Page 1

REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1167 OF 2011

Hari Om                    Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Another           Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the  accused, Hari  

Om  (A-1),  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

14.05.2010  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no. 190-DB of  

2004,  which  in  turn,  arises  out  of  judgment  dated  

31.01.2004/04.02.2004  passed  by  the  Additional

Page 2

Sessions Judge, Jind in Session Case no. 57/23.12.2002  

and Session Trial No. 5 of 13.02.2003.    

2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed  

the  appeal  filed by  the appellant  (A-1)  and upheld  his  

conviction  and  sentence  for  the  offences  punishable  

under  Sections  304-B  and  498-A  of  the  Indian  Penal  

Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and allowed the appeals filed  

by the co-accused namely, Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram  

Chander  and Chander  Kala (A-2 to A-5)  and set  aside  

their conviction and sentence.

3. So  far  as  this  appeal  is  concerned,  we  are  only  

concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to  

the appellant - Hari Om (A-1).  

4. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need  

to be mentioned in brief.

5. As per the prosecution case, Poonam - a young girl  

having post-graduate degree to her credit, was married to  

A-1 on 04.07.2002. At the relevant time, A-1 was working  

2

Page 3

as sub-inspector in Delhi Police. In the marriage, Pooam's  

parents spent around Rs.6.50 lacs.  An amount of  Rs.  

3.50  lacs  was  paid  in  cash  to  the  appellant  (A-1)  for  

purchasing a car and the remaining amount was spent  

on gifts and other expenses.

6. After a week of the marriage, A-1 made a telephone  

call  to  the  parents  of  Poonam  and  demanded  several  

items - such as furniture etc., which, according to A-1,  

were  not  given  in  marriage.  On  21.7.2002,  when  A-1  

visited Poonam's parents house, collected the demanded  

items.  During  that  time,  the  appellant(A-1)  also  

complained to them that Sarris given to his relatives in  

the marriage were of inferior quality and, therefore, they  

should pay  a sum of Rs.20,000/-  in cash in lieu thereof.  

Though Poonam's parents tried their best to convince A-1  

that they did their best looking to their financial capacity  

in the marriage and now it may not be possible for them  

to  satisfy  his  demands  but  A-1  did  not  agree  and  

3

Page 4

threatened that if they do not satisfy his demands, he will  

not keep Poonam with him.  

7. After  sometime,  on  30.7.2002,  Poonam’s  parents  

(complainant)  went  to   the  house  of  A-1  and  tried  to  

persuade him and his parents to give up new demands,  

which  included  money  for  purchasing  a  flat  in  Delhi.  

However,  out  of  sheer  compulsion,  Poonam's  parents  

agreed to pay the amount as demanded at the earliest.  

On this assurance, A-1 said that they can take Poonam  

with  them and when money  is  sent,  she  can come to  

matrimonial  home.  Then  Poonam  returned  to  parental  

home  with  her  parents.   On  5.8.2002/6.8.2002,  A-1  

made  a  telephone  call  to  Poonam  reminding  her  of  

payment  for  purchasing  a  flat  in  Delhi  and  in  lieu  of  

saris.  Due to persistent illegal demands by A-1, Poonam  

became tense and on 7.8.2002 at about 6.30/7.00 AM,  

she committed suicide in her room by consuming poison.  

She  was  taken  to  civil  hospital  in  an  unconscious  

4

Page 5

condition where doctor declared her dead at 7.45 AM.  

8. This led to taking up of investigation on the basis of  

FIR  No.  336  dated  07.08.2002  (EX-PN)  lodged  by  the  

parents  of  the  deceased against  the  appellant  and her  

parents for commission of the offence punishable under  

Sections 304-B/498-B/34  IPC on the same day at about  

12.50  PM  at   Jind  Police  Station.   During  the  

investigation,  the  police  recovered  one  3-pages  hand  

written  letter  (Ex.PA)  from  Poonam's  bedroom.   On  

7.8.2002, Dr. Satija (P.W.10) conducted post mortem and  

found no injury on the  body of  the deceased.   During  

examination,  stomach  and  its  contents  were  sent  for  

chemical examination. A piece of small intestine, a piece  

of large intestine, a piece of liver, spleen and kidney with  

their contents were also sent for chemical examination.  

The report of the chemical examiner (Ex-PT) revealed that  

Poonam consumed poison (aluminum phosphide), which  

caused her death.  

5

Page 6

9. This event led to arrest of the appellant (A-1) and  

her family members (A-2 to A-5) followed by recovery of  

dowry articles from the house of  the appellant  by the  

police  and  then  filing  of  challan  against  him  and  his  

parents for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B  

and 498-B of the IPC  to which they did not plead guilty  

and  claimed  trial.  The  prosecution  examined  17  

witnesses to prove the charges in relation to the offences  

against  the  accused  persons  whereas  the  defence  

examined 19 witnesses.

10. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, by judgment  

dated  31.01.2004  and  sentence  dated  04.02.2004,  

convicted A-1 to A-5 for the offences punishable under  

Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and imposed sentenced on  

them as under :

S.NO .

NAME OF  CONVICT

UNDER  SECTION

SENTENCE AWARDED

1. Hari  Om  son  of  Ram  

304-B  IPC

Life imprisonment and to pay a  fine of Rs.5000/-

6

Page 7

Chander 498-A  IPC

Two  years  rigorous  imprisonment and to pay a fine  of Rs.1000/-.

2. Ram  Chander  son  of  Dawarka  Dass

304-B  IPC

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  ten  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.5000/-.

498-A Rigorous imprisonment for two  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-.

3. Chander  Kalan  wife  of  Ram  Chander  

304-B  IPC

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  ten  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.5000/-.

498-A Rigorous imprisonment for two  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-.

4. Subhash  son  of  Ram  Chander  

304-B  IPC

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven years and to pay fine of  Rs.5000/-.

498-A Rigorous imprisonment for two  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-.

5. Dharam  Pal  son  of  Dawarka  Dass

304-B  IPC

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven years and to pay fine of  Rs.5000/-.

498-A Rigorous imprisonment for two  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-.

11. Feeling aggrieved, all five accused (A-1 to A-5) filed  

criminal appeals before the High Court out of which this  

appeal arises. The High Court,  by impugned judgment,  

dismissed the appeal in respect of the appellant (A-1) and  

7

Page 8

upheld the conviction and sentences awarded to A-1 and  

allowed  the  appeal  in  respect  of  A-2  to  A-5,  namely,  

Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram Chander and Chander Kalan  

and acquitted them of the charges framed against them.  

12. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, A-  

1  has  filed  this  appeal  by  way  of  SLP  against  the  

impugned judgment.  

13. Mr.  Shekhar  Nahapde,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellant (A-1) confined his submission  

only to one ground. He expressly gave up his challenge to  

concurrent  finding  of  the  courts  below  so  far  as  the  

conviction  of  the  appellant  under  Section  304-B  read  

with Section 498-A is concerned. In other words, learned  

senior  counsel  accepted  the  finding  of  conviction  on  

merits,  apparently,  finding  no  merit  therein  and  

challenged  the  quantum  of  punishment  (life  

imprisonment) awarded to the appellant.  

14. According to learned senior counsel, having regard  

8

Page 9

to  all  circumstances,  which  resulted  in  appellant's  

conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the  

appellant has already undergone 9 years of imprisonment  

till date and still continues to remain in jail, this Court  

should alter the award of life sentence to that of the one  

already  undergone  by  the  appellant.   Learned  senior  

counsel  urged that  though Section 304-B(2)  prescribes  

award of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less  

than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  for  life,  yet  

according  to  him,  this  is  not  a  case  where  the  courts  

should  have  awarded  life  sentence  to  the  appellant.  

Learned counsel urged that any term more than seven  

years would meet the ends of justice and since in this  

case,  9  years  of  imprisonment  has  already  been  

undergone by the appellant, this Court should allow the  

appeal  to  this  extent  and  by  modifying  the  impugned  

judgment  in  so  far  as  the  quantum  of  sentence  is  

concerned,  reduce the  same from life  imprisonment  to  

9

Page 10

that of 9 years.

15. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant  

while  countering  the  submission  made  by  the  learned  

senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that having  

regard to the totality of circumstances emerging from the  

evidence and the fact that young girl  ended her life in  

dramatic condition within few days of her marriage, the  

award of sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant is  

fully justified and hence, this Court should not interfere  

in quantum of sentence.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on  

perusal of  entire record of the case, we are inclined to  

allow  the  appeal  in  part  finding  some  force  in  the  

submission  urged  by  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant.

17. Though the appellant did not make any attempt to  

assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a  

view to  satisfy  ourselves  as to  whether  the  concurrent  

10

Page 11

findings  of  the  courts  below  on  conviction  are  legally  

sustainable or not, we perused the record and specially  

the evidence. Having so perused, we are satisfied that no  

case is made out to interfere in concurrent findings of the  

courts below on merits for the following reasons.  

18. Firstly, Poonam committed suicide and died within  

one month of her marriage.  This event attracted rigor of  

Section 304-B read with Section 498-A IPC and Section  

113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872.  Secondly, her death  

was due to persistent illegal demands of dowry made by  

the appellant one after the other to Poonam and to her  

parents.  Thirdly, the death of Poonam had a direct nexus  

with  demand  of  dowry  duly  proved  by  evidence  and  

Poonam's  suicide  note  (EX-PA)  mentioning  therein  the  

reasons, which compelled her to end her life. Fourthly,  

the suicide note was duly proved to be in the handwriting  

of the deceased; fifthly, defence witnesses were not able  

to demolish or weaken the prosecution case on any of  

11

Page 12

these  material  issues  and  lastly,  in  the  light  of  these  

established facts, a clear case under Section 304-B read  

with  Section  498-B  of  IPC  and  Section  113-B  of  the  

Evidence Act for drawing presumption as to dowry death  

under Section 304-B was made out against the appellant.

