Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2011

RAJINDER KUMAR      … 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 1st  

September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana,  

Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.238-SB  of  2002  alongwith  

another  case.   By  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  

dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and  

affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the  

Trial Court u/s 304B of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court  is as follows:

Raj Rani, youngest sister of complainant Ganpat Rai was  

married with accused Rajinder Kumar on 10th May, 1996 as per  

Hindu rites.  At the time of marriage, the complainant had  

given handsome dowry and spent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-.  When

Page 2

2

Raj  Rani  went  to  her  in-laws  second  time,  her  husband-

Rajinder, mother-in-law Darshna Devi, sisters-in-law Murti and  

Chirya  and  brother-in-law  Binder  started  taunting  and  

harassing her. On getting information, complainant Ganpat Rai  

alongwith his brothers Ghansham and Hari Chand came to village  

Dharsul and advised the accused not to harass Raj Rani. On  

this, accused persons stated that they will behave in this  

very  manner and  if they  want to  take away  Raj Rani,  they  

should get divorce. After that also, they continued to harass  

Raj Rani in the same manner.  Again complainant Ganpat Rai  

along with Balak Ram went to the in-laws of Raj Rani and on  

21st October, 1996 on the festival of Dushera Raj Rani was  

brought to complainant’s house. At that time, accused-Rajinder  

and his family members asked Raj Rani that she should bring  

Rs.20,000/- while coming back, otherwise it will not be good.  

On 28th October, 1996 Chanan Ram uncle of Rajinder and Binder  

came to village Chatha Nanhera at the house of the complainant  

along with customary gifts on the festival of Karwa Chauth.  

He stayed there for two days.  On 30th October, 1996 i.e. one  

day before the occurrence, Raj Rani was brought back to her  

matrimonial  house  at  Dharsul.  Hari  Chand  brother  of  the  

complainant and Gurmel Singh also came along with her. Raj  

Rani told Hari Chand that her husband and in-laws had demanded  

Rs.20,000/-  and  since  the  same  has  not  been  paid,  they  

(accused) will kill her once Hari Chand and Gurmel Singh leave  

the  place  On  this  Hari  Chand  assured  her  that  they

Page 3

3

will come back after 2/3 days and pay the money and returned  

to the village of the complainant alongwith Gurmel Singh. On  

31st October, 1996 at about 6.00 AM, Tek Chand son of Krishan,  

resident of village Kulan came to the house of the complainant  

and  told  that  Raj  Rani  has  been  murdered  on  the  night  

intervening  30/31st October,  1996  by  Rajinder,  Binder  her  

mother-in-law Darshna and sisters-in-law Murti and Chirya on  

account  of  bringing  less  dowry.  On  this  information,  

complainant, his brother Hari Chand and Sukhpal Bansal reached  

village Dharsul Kalan and saw the dead body of Raj Rani was  

lying on a cot in Chubara.  

On the statement of complainant Ganpat Rai FIR (Ex.PA/1)  

was registered and investigation was started by Chander Singh,  

Sub  Inspector.  Dr.  P.L.  Verma  (PW-6)  conducted  the  post  

mortem. After receiving report of the Chemical Examiner the  

cause of death was shown to be poisoning due to consumption of  

aluminium phosphide.  

The appellant was charge-sheeted alongwith his mother and  

sisters for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC to which they  

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced  

14  witnesses  including  Ganpat  Rai  (PW-7)  complainant  and  

Harichand (PW-13). Other witnesses are Ishwar Singh-ASI(PW-1),  

Mahipal-Constable (PW-2), Girish Kumar-Draftsman(PW-3), Wazir  

Singh-SI(PW-4), Jai Prakash-Constable(PW-5), Dr. P.L. Verma-  

Medical Officer(PW-6), PW-8 to 9 and 11-Constables; Rajender  

Kumar-Photographer(PW-10),  Jai  Chand  Shastri  who  performed

Page 4

4

marriage ceremonies of deceased with accused-appellant (PW-12)  

and Chander Singh-SI(PW-14). On behalf of the defence three  

witnesses  i.e.  Dr.  Jasbeer  Singh-(DW-1),  Santosh-(DW-2)  and  

Chajju Ram-(DW-3) were produced.  

The Trial Court by its judgment dated 22nd January, 2002  

convicted the appellant u/s 498A and 304B IPC and acquitted  

other accused. For the offence u/s 304B IPC the appellant was  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and  

for the offence u/s 498A he was sentenced to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.  

Both the sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently.  

3. On  appeal  the  High  Court  by  impugned  judgment  partly  allowed  the  same  and  the  conviction  and  sentence  of  the  

appellant  u/s  498A  IPC  was  set  aside  while  upholding  

conviction and sentence u/s 304B IPC.  

4. The main argument of the appellant is that the death of  deceased-Raj  Rani  is  a  natural  death  and  that  the  entire  

evidence on record believes the version of death by Aluminium  

Phosphide (AIP) Poisoning.  To support his case it was pointed  

out  that  Dr.  P.L.  Verma  (PW-6)  who  conducted  post  mortem  

stated in his testimony that if the report of the Forensic  

Science Laboratory regarding the presence of poison would have  

been negative then the Board would have concluded it to be a  

case  of  natural  death.  It  was  submitted  that  in  normal  

circumstances in a dead body there is always a possibility of

Page 5

5

presence of poisonous substance like aluminium phosphide and  

therefore no definite conclusion can be derived at that the  

deceased-Raj  Rani  died  as  a  result  of  poisoning  due  to  

consumption of aluminium phosphide.  

