Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2009

MANOHAR LAL  … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  dated  26th  

March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  

Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.529-SB of 1994. By the impugned  

judgment  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  and  upheld  the  

conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304B IPC  

for which he stands sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Phullan @ Darshana,  

(deceased) was married to the accused-Manohar Lal about 5 years  

prior to her death which took place on 27th August, 1991.  She was  

subjected to harassment for dowry and finally she died on account  

of burn injuries. Raj Rani (PW-1), mother of the deceased on  

learning about the incident, went to Civil Hospital and found the  

victim dead.  Thereafter she made statement (Exh.PD) before the  

Police at 12.05 P.M. on 28th August, 1991, on the basis of which  

FIR  was  registered.  Apart  from  the  appellant,  his  brothers

Page 2

2

Krishan Lal, Harbans Lal, his father Gopal Dass, mother Shanti  

and wife of the brother Smt. Champa were also made accused.

ASI Surat Kant (PW.9) investigated the case and recorded  

the D.D.R.-Ex. P.M. on the statement of Hans Raj(PW.8) and Sat  

Pal. He then alongwith the above-said persons went to the house  

where  the  death  took  place  and  prepared  the  inquest  report  

-Ex.P.H./1.  He took into possession one pipi -Ex. P.7, steel bowl  

-Ex. P-8, burnt match sticks Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 and half burnt  

piece of cloth alongwith some cash. .After sealing the  same into  

separate parcels with the seal of SK, vide recovery memo Ex. P.N.  

attested by PWs  site plan-Ex.P.O. was also prepared by him with  

correct marginal notes. Photographs of the dead body were also  

taken by Swaran Kumar (PW.7).  The dead body was sent to the  

Civil Hospital, through constable Krishan Lal, for post-mortem  

examination. On the next day, Raj Rani(PW.1)  made her statement  

-Ex.P.D. on which endorsement -Ex.PD/1 was made and on the  basis  

of  which   formal  FIR  -Ex.P.D./2  was  recorded  by   ASI-  Ram  

Krishna. Krishan Lal,  Constable  produced before him  one pair  

of ear rings of gold which were made into a parcel and sealed  

with  the seal  SK and  taken into possession vide recovery memo  

Ex.P.P.. The accused were arrested on 30th August, 1991 and dowry  

articles were recovered and were taken into possession vide memo  

Ex.P.O. Complainant-Raj Rani (PW.1) also produced before him the  

list of Kanayadan Mark A. After completion of the investigation,  

all the accused were charge-sheeted for offence   under Section

Page 3

3

498-A  /34 IPC  and  Section  304B/34 IPC,  to which  the  accused  

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The  prosecution  examined  altogether  nine  witnesses  and  

placed on record the documentary evidence. Defence also produced  

Ram Prakash as defence witness. The Trial Court after hearing the  

parties and on appreciation of evidence by the  judgment dated  

25th August,  1994  convicted  the  appellant  for  the  offence  

punishable under Section 304B IPC  and sentenced him to  undergo  

RI for seven years.  The rest of the accused i.e. his brothers  

Krishan Lal, Harbans Lal, his father Gopal Dass,  mother Shanti  

and wife of the brother Smt. Champa were acquitted by the Trial  

Court on the ground  that they were all residing separately at a  

far place from the place of occurrence where deceased was living  

with the appellant.

4. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  made  the  following  

submissions:

(a) There was inordinate delay of twenty hours in lodging  

FIR.

(b) The prosecution failed to prove that accused harassed  

the  deceased  ‘soon  before  the  death’  for  or  in  

connection with the demand of dowry.

(c) Satpal,  son  of  Bodha  Ram  and  Puran  Chand  in  their  

statements  under  Section  174  Cr.P.C.  did  not  say  

anything about cruelty on account of demand of dowry.

(d) The accused Manohar Lal married with Darshana @ Phoolan  

eight years prior to her death.  Therefore, provisions  

of Section 304B IPC is not  attracted in  this case.

Page 4

4

5. Raj Rani (PW.1), mother of the deceased- Darshana @Phullan  

stated that the accused married her daughter about five years  

back. The  accused  used  to harass  her  daughter  on  account  of  

inadequacy  of  dowry  and  used  to  make  demands  for  cash.  

