Satish Chandra Vs State of M.P.

Page 1

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2010

Satish Chandra & Anr. ….........Appellant(s)

Versus

State of M.P. ….........Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. The two appellants before us are the son and the mother.

Appellant No. 1 was the husband and Appellant No. 2 was

the mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased Smt.

Sunita. Marriage between Appellant No. 1 and Smt. Sunita

was solemnised in April, 1988. Smt. Sunita committed

suicide on 14.1.1991 i.e. within three years of the

marriage. This led to the prosecution of the two appellants

1

Page 2

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

as well as father and sister of Appellant No. 1 under

Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. We may mention that as per the prosecution, just before

her death, she even gave a statement which was recorded

as Ex. P.9. After her death, it was treated as dying

declaration and case was registered against the accused

persons. After the completion of the investigation they

were all committed to their trial. The accused persons did

not admit to the charge and abjured their guilt. As per

them they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial

proceeded. Various prosecution witnesses were examined.

On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence

brought on record, the Sessions Court returned the verdict

of guilty qua the appellants herein, as well as sister of

Appellant no.1.

3. The Trial Court sentenced both the appellants as well as

Sunita, sister of Appellant no.1 to undergo one year

rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for offence under Section 498 2

Page 3

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

A of IPC. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each of the appellants

was also imposed and in default the appellants were to

undergo an additional R.I. for six months. For offence

under Section 304-B, both the appellants were sentenced

to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 1,000/- as fine

with similar default clause.

4. The appellants filed the appeal before the High Court

against the said conviction and sentence. By the

impugned judgment dated 21.10.2008 the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh has affirmed the conviction and

sentence, thereby dismissing the appeal qua these two

Appellants. However, Sunita has been acquitted. Special

Leave Petition was filed questioning the validity of the said

verdict of the High Court in which leave was granted. This

is how the present appeal has been heard finally by this

Court.

5. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would

demonstrate that the High Court has primarily relied upon 3

Page 4

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

the dying declaration (Exhibit P9) which according to the

High Court is a strong iron clad testimony from the

clutches of which the appellants cannot escape. It has

found that the said dying declaration is worthy of

credence which was recorded in the presence of the

Magistrate (P.W.2) that too with certification from the

Doctor (P.W.5) to the effect that Sunita was in a fit state of

mind to give the statement, notwithstanding the fact that

she has suffered 92 percent burns. In so far as charge

under Section 498A is concerned, the High Court has

found that this was proved on the basis of Ex. P8, which

was a letter written by the deceased stating she was

being treated with cruelty. The High Court also recorded

that the dying declaration as well as allegations in letter

(Ex. P.8) were duly supported by the testimony of the

father (P.W.1), the brother (P.W.7) and the uncle (P.W.4) of

the deceased. It is observed that even when they are

interested witnesses being close relation of the deceased,

4

Page 5

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

there was no reason to discard their testimony. More so,

when their testimony was supported by written

documents namely letters written by the deceased which

were Exhibit P1, P3, P4 and P5.

6. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants endeavoured to find loopholes in the

depositions of various witnesses. Thrust of his argument

was that their testimonies could not have been relied

upon to record the guilt of the appellants for both the

charges i.e. under Section 498A as well as 304B of I.P.C. In

this attempt, he referred to various portions of the

testimonies of these witnesses with the purpose to show

that there was an acceptance on their part that no dowry

was taken at the time of Marriage; there was no demand

of dowry even thereafter and the deceased was not

treated with cruelty at all. His further endeavour was to

show that the deceased had committed suicide because of

her own reasons and frustrations which could not be

5

Page 6

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

attributed to the appellants and for which appellants could

not be held responsible in any manner in as much as she

was not happy with her marriage with Appellant No. 1.

which was her creation with no blemish on the part of the

appellants. Before we take note of these arguments in

detail and deal with them, it would be apposite to take

note of the testimonies of material witnesses as well as

documentary evidence produced. It is only thereafter the

arguments of Mr. Jain would be better discernible and

appreciated for our analysis/ discussion.

