REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.767 OF 2012

JAGDISH CHAND & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI.

1. The appellants who are the father­in­law and mother­

in­law of the deceased, one Shanti Devi, have been convicted

under Sections 304­B and 498­A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).   They  have  been  sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence

under Section 304­B IPC and for a period of one year for the

offence under Section 498­A IPC.  Sentences of fine for each

of the offences had also been imposed.   In appeal, the High

Court, while affirming the conviction of the accused

appellants, had, however, reduced the sentence so far as the

offence under Section 304­B IPC is concerned from a period

2

of ten years custody to a period of seven years custody.

Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

2. The FIR in the present case was lodged by one Kalu

Ram, father of the deceased, who was working as a Clerk in

Government  Girls  High School,  Pataudi.  According  to  the

complainant, the marriage between his daughter Shanti Devi

and accused Raj Kumar, son of the appellants, Jagdish

Chand and Mishri Devi, was solemnised on 19.4.1988.

Immediately after the marriage and despite giving of

sufficient gifts by the complainant to the accused party, there

were demands of further dowry including demands for a

scooter and television.  As the complainant was unable to

fulfil the demands, the deceased was turned out  from the

matrimonial  home whereafter she stayed with her parents.

This had happened on several occasions.   According to the

complainant, on all such occasions, the deceased returned to

her matrimonial home only to be turned out again.   Finally,

in the night intervening 6th and 7th December, 1994, death of

Shanti Devi on account of burn injuries had occurred leading

to institution of the FIR in question.

3

3. The evidence of PW­1, Dr. S.K. Gupta, who conducted

the  post  mortem on the  dead  body  of  Shanti  Devi on  8th

December, 1994; the evidence of PW­6, the complainant Kalu

Ram; the deposition of PW­7, Sarjit Singh, a co­employee of

PW­6; and the evidence of PW­8, Sanjay, son of the

complainant would be relevant to be noticed.

4. From the evidence of PW­1, it transpires that the death

was on account of shock due to ante mortem burns which

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.

According to PW­1, the extent of burns on the dead body was

100 per cent and were caused by kerosene.

5. PW­6,  Kalu Ram,  the complainant and  father of the

deceased reiterated the version stated  by  him in the  FIR

including the  details of  what  was reported to  him by the

deceased with regard to her ill­treatment on account of dowry

demands.  PW­6 also had deposed that on several occasions

the deceased  Shanti  Devi had been turned out from the

matrimonial home and she had come to stay with her

parents only to go back on assurance of good  behaviour

finally culminating in the incident of 6th­7th, December, 1994

4

resulting in  her  death.  PW­7 and PW­8 corroborated the

evidence of PW­6.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we

have considered the matter.  We have also considered the

judgments  of the  Trial  Court  and  that  of the  High Court,

presently under challenge in this appeal.

7. Admittedly, death in the instant case took place within

seven years of the marriage which was solemnised on

19.4.1988 and the incident of death  had occurred on 6­

7.12.1994.  Though the defence had tried to prove otherwise,

namely, that death had occurred beyond seven years of

marriage, no concrete evidence in this regard has been

forthcoming.  Demands for dowry by the accused­appellants

as well as the husband and ill­treatment/cruelty on failure to

meet the said demands is evident from the evidence of PW­6.

From the evidence of PW­1, it is clear that the death was on

account of burn injuries suffered by the deceased  which

injuries were caused by use of kerosene.   In the light of the

aforesaid evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding

that all the three ingredients necessary to draw the

5

presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304­

B IPC have been proved and established by the prosecution.

Consequently, the presumption under Section 113­B of the

Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused and

in the absence of any defence evidence to rebut the same, the

Court has  to hold  the accused guilty of the offence under

Section 304­B IPC.  On the basis of the same consideration,

the  offence  under  Section 498­A must  also  be  held to  be

proved against the accused persons.  We, therefore, have no

hesitation in dismissing the appeal and in affirming the

conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.

8. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

………………………..…..,CJI  [RANJAN GOGOI]

...……………………..…….,J. [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………..…….,J.  [NAVIN SINHA]

New Delhi; January 07, 2019.