5. Further,  according  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-accused, evidence of Ganpat Rai (PW-7), complainant  

and Harichand (PW-13) who were the brothers of the deceased  

are unreliable as they are interested witnesses. All other  

independent witnesses from village have deposed in favour of  

the appellant, stating that the deceased was never treated in  

cruel manner nor any demand of dowry was made. An application  

had also been written and signed by more than 20 villagers  

stating about the innocence of the appellant and his family.

6. In normal circumstances, in the Indian Society demand for  dowry  or  harassment  for  the  same  takes  place  within  four  

corners of the house.  Even the parents or relatives of the  

girl will not be aware of these, unless they are informed  

either by the girl herself or demand is made directly to them.  

The Police Officials or others cannot depose anything about  

the  harassment  in  connection  with  demand  of  dowry  in  the  

absence of any complaint or statement made by witness u/s 161  

Cr.P.C. Seldom, the villagers-neighbours may come to know of  

the same. In this background, statement of family members of  

the deceased-lady cannot be discarded on the ground that they  

are  relatives  and  are  interested  witnesses,  till  a

Page 6

6

contradiction  is  shown  in  their  deposition  or  cross-

examination.

7. The complainant-Ganpat Rai(PW-7) brother of the deceased- Raj Rani stated that the accused harassed the deceased since  

her marriage and he always taunted her for bring less number  

of sarees and inadequate money. The accused also had demanded  

Rs.20,000/- from the deceased. On knowing this, complainant  

(PW-7)  along  with  his  brother  went  to  the  house  of  the  

appellant-accused and tried to persuade the appellant to stop  

harassing their sister. However, the appellant and his family  

members asked them to take away their sister with them. On 21st  

October, 1996, complainant (PW-7) took Raj Rani to his house  

at  Chattha  Nanhera.  On  28th October,  1996,  Chanan  Ram,  the  

elder brother of the father of appellant-Rajinder came to the  

complainant’s house with the customary gifts of Karwa Choth  

for Raj Rani and stayed there for two days.  On 30th October,  

1996, Hari Chand (PW-13) younger brother of the complainant  

(PW-7) and Gurmel Singh left Raj Rani in her matrimonial home.  

While  Hari  Chand(PW-13)  and  Gurmel  Singh  were  leaving  the  

house they were told by Raj Rani that since they had not paid  

Rs.20,000/- to the accused, he would kill her. Hari Chand told  

Raj Rani that they would make the payment within two or three  

days. On 31st October, 1996, the complainant (PW-7) received  

information that his sister had died on previous night.  When  

the complainant (PW-7) went to the house of the appellant, he  

found his sister dead lying on the Chobara. There was froth

Page 7

7

coming out of the mouth of the deceased and a piece of brick  

was lying there. The police found some broken bangles lying  

near  the  death  body.  After  leaving  Hari  Chand  and  Sukhpal  

Bansal  near  the  dead  body  he  reported  the  matter  to  the  

Police.  

8. Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement made by  the complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in their  

statements.  Defence  also  could  not  make  out  anything  to  

disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From the  

statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13),  

we  find  that  the  deceased-Raj  Rani  had  been  harassed  on  

account of demand of dowry soon before her death.  

9. Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) has conducted the post mortem on  the dead body of deceased Raj Rani. He deposed that the eyes  

and mouth of the deceased were semi open. After receiving the  

report of the Chemical Examiner, he stated that the cause of  

death of deceased Raj Rani was a result of poisoning due to  

consumption of aluminium phosphide. Dr. P.L. Verma(PW-6) and  

the Chemical Examiner who are experts in the field have not  

stated that the death was in the normal course or aluminium  

phosphide can be automatically generated in the dead body.

10. Section  304-B  of  IPC  relates  to  dowry  death.  For  the  purpose of the said Section, a presumption as to dowry death  

can be raised only on proof of the following essentials.

Page 8

8

(a) the  death  of  woman  has  been  caused  by  burns  or  bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than under  normal circumstances.

(b) The said death has occurred 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) She was meted out with such cruelty or harassment  soon before her death.

In this connection, we may refer to this Court decision  

in Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 157.

11. In the case of Hira Lal  & Others Vs. State (Govt. of  

NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court analyzed Section  

304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and  

made the following observations:

“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 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.”

The provision has application when death of a  woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or  occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances

Page 9

9

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  Section  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 follows:

“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 impediment 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 essentials. It  is in this background that presumptive Section  113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As  per the definition of “dowry death” in Section  304-B  IPC  and  the  wording  in  the  presumptive  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the

Page 10

10

essential 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  mentioned  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  harassment 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.”

12. In the present case the death of Raj Rani occurred within  seven years of her marriage. It is not disputed that her death  

is  not  under  normal  circumstances.  Statements  of  the  

complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13) are specific about  

the  harassment  of  the  deceased-Raj  Rani  by  the  accused  in  

connection with the demand of dowry. It is also evident from  

the  evidence  on  record  that  she  was  meted  out  with  such  

harassment soon before her death.  

13. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we  hold  that  the  prosecution  was  successful  in  proving  the  

ingredients  of  Section  304-B  IPC.  The  Trial  Court  rightly  

presumed that the accused has caused the dowry death of the  

victim and the High Court rightly upheld the conviction and  

sentence.

Page 11

11

14. We  find  no  merit  in  this  appeal  and  the  same  is  accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken  

into custody forthwith to serve remainder period of sentence.  

………………………………………….J.               (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………….J.               (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 14, 2015.