7. As per Rameshwar Dayal (P.W.1), whenever his daughter

Sunita used to come to Guna she would say that her

parents in law had persistent demand for gold chain. In

the month of Shravan in the year 1989, they had come to

Jaora to take the daughter then her mother-in-law had

beaten her in his presence. Rameshwar Dayal has also

said that it was guessed from the letters of the girl that

her husband and parents in law were harassing her.

6

Page 7

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

8. Ashok Sharma (PW. 7) stated that he was sent a letter Ex.

P.5 by his sister to him. Rameshwar Dayal has also stated

letters Ex. P.3 and P4 to have been written by Sunita. It is

revealed from the statement of Ashok Sharma that Sunita

had told him in Guna and Sagar that in laws had

demanded gold chain and money. Also, she was troubled

in her in-laws house. Ashok Sharma had met Sunita about

one and half months before death when she had gone to

Sagar.

9. Ram Behari Lal Sharma (P.W.4) is the mousa of deceased

Sunita.The police had prepared the map of the place of

occurrence in his presence. The police had seized letters

Ex. P3, P4 and P5 from Ram Behali Lal Sharma. Ram

Behari Lal Sharma had got the information of burning of

Sunita when he was in school. Thereupon, he reached the

spot and later on he had gone to Sunita in the Hospital.

10. Naib Tehsildar SPS Chauhan (P.W.2) had recorded the

statement (Ex. P.9) of Sunita, before her death. This 7

Page 8

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

witness has proved the statement from B to B in Ex. P.9 by

Sunita. Before taking statement, the certificate of the

doctor was taken. Dr. S.K. Jain (PW. 5) had examined

Sunita and had advised to take her statement. Report

relating to it is Ex. P.15. After death Dr. Chandelkar (P.W.6)

had performed postmortem of Sunita. Dr. Jain has

mentioned about the smell of kerosene from Sunita's body

and that she had suffered 92% burns. As per him, the

cause of death is the burning, flowing of water from the

body and the state of shock arising from loss of chemicals.

Dr. Chandelkar has also mentioned about kerosene smell

from the body. The postmortem report given by him is Ex.

P.16.

11. The defence side produced one witness viz. Pravin Dixit,

brother-in-law of Appellant No. 1 who is the husband of his

sister Sunita.

12. Perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court shows that

detailed submissions were made by the defence 8

Page 9

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

questioning the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. It

was argued that deceased was not treated with cruelty,

much less on the ground of dowry. The defence also

attacked the dying declaration of the deceased – Sunita,

on the plea that it was unreliable because of many

loopholes therein. The Trial Court stated that there were

two decisive questions which were to be determined and

they were:

“(i) Whether the accused used to behave with cruelty with Sunita wife of Satish Chandra Trivedi for illegal object of getting more dowry. (ii) Whether the accused tortured Sunita on the night of 14.1.1991 in fulfilment of the illegal object of getting more dowry and Sunita died in the manner different from natural death?”

13. While answering the aforesaid questions, apart from

relying on oral testimonies of the witnesses, the trial court

referred to Ex. P-3, which is a letter written by Sunita to her

aunt (Mausi) stating that she would do nothing except but to

give up her life. Mention was also made to Ex. P-8 which

9

Page 10

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

Satish had written to his father-in-law as well as Ex. P-1 which

was a letter written by deceased Sunita to her parents 15

days before her death, mentioning that there was no change

in the atmosphere and she was not happy in her matrimonial

house. From these letters coupled with oral testimonies, the

Trial Court concluded that there was a demand of dowry

because of which the deceased was harassed.

14. The Trial Court also discussed Ex. P-9, namely, the dying

statement and returned the finding that since the

statement was taken only after certifying the state of

health of Sunita by the doctor that she was in a proper

state of mind to make such a statement. The Trial Court

also discarded the theory of the defence that Sunita was

tutored by her Mausa in giving the statement. From the

reading of this dying statement, the trial court came to the

conclusion that there was in fact a quarrel which took

place on the date of occurrence immediately before she

put herself on fire. On the basis of such discussion, the 10

Page 11

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

Trial Court returned the verdict of the guilty against the

appellants and sister of Appellant no.1 in the manner

mentioned in the beginning of this judgment.

