appellant, has submitted that no charge could be brought home against  

the  appellant  under  any  of  the  penal  provisions  as   there  was  no  

demand of dowry by the appellant. The harassment was not in close  

proximity of time of death.  The prosecution itself had submitted that  

Sarla (deceased) wanted to marry one Shiv Parkash Singh and thus,  

she was not happy with the appellant.  She had left a suicide note to  

that effect and the said note had been exhibited before the trial court  

as Ex.P2.  Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, Shri Rao Ranjit, learned advocate  appearing  

for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal  contending that the  

5

facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference  with  

the concurrent  finding of facts  recorded by the courts  below.  The  

suicide note Ex.P2 has to be ignored as it has not been proved as per  

requirement of law.  No witness has been examined for comparing the  

handwriting of the deceased nor it has been signed by the deceased.  It  

had not even been shown to father of the deceased i.e.  Shyam Lal  

(PW.4), complainant or her brother Gulshan  (PW.5).  More so, it had  

been the defence of the appellant while making his statement under  

Section  313  Cr.P.C.   Thus,   he  should  have  led  evidence  to  

substantiate the defence.  Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to  

dismissed.  

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.  

The admitted facts of the case remain as under:

(i) There was no demand of scooter at the initial  stage of  

marriage in 1988.  

(ii)   Complainant  Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5)  

had deposed that there had been consistent and persistent  

demand of  scooter by the appellant.  

6

(iii)  After one year of the marriage, when Sarla (deceased)  

came to the house of  her parents, she stayed  with them  

for a period of 14 months.  

(iv) During this  period of  14 months,  no attempt had been  

made  by  the  appellant  to  call  her  newly  wedded  wife  

back to the matrimonial home.

(v) A Panchayat  of very close relatives was convened and  

they had assured the parents and family members of Sarla  

(deceased) that appellant and his other family members  

would  behave  properly  with  Sarla  (deceased)  and  she  

would not be maltreated or humiliated or subjected to any  

kind of cruelty for demand of dowry.

(vi) It was on this assurance that Sarla (deceased) came back  

to stay with the appellant at her matrimonial home.  

(vii) Sarla  committed suicide by hanging herself on 25th June,  

1991.

(viii)  The  appellant  or  any  of  his  family  members  did  not  

inform  Shyam Lal, (PW.4), complainant or any of  his  

family members about the death of Sarla (deceased).  

7

(ix) Shyam Lal  (PW.4)  and  Gulshan  (PW.5)   reached  her  

matrimonial  home alongwith others getting information  

from other persons.

(x) Shyam Lal (PW.4) immediately lodged the FIR against  

the appellant and other family members and, set the law  

in  motion.  

(xi) Sarla  (deceased)  was  found  dead  at  her  matrimonial  

home  when  she  stayed  with  the  appellant  and  other  

family members.  They had not furnished any satisfactory  

explanation  as  for  which  reason  and  under  what  

circumstances she had committed suicide.   

11. So  far  as  the  theory  of  love  affair  of  Sarla  (deceased)  is  

concerned,  it  has  been  disbelieved  by  the  courts  below.  The  Trial  

Court dealt with the issued observing as under :   

“If the husband was doubting her fidelity towards  him there  was  no  reason for  him to  have  come  with his father and other relatives to the parents of   the deceased to take her back after 14 months of   her stay with her parents. It also cannot be said   that the deceased was not having any liking for her  husband and was frustrated because she allegedly  could not marry the person of her choice.  Rather  the  circumstances  are  otherwise.   Had  she  developed hatred for  her husband, there was no  

8

reason for her to join him after 14 months of her  staying away from the matrimonial home.  There  was every reason for her to believe the husband  and his relatives that demand of dowry and other   torture  and  maltreatment  would  not  be  there.   Better sense definitely, after such a lapse of time,   was naturally to be expected to have dawned on  them. Parents of the deceased also did not create   any  hassles  as  they  felt  satisfied  from  the   assurance  of  the  accused on this  score.   At  any   rate  melodramatic  story  of  her  love  affairs  with   some one and her frustration in her married life   with  accused  Bansi  Lal  can  hardly  be  taken  as   genuine.  If it was so, she could not have continued  to wait to die for her alleged lover for three long  years, having consummated the marriage with her  husband  and  having  cohabited  with  him  all- through  she  was  with  him  in  the  matrimonial   home.”

12. Again, the High Court has dealt with the issue elaborately and  

recorded the following findings:   

“Much has been said by the learned counsel about   Ex.P-2,  the  note  allegedly  recovered  by  the   Investigating Officer.  In my considered view, this   document  has  to  be  totally  rejected  from  consideration  in  evidence  for  the  simple  reason  that no nexus of the deceased has been established  with this document.   There is no evidence worth  the name from the side of the prosecution or from  the defence,  which may indicate that the writing  Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of Sarla deceased.   Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs when stepped into   the witness-box do not say even a word that the  document Ex.P-2 is  written in the hand of Sarla  deceased.  Even the defence counsel did not put   