According to PW-1, the accused made a demand of Rs. 10,000/-  

which she could not meet.  All the accused persons used to give  

beatings to Darshana @ Phullan and she was pressurized to bring  

more  items  of  dowry  while  sufficient  dowry  was  given  to the  

accused at the time of marriage. Initially for about eight days,  

the accused kept her daughter nicely but thereafter she used to  

be harassed and beaten by the accused repeatedly. During the life  

time of father of the deceased, he used to meet the dowry demands  

of the appellant. The deceased used to complain that her husband  

was not allowing her to stay in the matrimonial home unless some  

payments were made and the complainant(PW.1) had been paying her  

money and used to sent her back to the matrimonial house by  

meeting the demands of the appellant.   

   6. One day prior to the last Rakhi festival, Jindu Ram-father-

in-law of PW.1 went to the house of in-laws of Darshana@Phullan  

to meet her and on his return, Jindu Ram (father-in-law of PW.1)  

informed her that Darshana @ Phullan told that she was beaten by  

the accused after taking liquor and it was not possible for her  

to live in the matrimonial house. This information was given to  

PW.1 by her father-in-law in presence of her maternal uncle Devi  

Lal.   

Page 5

5

7. She further stated that about 8-9 months after the rakhi  

festival,  her  daughter-Darshana  @  Phullan  died.  She  had  been  

killed by her-in-laws. She then came to Yamuna Nagar and saw the  

dead body of her daughter having external injuries on her dead  

person which appeared to have been caused on being strangulated.  

Policed recorded the statement of PW.1 and took thumb impression  

which was marked as Ext.PD. The above statement is not supported  

by any evidence and contradictory to post mortem report, which  

shows that the death was due to shock resulting from burns.

8. During the cross-examination, she stated that she made the  

statement before the police that till the death of her husband,  

he was meeting the demands of the accused through her daughter  

and used to give money and other articles. During the cross-

examination, she further stated that she was informed by Jindu,  

her  father-in-law  that  the  deceased  was  being  beaten  by  her  

husband after consuming liquor and that she wanted the matter to  

be  settled once for all. When confronted with  the statement-

EX.P.D. it was found that no such statement was given before the  

police. Her statement that her maternal uncle was also present,  

when confronted with Ex.P.D., it was not found recorded. Jindu,  

father-in-law of PW.1 also did not support the   case of the  

prosecution.  Therefore, he was declared hostile.

9. PW.5 -Smt. Usha Rani, neighbor of the deceased also did not  

support the story of the prosecution. Therefore, she was also  

declared hostile.

Page 6

6

10. PW.3 -Dr.N.K.Garg had conducted post-mortem examination of  

deceased-Darshana @Phullan on 28th August, 1991 at 12.30P.M.  Dr.  

A.K. Gupta was also present with PW.3. Carbon copy of post-mortem  

report  indicates  that  death  was  due  to  shock  resulting  from  

burns. PW.4 -Om Parkash, draftsman had prepared the site plan  

-Ex.P.J. of the place of occurrence.

11. PW.5-Usha Rani as stated above, informed that Manohar Lal  

was residing with his wife-Darshana @ Phullan and she did not  

know how deceased-Darshana @ Phullan was treated by her husband.  

In her cross-examination, she stated that when she asked, the  

deceased told her that husband had beaten her.  But she did not  

state the specific date of the incident. PW.5 was also declared  

hostile.   

12. PW.6-Ram  Mehar  Singh,  Constable  tendered  his  affidavit  

Ex.P.M. in evidence. PW.7-Sarwan Kumar- Photographer went to the  

house of accused-Manohar Lal and took three photographs- Ex.P.1  

to Ex.P.3 and the positives are Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6.  PW.8-Hans Raj  

alongwith Sat Pal saw smoke coming out from the house of Manohar  

Lal. They went there and saw that one girl was lying burning.  

They went to police post and lodged report Ex.P.M. Then they came  

back with the police and were asked by the police to go to the  

village Antawa to inform the parents of the accused that their  

Bahu had died.  Then they went there and informed   accordingly.

Page 7

7

13. PW.9-ASI  Surat  Kant,  Investigating  Officer  supported  the  

prosecution story and submitted the report of FSL as evidence  

Ex.P.R.

14. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused were  

examined  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  on  all  the  material  

particulars appearing against them. Accused-Manohar Lal admitted  

his marriage with the deceased. He denied the other allegations  

against him. He took specific plea that he had separated from his  

parents just after the marriage and was living at Yamuna Nagar.  

He pleaded innocence and stated that for the last 4 or 5 years,  

he was working with Prakash Transport as driver and was living  

happily with his wife. A daughter was also born out of their  

wedlock. He never made any demand of dowry and never maltreated  

the deceased-   Darshana     @     Phullan  . He also stated that his wife-

deceased Darshana   @     Phullan   got her cousin sister Santosh engaged  

with his brother Kishan about 2 years prior to the incident.  

About 2 ½ months before the incident, his brother refused to  

accept  the  proposal  of  relationship  due  to  which  relations  

between  his  in-laws  and  his  parents  became  strained.   They  

stopped  visiting  his  parents  and  his  parents  also  stopped  

visiting his in-laws. On the day of occurrence, he was away and  

on return in the evening he found his wife dead. He alleged that  

his in-laws were demanding money which he did not give, and as a  

result, false case of dowry-death got registered against him.

15. In  defence,  the  accused  produced  Ram  Prakash,  owner  of  

Prakash Transport. He stated that on 26th August, 1991, accused-

Page 8

8

Manohar Lal was employed with him as driver  of a truck and went  

to Kaithal. He came back at 5.00P.M. and told him about the  

incident.  He handed over the accused-Manohar Lal to the police.

16. Section  304B  IPC  relates  to  dowry  death  and  reads  as  

follows:

“304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a  woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or  occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances  within seven years of her marriage and it is shown  that soon before her death she was subjected to  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband  or  any  relative  of  her  husband  for,  or  in  connection  with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be  called  “dowry  death”,  and  such  husband  or  relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.  Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,  “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section  2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished  with imprisonment for a term which shall not be  less  than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  to  imprisonment for life.”

17. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be  

raised only on proof of the following essentials:

(a) Death of the woman was caused by burns or bodily injury  or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(b) Such  death  took  place  within  seven  years  of  her  marriage.

(c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her  husband or his relatives.

(d) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection  with, any demand for dowry and

(e) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

Page 9

9

In this connection, we may refer decision of this Court in  

Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.

18. In  Sunil Bajaj  vs.  State of M.P.,  (2001) 9 SCC 417, this  

Court held:

“5. We have given our attention and consideration  to the submissions made by the learned counsel for  the parties. Normally this Court will be slow and re- luctant, as it ought to be, to upset the order of  conviction of the trial court as confirmed by the  High Court appreciating the evidence placed on re- cord. But in cases where both the courts concurrently  recorded a finding that the accused was guilty of an  offence in the absence of evidence satisfying the ne- cessary ingredients of an offence, in other words,  when no offence was made out, it becomes necessary to  disturb such an order of conviction and sentence to  meet the demand of justice. In order to convict an  accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the  following essentials must be satisfied: (1) the death of a woman must have been caused by  

burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal  circumstances; (2) such death must have occurred within 7 years of  

her marriage; (3) soon before her death, the woman must have been  

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or  by relatives of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment must be for or in  

connection with demand of dowry. 6. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients  

are  established  by  acceptable  evidence  such  death  shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or his  relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. It  may be noticed that punishment for the offence of  dowry death under Section 304-B is imprisonment of  not less than 7 years, which may extend to imprison- ment for life. Unlike under Section 498-A IPC, hus- band or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her  to cruelty shall be liable for imprisonment for a  term which may extend to three years and shall also  be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case the  accused can be punished for an offence on establish- ment of commission of that offence on the basis of  evidence, maybe direct or circumstantial or both. But  in case of an offence under Section 304-B IPC, an ex- ception is made by deeming provision as to nature of  death as “dowry death” and that the husband or his

Page 10

10

relative,  as  the  case  may  be,  is  deemed  to  have  caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to  prove these aspects but on proving the existence of  the  ingredients  of  the  said  offence  by convincing  evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and  caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the  punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scru- tinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclu- sion as to whether all the abovementioned ingredients  of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In the  case on hand, the learned counsel for the appellant  could not dispute that the first two ingredients men- tioned above are satisfied.”