15. The High Court went through the gamut of all the issues

and upheld the judgment qua these two appellants recording

the following reasons:

“(i) On considering the above submissions, I find that there is no merit in the appeal, primarily, on the ground that because evidence of the prosecution is supported and corroborated by the documentary evidence available on record, the dying declaration Ex. - P/9 is a strong iron clad testimony from the clutches of which the accused cannot escape. Ex. P/9 is recorded and proved in accordance with law. Dr. S.K. Jain PW-5 has certified that although deceased Sunita had recorded 92% burn, she was in a fit state of mind. The dying declaration of the deceased has been recorded in presence of the Magistrate Shri S.P.S. Chauhan PW-2 and no fault can be found in the same. The letter Ex. P/8 available on record also amply proved that the deceased was being treated with cruelty.

(ii) It would be profitable to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Muthu Kutty and another v. State of T.N. (2005) 9 SCC 113 whereby the Apex Court has held that conviction can be accorded solely on the basis of dying declaration, if it is worthy and reliable and there is

11

Page 12

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

no infirmity in it reinforcing the maxim 'Nemo Moriturus praesumitur', which means that a person will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.

(iii) Then, in this light it is important to consider the fact that the dying declaration is duly supported by the testimony of Rameshwar Dayal PW-1; Ashok Sharma PW-7 and Rambiharilal Sharma P4-4 the father, the brother and uncle of the deceased and although they are interested witnesses being related to the deceased. It is only natural in the circumstances since the offence under Section 498-A pertains to cruelty being meted out to the deceased soon before her death and she was bound to report the same to these persons only. Besides their testimony is duly supported by written documents, letters Ex. P1, P3, P4 and P5 by the deceased Sunita. The fact that Rameshwar Dayal PW-1 has stated in his deposition that accused Sohanbai had slapped his daughter in his presence is corroborated by letter Ex. P5 to the brother that she (deceased Sunita) was aboused in front of her father who had watched helplessly and the situation could never be rectified.”

16. However, in so far as sister of Appellant No. 1 is

concerned, benefit of doubt was given as after the marriage

she had been living separately at Indore.

17. We now proceed to take note of the detailed

12

Page 13

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

submissions of Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants. He began his submission by arguing that at the

time of marriage the father of the deceased did not consider

the fact that Appellant No. 1 was not in service. He was

under the wrong impression that boy's father was a wealthy

person and his daughter would be happy in the matrimonial

house even if Appellant No. 1 was earning his livelihood only

by running a small shop i.e. namkeen selling business. He

further submitted that there was no question of demanding

any dowry as marriage between the parties was a part of

group marriage solemnised on that day.

18. According to him, reading of the letters as well as

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would bring out

that the real problem was the unemployment of Appellant

No. 1 which became the villain of the peace. Thus, he tried

to weave the story in his own way, presenting the events in

the following manner:-

Appellant No. 1 was continuing his studies (he 13

Page 14

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

was doing LLB) which is clear from the letter

dated 29.1.1998 written by the brother of the

deceased. In this letter Shri Ashok, brother of the

deceased also wrote that deceased was kept with

affection. The deceased Sunita was a graduate.

She did not like the business of Namkeen being

run by Appellant No. 1 in a small shop. She forced

Appellant No. 1 to close the said business. The

fact that the said business was closed at the

instance of the deceased and/or her brother is

clear from the letter dated 29.1.1989 written by

Ashok Kumar Sharma, the brother of the

deceased to Appellant No. 1's family, wherein he

wrote:-

“Ch. Satish ji how your business is going on. You had told to close the shop. How it is going on? LL.B result would have not been out yet.”