9

any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses   about authorship of this document, knowing very   well  that  ASI  Arjun  Singh  Yadav,  Investigating  Officer  had  taken  it  into  possession  from  the  almirah of their house.  The Investigating Officer   (PW6) in his cross examination has stated that the  diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room  and he enquired about the author of the said letter   Ex.P-2  and  it  was  revealed  that  the  same  was  written  by the  deceased.   This  statement  can be   termed as  a  hear  say  evidence,  having no legal   sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked  about the authorship thereof.  A mere suggestion  put to Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs to the effect   that  Sarla had left  a  suicide note  regarding her   relations  with  some  other  person,  takes  us  no   where.   The  authorship  of  this  letter  could  be   proved either by producing some witness who had  seen the deceased writing and signing or the said   document  could  be  sent  to  some  handwriting  expert  alongwith  the  admitted  writing  of  Sarla   deceased for comparison.  Both the situations are   missing.  Even the Investigating Officer does not   say a word as to from whom he had verified about   authorship  of  the  said  letter.   In  case  this   document is taken to be a proved one, this would   amount  to  bye-passing  the  provisions  of  the   Evidence Act.  The Investigating Officer cannot be  all  and all.   The irresistible  conclusion,  thus,  is   that  the  document  Ex.P-2,  the  so-called  suicide   note  has  to  be  taken  out  of  the  zone  of   consideration.   The  defence  of  the  Bansi  Lal   appellant thus becomes very weak and fragile.”

13.       In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to take  

a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the  

1

suicide note was not worth consideration. It has rightly been held by  

the courts below that it was to be ignored.   

Ext.P.2,  the  so-called  suicide  note  disclosing  that  Sarla  

(deceased)  committed suicide as she developed love affair with Shiv  

Parkash has been referred to by the Investigating Officer Arjun Singh,  

ASI (PW.6) where in his cross-examination he has stated as under:-

“The diary,  letter,  and ball  pen were lying in a   window of the room.  He had enquired about the  author  of  the  letter  Ext.P.2  and it  was revealed   that it is written by Sarla, deceased.”

     The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter had not  

been examined  though they had been Mahabir Singh, Chowkidar of  

village Shiwari  and Hoshiar Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of Shiwari.  Shyam  

Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5)  both  have denied the suggestion of  

recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for  

identifying the handwriting of  Sarla  (deceased).   More so,  there is  

nothing on record to show that she was educated.  Arjun Singh, ASI  

(PW.6) has not stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of Sarla  

(deceased) nor he has disclosed on whose information he had inferred  

that the letter had been written by Sarla (deceased).  In such a fact  

situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter  

1

is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value  

because it  is  no body’s case that the alleged suicide note is  in the  

handwriting of Sarla (deceased).

14. The demand of scooter  had been consistent and persistent  as  

Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) had specifically deposed that  

the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else.  Had this  

allegation be false, the said witnesses could also mention other articles  

purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family  

members.  Therefore,  the  veracity  of  the  evidence  of  these  two  

witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted.  Both the witnesses had  

been  subjected  to  long  cross  examination  at  the  behest  of  the  

appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent  

that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false.   

15. While considering the case under Section 498-A, cruelty has to  

be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be  

continuous and such continuous harassment,  physical  or mental,  by  

the accused should make life of the deceased miserable which may  

force her to commit suicide.  In the instant case, the conduct of the  

accused forced the deceased Sarla to leave her matrimonial home just  

1

after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months  

continuously. It was only at the assurance given  by the panchayat that  

the accused or his family members would  not humiliate or subject the  

deceased Sarla with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home.  

It is specific evidence of Gulshan (PW.5) that just few days before her  

death, when he went to see her sister, there was a demand of scooter  

by the appellant. In such a fact situation, we do not find any force in  

the  submission  made  on behalf  of  the  appellant  that  there  was  no  

demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death.

16. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 113B of the  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption that accused is  

responsible for dowry death, have to be pressed in service.  The said  

provisions read as under:-

“Presumption  as  to  dowry  death.—When  the  question  is  whether  a  person has  committed  the  dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon  before her death such woman had been subjected  by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in   connection with, any demand for dowry, the court   shall  presume that  such  person  had  caused  the   dowry death.”   (emphasis supplied)                

1

It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom  

has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on the  

part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the  

person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection  

with or demand of  dowry.  It is unlike the provisions of Section 113A  

of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the  

court  wherein  it  had  been  provided  that  court  may  presume  to  

abatement of suicide by a married woman.  Therefore, in view of the  

above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case  

of Section 113B relatable to Section 304 IPC, the onus to prove shifts  

exclusively and heavily on the accused.

17. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused  

by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been  

caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman  

had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any  

relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry.

18. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have  

been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise  

1

a presumption that the accused  has caused the dowry death.  It may  

also be pertinent to mention herein that the expression shown before  

her death has not been defined in either of the statutes.  Therefore, in  

each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading  

to  the  death  of  the  victim  and  decide  if  there  is  any  proximate  

connection  between  the  demand  of  dowry  and  act  of  cruelty  or  

harassment  and  the  death.  (vide:  T.  Aruntperunjothi  v.  State  

through S.H.O., Pondicherry, AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State  

of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram,  

AIR 2008 SC 982;  Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC  

2155;    and Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,  

AIR 2010 SC 3708).

19. In  the  instant  case,  evidently,  the  suicide  note,  Ext.P-2  

purported to have been written by Sarla (deceased)  had been taken by  

appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313  

Cr.P.C.  Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by  

leading  sufficient  evidence  to  rebut  the  presumption  that  he  has  

caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed to discharge  

that onus.      

1

20.  In view of the above, the submissions advanced on behalf of  

the  appellant  are  rejected.  The  appeal  does  not  have  any  special  

features warranting interference by this court. The appeal lacks merit  

and stands dismissed.  

…………….………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,  January 14, 2011.

1

1