SATYAPAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: A.K. PATNAIK,SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001447-001448 / 2007
Diary number: 60155 / 2007
Advocates: RAKESH DAHIYA Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
Page 1
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1447-1448 OF 2007
SATYA PAL ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
A.K. PATNAIK J.
1. These are appeals against the judgment dated
16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
334-DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997.
2. The facts very briefly are that a First
Information Report was lodged by Sombir (the
complainant) on 14th July, 1992 alleging therein,
inter alia, that his sister Rajwanti was married to
the appellant and after one or two months of the
marriage she came home and told her mother that her
in-laws were demanding dowry in the shape of a flour
machine, electric motor with equipment to chop the
fodder and these articles were given in December
1991, when his sister Rajwanti gave birth to male
child and the in-laws of Rajwanti became happy. But
thereafter Rajwanti came after sometime and told that
her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
Page 2
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 2
and husband(appellant) were demanding a fridge,
cooler and TV, but the mother and father of Rajwanti
said that if this demand is met the demands will go
on increasing and Rajwanti left for her in-laws'
house on 19th June, 1992. Thereafter on 12th July,
1992 at about 9:00a.m. the complainant had been to
the house of Rajwanti and he saw that the appellant
and Subhash pushed Rajwanti into a well and as a
result Rajwanti died. A case was registered and
investigation was conducted by the police and a
charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his
other family members under Sections 302/34 IPC and
under Section 304B IPC.
3. At the trial, amongst others, the complainant
was examined as P.W. 1 and the mother of
Rajwanti(deceased) was examined as P.W. 2. The trial
court, however, held in its judgment dated 9th
October, 2006 that there was no satisfactory
explanation about the inordinate delay of 51 hours in
lodging the FIR with the police and it appears that
the aforesaid time was utilised for implicating
certain persons after consultations and
deliberations. The trial court was thus of the
opinion that the offence under Section 302/34 IPC
framed against the accused persons has not been
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
On the charge under Section 304B IPC, the trial court
found that there were improvements in the evidence of
Page 3
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 3
PWs. 1 and 2 over their statements made before the
police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and accordingly,
disbelieved Pws 1 and 2 and held that the demand of
dowry as well as harassment and cruelty by the
appellant or any of his relatives in connection with
the demand for dowry had not been proved and hence
the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act was not attracted and the appellant and
his family member could not be held guilty under
Section 304B IPC.
4. The State as well as the complainant went in
appeal to the High Court in separate Criminal Appeal
No. 334 -DB of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 246 of
1997 respectively and the High Court in the impugned
judgment dated 16th March, 2007 found on the basis of
the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 that after about two
months from November, 1991 when the earlier demand of
dowry was fulfilled on the occasion of Chuchak
ceremony, the appellant and his family members made a
fresh demand of television, fridge, cooler and the
deceased was subjected to beatings for this fresh
demand and this led P.W. 1 to make a visit to the
matrimonial house of the deceased in the month of
June, 1992 and he persuaded the appellant and his
family members not to make such demands but on 12th
July, 1992, within one month of such visit, the death
of the deceased took place in the matrimonial house.
The High Court, further, held that since the
Page 4
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 4
prosecution has been able to prove both the fact of
demand of dowry in the shape of television, fridge
and cooler and the fact of harassment or cruelty
meted out to the deceased soon before her death, the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act
was attracted and the appellant has not been able to
rebut the presumption and was thus guilty of the
offences under Section 304B as well as under Section
498A IPC.
5. At the hearing before us, learned counsel for
the appellant, vehemently submitted that the view
taken by the trial court on the evidence of P.Ws. 1
and 2 was not a correct view inasmuch as there were
substantial improvements made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 in
Court over their statements made to the police under
Section 161 CrP.C. He submitted that the findings of
the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.
1 and 2 that the deceased was subjected to a
subsequent demand of television, fridge and cooler
and also was subjected to cruelty soon before her
death were not at all correct. He submitted that the
trial court was right in taking a view that the delay
of 51 hours in lodging the FIR by P.W. 1 was not
properly explained and, therefore, the prosecution
story could not be believed.