In another letter dated 22.9.1989 the deceased brother

Ashok Kumar Sharma had written to the deceased -

14

Page 15

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

“How the shop is functioning. The shop must have

been closed.”

After closing of the shop, Appellant No. 1 and the

deceased, who was a graduate, took job as teachers in

private school as is evident from the statement of

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma P.W.1, the father of the deceased,

himself. Further at the instance of the deceased, Appellant

No. 1 started living separately from his parents. This was

done at the advice of the deceased brother Ashok Kumar

Sharma, who has admitted this in his statement.

The deceased lost her job. This is evident from Ex. D-6

wherein P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Sharma, brother of deceased

had asked Sunita to prepare a certificate of domicile of any

district of Madhya Pradesh and send the same to him. Mr.

Jain argued that this letter also shows that deceased's

brother was also trying to find a job for the deceased. On

account of losing the job by the deceased, Appellant No. 1

and the deceased trapped in a financial crisis. With the 15

Page 16

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

meager income as primary school teacher in private school,

it was difficult for Appellant No. 1 to carry on the family. On

account of financial crisis Appellant No. 1 again came back

to his parents, as is evident from the testimony of P.W.1

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, father of the deceased. He thus,

argued that it is this financial crisis which led the deceased

go into depression. Otherwise, various letters written by the

relatives show their cordial relations.

19. Coming specifically to charge under Section 498A of

I.P.C. namely that of harassment, Mr. Jain submitted that

even P.W.1 in his cross-examination had stated:

“11. Ex. P-8 letter was written by my son-in- law Satish Chandra before the death of my daughter. It is correct that my daughter Sunita did not make any complaint to me with regard to the behaviour of her husband i.e. accused Satish or any other complainant whatsoever.”

P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Sharma, brother of the

deceased Sunita also admitted:

“6........My sister never told or complained

16

Page 17

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

me about her husband i.e, accused Satish Chandra that he ever tortured her or ever demanded dowry or torment her. She has certainly said that her husband does not say anything when her mother-in-law does such things.”

Mr. Jain submitted that in view of the aforesaid

statements of none else than the father and brother of the

deceased, the conviction of Appellant No. 1 under Section

498A and thereby under Section 304-B I.P.C. is ex-facie

untenable.

For this he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

in the case of Satkar Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana

reported in (2004) 11 SCC 291 wherein it is, inter alia,

held:-

“23. It is based on these erroneous inference drawn on unproved facts and placing reliance on statements of interested witnesses whose evidence has not stood the test of cross-examination, the trial court came to a wrong conclusion as to the guilt of the accused persons. It is to be noted that 3 letters, Exts. P-28, DA and DB which though not very proximate in time clearly show that there was no demand as has been alleged by the prosecution by the

17

Page 18

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

accused and the contents of the said letter clearly show that the allegation made after the death of Devinder Kaur of dowry demand or harassment leading to cruelty is unsubstantiated. For all these reasons we are of the opinion that the trial Court committee serious error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants.”

20. It was argued by Mr. Jain that the learned Trial Court has

not found Appellant No. 1 ever made any demand of dowry.

The High Court has further acquitted Sunita (sister) and,

therefore, so far as Appellant No. 1 (husband) is concerned,

neither there is any evidence nor any finding by the learned

trial court or the High Court that he ever demanded dowry. In

the absence of any evidence with regard to dowry, the

conviction of Appellant No. 1 (husband) under Section 304

(B) IPC is ex-facie untenable in as much as Section 304 (B)

IPC envisages “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.”

18

Page 19

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

21. Questioning the veracity of the dying declaration, Mr.

Jain argued that it was tutored one in as much as the same

was recorded in the presence of family members of the

deceased and when Appellant No. 2 was sitting outside.

More over, in this very statement the deceased had stated

about Appellant No. 1 that “he is innocent”. He also argued

that this dying declaration was not recorded in a proper

manner namely in the form of questions and answers.