19. We,  therefore,  on  our  part  uphold  the  finding  of  

conviction and hold that the courts below were justified  

in holding the appellant(A-1) to be guilty of committing  

offences  punishable  under  Section  304-B  read  with  

Section 498-B IPC,  which caused death of  Poonam.

20. Now, the question arises as to whether we should  

reduce the appellant's sentence and if so, to what extent,  

as urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

21. This  issue has been the subject  matter  of  debate  

before  this  Court  in  several  cases,  which  arose  out  of  

Section 304-B read with Section 498-B and wherein this  

Court while interpreting the expression "may" occurring  

in Section 304-B IPC held that it is not mandatory for the  

12

Page 13

Court  in every case to  award life  imprisonment  to  the  

accused once he is found guilty of offence under Section  

304-B.  It was held that the Court could award sentence  

in exercise of  its discretion between seven years to life  

imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case.  It  

was held that in no case it could be less than seven years  

and  that  extreme  punishment  of  life  term  should  be  

awarded in “rare cases” but not in every case.

22. In the case of  Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana,  

(1994)  6  SCC 727,  the  courts  below had  awarded  life  

term  to  the  accused  under  Section  304-B  read  with  

Section 498-A but this Court reduced it to 10 years . This  

was also a case where the accused was a police officer  

who had suffered life imprisonment. This Court held as  

under:

“7.……. the accused-appellant was a police employee  and instead of checking the crime, he himself indulged  therein  and  precipitated  in  it  and  that  bride-killing  cases are on the increase and therefore a serious view  has to be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304-B  IPC  only  raises  presumption  and  lays  down  that  

13

Page 14

minimum sentence should be seven years but it may  extend  to  imprisonment  for  life.  Therefore  awarding  extreme punishment  of  imprisonment  for  life  should  be in rare cases and not in every case.

8. Hence, we are of the view that a sentence of 10  years’  RI  would  meet  the  ends  of  justice.  We,  accordingly  while  confirming  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  Section  304-B  IPC,  reduce  the  sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years’ RI. ….”

23. Similarly this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.V.  

Manjunathegowda and Anr.,  (2003) 2 SCC 188,  while  

convicting the accused under Section 304-B awarded 10  

years imprisonment in somewhat similar facts.

24. Recently  in  G.V.  Siddaramesh  Vs.  State  of  

Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152, this Court while allowing  

the appeal filed by the accused only on the question of  

sentence altered the sentence from life term to 10 years  

on more or less similar facts. Hon’ble H. L. Dattu, J. (as  

His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held as  

under:

“31. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  appellant  was  rightly convicted under Section 304-B IPC. However,  his  sentence  of  life  imprisonment  imposed  by  the  courts  below  appears  to  us  to  be  excessive.  The  appellant is a young man and has already undergone  6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the  

14

Page 15

Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are  of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case,  that  a  sentence  of  10  years’  rigorous  imprisonment  would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly while  confirming  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  Section  304-B  IPC,  reduce  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  for  life  to  10  years’  rigorous  imprisonment.  The  other  conviction  and  sentence  passed against the appellant are confirmed.”

25. Applying  the  principle  of  law  laid  down  in  the  

aforementioned cases and having regard to the totality of  

facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we  are  of  the  

considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if  

we  reduce  the  sentence  of  the  appellant  from  life  

imprisonment to that of 10 years.  In our view, this case  

does not fall in the category of a "rare case" as envisaged  

by this  Court  so  as  to  award to  the  appellant  the  life  

imprisonment.  That  apart,  we  also  notice  that  while  

awarding  life  imprisonment,  the  courts  below  did  not  

assign any reasons.  

26. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant  

were not  able to cite any authority  in support of  their  

15

Page 16

submission  except  to  oppose  the  prayer  made  by  the  

appellant.  Therefore,  we  are  not  impressed  by  their  

submission.

27. In  the  light  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal  

succeeds and is  allowed in part.  The conviction of  the  

appellant-Hari Om (A-1) under Sections 304-B read with  

Section 498-A IPC is upheld. However, the sentence (life  

imprisonment)  awarded to  the appellant  is  altered and  

accordingly,  is  reduced  to  10  years’  rigorous  

imprisonment.  To  this  extent,  the  impugned  judgment  

stands modified.                                           

                              ……………………………………………………J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

                   .….…...............................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; October 31, 2014

16