Page 1

REPORTAB LE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINALL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2013

NARESH KUMAR                 .....  APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA  & ORS.                         .....  RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against Judgment and  

Order dated 12th March, 2013 of the High Court of Punjab  

and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appral No.S-736-SB  

of  2003  upholding  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentence  

of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years.

2. Case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  the  appellant  was  

married to the deceased Rekha Rani on 7th July, 2000.  After  

the  marriage,  she  was  harassed  for  having  brought

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

insufficient  dowry and the appellant  raised a demand for  

motor  cycle  apart  from the  demands  by  his  mother  and  

younger brother.  After about three months of marriage, the  

deceased  gave  a  telephonic  call  to  her  father  about  the  

demand for dowry.  Her father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along  

with  his  younger  brother  Raghubir  Lal  (PW-12),  met  the  

husband  of  the  deceased  and  his  other  relatives  and  

pleaded that she may not be harassed as he was not in a  

position  to  give  more  dowry.   The  accused,  however,  

continued to harass her.  On 29th April, 2001, the deceased  

again telephoned her father about the harassment on which  

Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the accused and  

brought back the deceased to her parental home.  However,  

on the next day, the appellant came to the place of his in-

laws  and  insisted  that  the  deceased  be  sent  with  him,  

threatening that otherwise he will divorce her.  On this, the  

deceased  was  sent  with  the  appellant.   Next  day,  on 1st  

May, 2001, at about 12 O’clock, information was received  

by the family of the deceased that she had received burn  

injuries  and  was  taken  to  the  hospital.   Father  of  the  

deceased  Kashmiri  Lal  (PW-3)  along  with  his  younger  

brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12) and brother in-law Guddar Mal  

2

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

(PW-10)  reached  the  hospital  at  2.00  P.M.  where  the  

deceased told them that she was given beatings and set on  

fire by the appellant and his family members. Thereafter,  

the deceased died on account of extensive burn injuries.    

3. Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report  

(Exhibit  PA/1).   SI  Rakham Singh  (PW-13)  conducted  the  

investigation  and  sent  up  the  accused  for  trial.   The  

prosecution led evidence in support of its case comprising  

of relatives to prove demand of dowry, apart from medical  

evidence and evidence of investigation. The accused denied  

the prosecution allegations and stated that  the deceased  

committed suicide on account of harassment by her uncle  

Raghubir  Lal  (PW-12)  who  wanted  her  to  relinquish  her  

rights  in  the  parental  property.   The  accused  examined  

Vinod Kumar (DW-1)  who had taken the deceased to  the  

hospital and stated that her relations with the accused were  

cordial.  Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the appellant was  

also  examined  who  stated  that  at  the  time  of  alleged  

incident, the appellant was on duty.

4. The  trial  Court,  after  considering  the  evidence  on  

record, held that the prosecution case was proved beyond  

3

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and the co-

accused.

5. On  further  appeal,  the  High  Court  upheld  the  

conviction  of  the  appellant  but  acquitted  the  co-accused  

Champa  Devi  (mother  of  the  appellant)  and  Lalit  Kumar  

(brother of the appellant).

6. We have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the evidence on record.

7. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel  

Shri G.C. Shahpuri submitted that the prosecution failed to  

prove the demand of dowry “soon before the death” which  

was the necessary ingredient for the offence under Section  

304  B,  IPC.   He  relied  upon  Judgment  of  this  Court  in  

Manohar  Lal vs. State  of  Haryana1.   It  was  also  

submitted that the deceased had left a suicide note (Exhibit  

P-4)  to  the  effect  that  nobody  be  held  responsible  if  

something happened to her and in the said note there is no  

allegation of  demand of  dowry.   He lastly  submitted that  

since the High Court had acquitted mother and brother of  

the  appellant  on  the  same  evidence,  the  case  of  the  

appellant being at par, there was no justification to convict  

him.

1 AIR (2014)  SC 2555

4

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

8. We have given due consideration to the submissions  

advanced on behalf of the appellant but we do not find any  

merit.

9. There  is  consistent  evidence  on  record  to  prove  

harassment  for  dowry  soon  before  the  death  of  the  

deceased.  The  deceased  died  within  10  months  of  the  

marriage.   According to PW3, father of the deceased, after  

three months of the marriage, the deceased informed him  

that  the  appellant  and  his  family  were  harassing  her  for  

dowry.   He,  along with  PW-12,  went  to  the  house  of  the  

appellant  and requested them not  to  harass  her.   Again,  

three days before the occurrence,  on 28 April,  2001,  the  

deceased informed her father about the dowry harassment  

on which her uncle PW-12, along with his wife, went to the  

house  of  the  accused  and  brought  the  deceased  to  her  

parental home.  The appellant took her away on the threat  

of divorce and on the next day, she died of burn injuries.  