19. The expression “soon before her death” used in the Section  

304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act was considered by  

this Court in Hira Lal  & Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,  

(2003) 8 SCC 80,which reads as under:

“8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death,  reads as follows:

“304-B.  Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a  woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or  occurs  otherwise  than  under  normal  circumstances  within seven years of her marriage and it is shown  that soon before her death she was subjected to  cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relat- ive of her husband for, or in connection with, any  demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry  death’,  and  such  husband  or  relative  shall  be  deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.—For  the  purpose  of  this  sub-sec- tion, ‘dowry’ shall have the same meaning as in  Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of  1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be pun- ished with imprisonment for a term which shall not  be less than seven years but which may extend to  imprisonment for life.” The provision has application when death of a woman  is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs  otherwise  than  under  normal  circumstances  within  seven years of her marriage and it is shown that  soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty  or harassment by her husband or any relatives of  her husband for, or in connection with any demand  for dowry. In order to attract application of Sec-

Page 11

11

tion 304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as  follows:

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by  burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a  normal circumstance.

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within  seven years of her marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or  harassment by her husband or any relative of her  husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or  in connection with demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have  been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant  for the case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as  noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act  43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing  menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as fol- lows:

“113-B. 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.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,  ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in  Section  304-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (45  of  1860).” The necessity for insertion of the two provisions  has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of  India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on “Dowry  Deaths and Law Reform”. Keeping in view the impedi- ment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence  to  prove  dowry-related  deaths,  the  legislature  thought it wise to insert a provision relating to  presumption of dowry death on proof of certain es- sentials. It is in this background that presumptive  Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inser- ted. As per the definition of “dowry death” in Sec- tion 304-B IPC and the wording in the presumptive  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the es- sential ingredients, amongst others, in both the  provisions is that the woman concerned must have  been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty  or harassment “for or in connection with the demand  of  dowry”.  Presumption  under  Section  113-B  is  a  presumption of law. On proof of the essentials men-

Page 12

12

tioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court  to raise a presumption that the accused caused the  dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only  on proof of the following essentials:

(1)  The  question  before  the  court  must  be  whether the accused has committed the dowry death  of the woman. (This means that the presumption can  be raised only if the accused is being tried for  the offence under Section 304-B IPC.)

(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or har- assment by her husband or his relatives.

(3) Such cruelty  or harassment was for or in  connection with any demand for dowry.

(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before  her death.”

Similar observation was made by this Court in Balwant Singh and  

Another vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724. In the said case  

this Court held:  

“10. These decisions and other decisions of this  Court do lay down the proximity test. It has been  reiterated in several decisions of this Court that  “soon  before”  is  an  expression  which  permits  of  elasticity, and therefore the proximity test has to  be applied keeping in view the facts and circum- stances of each case. The facts must show the ex- istence of a proximate live link between the effect  of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of  the victim.”

20. In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it appears  

that the death took place within seven years of marriage. Admit-

tedly, death of the deceased was due to burning i.e. not in nor-

mal circumstances. We have to see now whether the remaining two  

ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record.

21. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not  

specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting  

the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her

Page 13

13

statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the alle-

gation of demand of dowry was made none of the witnesses includ-

ing PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon before her  

death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused  

appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC  

but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section  

498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prose-

cution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed  

the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a  

demand of dowry.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment passed by the Trial  

Court dated 26th August, 1994 as upheld by the High Court by im-

pugned judgment dated 26th March, 2007, cannot be upheld.  They  

are accordingly set aside.  The accused-Manohar Lal is acquit-

ted from the charge under Section 304B IPC. The appeal is al-

lowed.  Bail Bonds, if any, stand discharged.

………………………………………………………………………………J.

 (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)    

………………………………………………………………………………J.

                                   (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI,                   

JULY 01, 2014.

Page 14

ITEM NO.1E               COURT NO.6                 SECTION IIB (For Judgment)

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1188/2009

MANOHAR LAL                                        Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                                   Respondent(s)

Date : 01/07/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal ,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Santosh Singh ,Adv.

          Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced  

the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.

Page 15

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable  judgment.

(MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                               (USHA SHARMA)   COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER  

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]