22. Mr. Jain concluded his submission by arguing that the

aforesaid facts amply prove that this is not a case of demand

of dowry but is a case where on account of family

circumstances the deceased did not adjust herself and

placed herself in a situation where first she forced her

husband to close his business of Namkeen, forced her

husband to separate from his parents and to take up a job in

a private school and she also joined service in a private

school. On account of the fact that when the deceased

became unemployed and it was difficult for the couple to

19

Page 20

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

bear the expenses, this resulted in financial problem and

forced the Appellant No. 1 to go back to the house of

parents, which he left before marriage of his sister. In the

present matter it is also borne out from the record that the

deceased tried to take away all the ornaments of the family

resulting in some altercation between Appellant No. 2 and

the deceased which was the solitary incident where

allegation of physical assault was made. He submitted that

under the circumstances no case under Section 498A or

304-B was made out. He referred to the decision in the case

of Mahendra Singh reported in 1005 Supp. (3) SCC 371

wherein the Court has observed as under:-

“Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of

20

Page 21

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.”

23. He also drew sustenance from another judgment of the

case of Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (10)

SCC 797 observing as under:

“7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. Pws 8, 10 and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact that her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.” If the background facts analysed it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct.”

24. The learned Counsel for the State, countered the

aforesaid submissions by arguing that there was clinching

21

Page 22

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

evidence against both the appellants, thereby proving the

charges of commission of offences under Sections 304 B and

498 A of I.P.C., beyond any reasonable doubt. He referred to

the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.7 in support of the

charges of demand of dowry and harassment on that

account. He also read out from the letters Exhibits P1, P3, P4

and P5 of the deceased and her relatives, which according to

him, proved that the deceased was living in a miserable

condition because of the harassment meted out at her at the

hands of the appellants. He further submitted that there was

no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of the

deceased which was rightly acted upon by the Courts below.

He also referred to the reasons advanced by the Trial Court

as well as High Court in holding the appellants guilty of the

aforesaid offences. He further submitted that the

truthfulness of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses namely

P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.7 could be gauged from the fact that

they never indulged in over stating the events and fairly

22

Page 23

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

accepted some of the suggestions put forth in cross-

examination to them truthfully. His submission was that the

entire statement of these witnesses was to be read to arrive

at correct conclusion which was done by the Courts below.

25. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid

submissions of the Counsel for the parties with reference to

the record. It is now time to have analytical critique of these

submissions to find out as to whether the conviction and

sentence as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the

High Court for these appellants is sustainable or not.

26. There is no dispute about the fact that Smt. Sunita

committed suicide on 14.1.1991 by pouring kerosene on her

person and then putting herself on fire. Marriage between

her and Appellant No. 1 was solemnised sometime in April

1988. Thus, this incident had occurred within a period of 3

years from the date of marriage. Since it is within 7 years of

23

Page 24

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

the marriage, presumption under Section 304 B of I.P.C.

will stand attracted if the ingredients of the said Section are

established.

27. In the statement, the deceased had given the

description of the incident namely the manner in which she

committed suicide. She has also given the reason for taking

such a step and described the behaviour of her in laws

towards her. There is a specific allegation that her mother-in-

law (Appellant No. 2) and Sister-in-law used to tease her on

the ground that her parents had not given gold chain and

they used to fight on account of dowry. This fact was known

to her father. She had stated that she was putting an end to

her life on account of continuous fight. She has also stated

that her husband (Appellant No. 1) has come under the

influence of her mother-in-law because of which he would

beat her up, but otherwise he was innocent.

28. In view of the above disclosure in the said dying

declaration, according to us starting point should be to 24

Page 25

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

decide as to whether deceased had made such a statement

and it is believable or not.

29. The said statement is recorded by the Executive

Magistrate, Jawra. As per this document at the time when the

statement was recorded, no police officer was present.

Before the Executive Magistrate started recording the

statement of Sunita, Dr. S.K. Jain certified that she was fully

conscious and was in a position to give her statement. It is

again testified by the doctor that while recording of her

statement, she remained fully conscious. Primarily, two

objections are raised questioning the veracity of this dying

declaration. It is stated that Sunita was tutored before she

made the statement as it was made in the presence of the

family members of the deceased and Appellant No. 2 was

made to sit outside when the statement was being recorded.