Similar version has been given by Guddar Mal (PW-10) and  

Raghubir  Lal  (PW-12).   The  version  is  supported  by  her  

death  by  burning.   There  is  no  other  cogent  reason  to  

explain the cause of her death except the harassment for  

dowry.   There  is  live  and  proximate  link  between  the  

5

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

demand of  dowry  and  death.   In  these  circumstances,  it  

cannot  be  held  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  demand  of  

dowry “soon before the death”.    In Manohar Lal  (supra)  

relied upon on behalf of the appellant, this Court noted that  

there was neither any specific instance suggesting cruelty  

or harassment nor any of the witnesses had stated that the  

deceased  was  harassed  “soon  before  the  death”  in  

connection with the demand of dowry.  Contrary to the fact  

situation noticed in the said case, in the present case, all  

the  three  witnesses  mentioned  above  –  Kashmiri  Lal,  

Guddar  Mal  and  Raghubir  Lal  have  specifically  and  

categorically deposed about demand of dowry soon before  

her death.

10. We may now refer to the suicide note.  It, inter alia,  

states :

“All the doors are closed for me.  Besides  this, no other way is available to me and   I adopted the way which I liked.”

The tenor of the suicide note clearly shows that the  

deceased was in helpless condition and she found no other  

way to come out of the situation.  The suicide note cannot  

be taken to be encyclopaedia of the entire situation in which  

the deceased was placed.  It is not possible to infer from the  

said note that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial  

6

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

home. Mere mention that nobody may be held responsible,  

while also stating that all the doors were closed for her and  

she had no other way available (except to leave the world),  

is not enough to exonerate the appellant.   When a young  

married girl finds herself in helpless situation and decides to  

end  her  life,  in  absence  of  any  other  circumstance,  it  is  

natural to infer that she was unhappy in her matrimonial  

home.  A suicide note cannot be treated as conclusive of  

there  being  no  one  responsible  for  the  situation  when  

evidence on record categorically points to harassment for  

dowry.  One cannot lose sight of the fact that unfortunately  

the menace dowry deaths still exists in our society and has  

been subject of expert studies.  The Law Commission, in its  

91thst Report dated 10th August, 1983, recommended reform  

of  the  law  to  deal  with  the  situation  which  led  to  

incorporation of Sections 304 B in IPC, making ‘dowry death’  

an  offence  and  Section  113B  in  the  Evidence  Act  which  

provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case  

of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when  

it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for  

dowry soon before her  death.   These aspects  have been  

7

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

considered by this Court in  Hira Lal and Ors.  vs. State  

(Govt. of NCT) Delhi2  and other judgments.

11. The circumstances have thus to be appreciated in the  

light  of  the  above social  and  legislative  background.   As  

already  noted,  in  the  present  case,  there  is  plethora  of  

evidence to prove the demand of dowry “soon before the  

death” giving rise to the presumption against the appellant.

12. As  regards  the  claim  for  parity  of  the  case  of  the  

appellant  with  his  mother  and  brother  who  have  been  

acquitted, the High Court has rightly found his case to be  

distinguishable  from the  case  of  his  mother  and  brother.  

The husband is not only primarily responsible for safety of  

his wife, he is expected to be conversant with her state of  

mind more  than any other  relative.   If  the wife  commits  

suicide  by  setting  herself  on  fire,  proceeded  by  

dissatisfaction  of  the  husband  and  his  family  from  the  

dowry, the interference of harassment against the husband  

may be patent. Responsibility of the husband towards his  

wife is qualitatively different and higher as against his other  

relatives.  

13. On  proof  of  the  essential  ingredients  mentioned  in  

Section 113 B, if the statutory presumption arises against  

2 (2003) 8 SCC 80

8

Page 9

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

the accused which shifts  the burden on the accused, the  

accused must give cogent explanation.  Failure to give an  

explanation or giving of false explanation can be taken as  

an additional circumstance against him.   The requirement  

of allegations of demand of dowry against the relatives of  

the husband may have to be more specific and the Court  

may be more cautious in dealing with such allegations, if  

there is any doubt about over implication, but responsibility  

of the husband may be obvious from the circumstances.  In  

these circumstances, the case of the appellant cannot stand  

at par with his mother and brother who have been acquitted  

by  the  High  Court,  by  way  of  caution  against  over  

implication, as well as for want of cogent evidence against  

them.  Case of the husband stands on different footing.

14. Thus,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  upholding  the  

conviction and sentence of the appellant as we do not find  

any reason to interfere with the concurrent  orders of  the  

courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant.   

15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.  The appellant is  

directed to  surrender  to  undergo the remaining sentence  

failing which he may be arrested and committed to custody  

to complete the sentence awarded to him.

9

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

……..…………………………….J. [  T.S. THAKUR ]

.….………………………………..J.             [ ADARSH KUMAR  

GOEL ]

……..…………………………….J. [  R. BANUMATHI ]

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 14, 2014

10