6. We find on a reading of the judgment of the
trial court that the trial court has held that the
delay of 51 hours in lodging the FIR with the police
Page 5
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 5
by P.W. 1 was a good ground for rejecting the case of
the prosecution that the accused persons were guilty
of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC saying that
this time of 51 hours could have been utilised for
implicating some innocent persons after consultations
and deliberations to make out a false story. The
High Court has not held the accused persons guilty of
the offence under Section 302/34 IPC presumably for
the very same reason although an appeal was filed by
the State as well as the complainant challenging the
findings of the trial court in this regard.
7. So far as the charges under Section 304B and
498A IPC are concerned, we find that the trial court
has disbelieved the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 on the
ground that there have been improvements in their
evidence over what they had been stated before the
police under Section 161 CrPC and on the ground that
there were discrepancies in their evidence. We have
gone through the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and we find
that the High Court was right in coming to the
conclusion on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and
2 that there was in fact a demand of television,
fridge and cooler about two months after the earlier
demand of dowry was met in November, 1991 on the
occasion of the chuchak ceremony when the male child
was born to the deceased and this subsequent demand
was also followed by beatings and harassment so much
so that a visit had to be made by P.W. 1 to the
Page 6
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 6
matrimonial house of the deceased to persuade the
appellants and his family members not to make the
demands and soon thereafter the deceased died on
12th July, 1992.
8. We, however, find that P.W. 2 had not stated in
her Statement [Exhibit DA] before the Police that
P.W. 1 had not told her that the deceased was beaten
by the appellant and his family members and that the
deceased was closed in a room, but we find on a
reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 that the deceased
was subjected to beatings twice or thrice for
demands of dowry. Moreover, P.W 2 when asked
whether she has told the Police about the aforesaid
beatings given to deceased, she has said that she in
fact, told the police about such beatings. The
explanation to Section 161 Cr.P.C. states that an
omission to state a fact or circumstance in the
statement made to the police may amount to
contradiction if the same appears to be significant
and otherwise relevant having regard to the context
in which such omission occurs and whether any
omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular
context shall be a question of fact. It was,
therefore, for the Court to decide whether the
omission in the statement of P.W 2 about the
beatings given to the deceased before the police
was significant enough for the Court to disbelieve
that the deceased was beaten in connection with the
Page 7
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 7
demand for dowry. Considering the evidence of P.W. 1
and P.W. 2 in its entirety, we think that the High
Court is right in coming to the finding that the
deceased was not only subjected to a subsequent
demand of dowry but also subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with such demand for dowry
soon before her death and that the trial court had
not taken a correct view on the evidence of P.W. 1
and PW 2.
9. The High Court had also rightly drawn the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act
that appellant had caused the dowry death of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 304B IPC and
the appellant was required to rebut this presumption
that he had caused the dowry death. The appellant
did make an attempt to rebut this presumption in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while answering
question No. 16. The appellant stated that the
deceased had died a natural death because she was
suffering from rheumatic pain (heart disease) and at
that time she was being treated by Dr. Roop Chand at
Satnali and she was also attended by Dr. Roop Chand
on the day of her death. If this was the defence of
the appellant in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. it was incumbent upon him to have produced
Dr. Roop Chand as a defence witness, but he has not
done so. The result is that the appellant has failed
to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the
Page 8
Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 8
Indian Evidence Act that it is he who had caused
dowry death of the deceased within the meaning of
Section 304B of the IPC.
10. We are therefore of the opinion that the High
Court was right in reversing the judgment of
acquittal against the appellant so far as the
offences under Sections 304B and 498A are concerned
and accordingly we dismiss the appeal. Since the
appellant is on bail, we direct that his bail bond be
cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to
serve out the remaining sentence.
............................J [A.K. PATNAIK]
............................J [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
NEW DELHI MARCH 13, 2013.