Secondly, it is not recorded in the form of questions and

answers. On the facts of this case both these contentions are

to be rejected. It is clear that the Executive Magistrate took

25

Page 26

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

due precautions and even obtained the certificate about the

state of health of Sunita before recording her statement. He

has entered the witness box as P.W.2 and deposed to this

effect. There is nothing on record which would indicate that

Sunita may have been tutored by her Mausa. Nothing could

be pointed out to show that after reaching hospital, she had

occasion to meet her Mausa and he got an opportunity to

tutor her. It is also to be borne in mind that in some of her

letters written to her relatives prior to the date of occurrence,

she had categorically stated that she was not happy with her

matrimonial life and may put end to same. There is a

different slant which is sought to be given by the defence, to

these letters. We will revert to that aspect at the appropriate

stage. At this juncture we are only highlighting that Sunita

was not happy with her matrimonial life and she had

expressed so on earlier occasions as well. This fact has now

surfaced in her statement. It is also pertinent to point out

that she has primarily blamed her mother-in-law and sister-

26

Page 27

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

in-law. There is no accusation against her husband to the

effect that he was also demanding dowry. She is forthright in

stating that whatever her husband did was under the

influence of her mother-in-law, and he was even beating her

occasionally. Otherwise, she has categorically stated that her

husband is innocent. Had there been any tutoring, it would

not have come in such a form which appears to be more

natural and voluntary. For all these reasons we do not agree

with the contention of Mr. Jain that Sunita was tutored before

she made the statement.

30. Simply because the statement is not recorded in the

form of questions and answers, is no reason to discard it

once. It is otherwise found to be trustworthy and can be

treated as the dying declaration admissible under Section 32

of the Evidence Act. No doubt, it is emphasised by this Court

that recording of such a statement in the form of question

and answer is more appropriate method which should

generally be resorted to. However, that would not mean that

27

Page 28

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

if such a statement otherwise meets all the requirements of

Section 32 and is found to be worthy of credence, it is to be

rejected only on the ground that it was not recorded in the

form of questions and answers. As pointed out above, all the

requisite precautions were taken before recording the

statement by the Executive Magistrate (P.W.2). It has come

on record that Sunita remained conscious even after

concluding her statement and during the period when her

statement was being recorded, Certificate to this effect was

also obtained by P.W.2.

31. Having held that the aforesaid statement of the

deceased was rightly accepted as admissible under Section

32 of the Evidence Act treating the same as the dying

declaration, we proceed further to find out as to whether

conviction of the appellants under Section 498A and 304B of

IPC is rightly recorded by the Courts below. From the tenor of

the letters, reference to which have been made above, there

may be a possibility that deceased was not happy with her

28

Page 29

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

matrimonial life also because of the reason that her husband

was not well off and settled in life. Possibility also cannot be

ruled out that she was not happy with the small business of

Namkeen which was being carried on by Appellant No. 1 in a

small shop and her aspirations were much higher. She made

him wind up that business and both of them viz. the husband

and the deceased had started joined service as teachers in a

private school. Later she even lost that job of hers. But the

question is as to whether this was the reason for her to

commit suicide? This question has to be answered in the

negative having regard to her statement made in the dying

declaration. She has very categorically stated that her

mother-in-law used to fight with her regularly on account of

demand of gold chain which her parents could not fulfill. She

had fight on that day also and being tired of such regular

fights she poured kerosene oil on her and set herself on fire.

It is thus, clear that immediate cause of committing suicide

was regular fights with mother-in-law on account of dowry

29

Page 30

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

demand. It, thus, stands established that there was

continuous dowry demand by Appellant No. 2, mother-in-law

of the deceased and Appellant No. 2 was even treating her

with cruelty for not fulfilling this demand.

32. Section 498A IPC reads as under:-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. -

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this Section, 'cruelty' means –

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet demand.”

30

Page 31

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

We find that ingredients of the aforesaid Section stand

satisfied qua Appellant No. 2 as deceased was subject to

cruelty on account of unlawful demand for property viz. gold

chain in the instant case and failure on her part to meet that

demand. So much so, it ultimately had driven Sunita to

commit suicide.

33. In so far as Appellant No. 1 is concerned it is difficult to

sustain his conviction under Section 498A. The deceased in

her statement has accused only her mother-in-law and sister-

in-law for this demand. She has not blamed her husband at

all. On the contrary, she has categorically stated that her

husband is innocent. May be at times Appellant No. 1 had

beaten his wife on the saying of her mother-in-law but the

deceased had not connected this with demand of dowry.

Therefore, it is not conclusively proved that there was any

“cruelty” on his part. Here, reading the statement of the

deceased along with various letters becomes somewhat

important. Tenor of those letters, in so far as they relate to

31

Page 32

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

Appellant No. 1, indicates that as far as Appellant No. 1 is

concerned, he is not to be blamed. In fact, in order to please

and satisfy his wife, Appellant No. 1 was making all efforts to

become something in life and was struggling for that. We

thus, are persuaded to give benefit of doubt to Appellant No.

1 for change under Section 498A. As a consequence while

upholding the conviction of Appellant No. 2 under Section

498A of IPC, we acquit Appellant No. 1 from this charge.

34. With this, we come to the question of conviction under

Section 304B of IPC. It is couched in the following language:-

“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 purposes of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961)

32

Page 33

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

(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.

35. Undoubtedly, death of Sunita is caused by burns and

has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. It

has happened within 7 years of her marriage. Further, the

trigger point for committing suicide was the quarrel between

her and her mother-in-law on the fateful day. At the same

time it is also to be borne in mind that it is not a case where

appellants have poured kerosene and put her on fire. That is

the act of deceased herself and thus it is a case of suicide.

The question is whether the quarrel between the deceased

and her mother-in-law can be treated as satisfying the

condition that “soon before her death she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, in demand

for dowry”. On the reading the statement in totality, it

becomes clear that cause/ reason for regular fights was

33

Page 34

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

dowry. One can clearly find out from the statement that on

that day also Appellant No. 2 fought with her for that reason.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that commission of offence

under Section 304B against Appellant No. 2 stands

conclusively proved in view of iron clad dying declaration.

Here again, for the reason stated by us while discussing the

accusation against Appellant No. 1 under Section 498A of

IPC, it cannot be said that he had committed any act of

“cruelty” soon before her death which forced the deceased to

take such a step. She has nowhere stated that on that date

when her mother-in-law had quarreled with her, Appellant No.

1 was associated or even responsible for that. We thus acquit

Appellant No. 1 of charge under Section 304B as well.

36. Coming to the sentence of Appellant No. 2 in respect of

the aforesaid offences, we maintain the sentence of one year

rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for offence under Section 498A

of IPC. However, in so far as Section 304B of IPC is concerned

we are of the opinion that there are certain extenuating and

34

Page 35

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

mitigating circumstances which persuade us to reduce the

sentence of 10 years R.I. as awarded to Appellant No. 2. First

of all, even when the immediate cause to commit suicide was

the fight, at the same time it has to be kept in mind that

deceased was not happy with her matrimonial life for other

reasons as well. In fact, she was not happy with this marriage

at all which she stated in some of the letters to her mausi or

mausa. We are of the view that ends of justice would be sub

served by reducing the sentence from 10 years to 7 years

Rigorous Imprisonment. The appeals are partly allowed in the

aforesaid terms. The Appellant no.2 shall be taken into

custody to serve remaining sentence.

......................................................J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

...................................................J. [A.K. SIKRI]

35

Page 36

Crl. A. No. 211 of 2010

New Delhi May 6, 2014

36

SATISH CHANDRA Vs STATE OF M.P.

SATISH CHANDRA Vs STATE OF M.P.