1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL   APPEAL NO.1801  OF 2013

State of Haryana     …Appellant  

Versus  

Angoori Devi & Anr.                  … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Indira Banerjee, J.

This appeal filed by the State of Haryana is against a

judgment  and  order  dated  3.5.2012  passed  by  a  Division

Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondents,

reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajhar convicting the respondents

under Sections 498A read with Section 304B of  the Indian

2

Penal code and acquitting the respondents.   

2. The victim (Babli) and her sister (Neeru) were married

to two brothers, Kartar (Respondent No.3) and Pawan, sons of

Smt.  Angoori  Devi   (Respondent  No.1)  and  Akhey  Ram

(Respondent No.2).  After 3 ½ years of marriage the victim,

wife of Kartar Singh (Respondent No.3) died of burn injuries.   

3. The  victim’s  father  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

‘complainant’)  lodged  an  FIR,  pursuant  to  which  Sessions

Crime No. 9 of 29.3.1996 was commenced.     It was alleged

that about 1 & ¼ years ago when his daughter Babli  was

pregnant, her in-laws had asked her to leave the house and

return only if she brought Rs.60,000/-.

4. It is alleged that the victim informed her parents about

this demand and she started living with her parents.   She

gave birth to a daughter,  after which she stayed with her

parents  for  5  to  6  months.    Thereafter,  the  complainant

requested the accused to take the victim back.   It is stated

that the victim has lived with her in-laws for about 20 days,

after which she was thrown out from her matrimonial home.

Her  mother-in-law  (Respondent  No.  1)  and  father-in-law

(Respondent No. 2) demanded gold ring and a chain.   It is

stated that  a  village  Panchayat  was  convened after  which

3

Babli  was sent to her in-laws house on 29.10.1995.    On

3.12.1995, the complainant came to know about the death of

the victim.  He came to know that the victim had been burnt

to death.  He went to the spot and saw the dead body.    

5. According to the complaint, since the victim had died

due  to  torture  and  beating  by  her  in-laws  to  press  their

demand for  dowry,  the  matter  was  reported to  the  Sadar

Police Station, Bahadurgarh.  Investigation was commenced

and  the  body  of  the  victim  was  sent  for  post  mortem

examination.   The post mortem report opined that the cause

of  death  was  shock  as  a  result  of  anti-mortem superficial

deep burns over entire body.    

6.  The  prosecution  examined  nine  witnesses.   No

witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.   In the

examination  under  Section  313  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure,  the respondent No. 3, Kartar Singh, husband of

the victim, deposed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being

his parents, resided separately.    

7. The complainant who deposed as the 4th  prosecution

witness (PW4) stated  that immediately after marriage the

respondent started harassing the victim for dowry and also

used to beat his daughter.   The victim was thrown out of the

4

house  when she was in the family way  as they wanted her

to bring Rs.60,000/- in cash, gold articles and a Refrigerator.

8. According to the complainant, as he could not afford to

give cash and ornaments, the victim was thrown out.  While

the victim was at his house, she gave birth to a girl child.

After  about  six  months,  through  the  intervention  of  a

Panchayat, he sent the victim back to her matrimonial home.

No member of the Panchayat was examined.  

9. The victim stayed there for 15-20 days, after which she

was set on fire and killed by the accused.  According to the

complainant,  Rakesh,  elder  brother  of  Akhey  Ram

(Respondent No. 3) came to  his village and told him about

the death of  the victim. Thereafter,  the complainant along

with  villagers  went  to  the  house  of  accused  and  saw the

victim lying dead.

10. The complainant has, in his evidence, claimed that his

younger daughter, Neetu told him that the victim had been

killed  by  the  accused  and  later  set  on  fire  after  pouring

kerosene oil on her body.   The younger daughter Neetu was,

however,  not examined by the prosecution.  

11. The victim’s brother, Subhash who deposed as the 5th

prosecution witness (PW-5) more or less reiterated what the

5

complainant, his father, had said.    

12. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident.  The

respondent  No.3  has  in  his  statement  under  Section  313

stated that his parents did not live with him and that he was

not at home when the incident took place.  

13. The High Court found that the complainant did, in his

evidence, say that he had first hand knowledge of demand of

dowry.  The High Court refused to uphold the conviction on

the  basis  of  hearsay  evidence,  since  the  primary  witness

Neetu  was  never  produced  in  Court  to  give  evidence.

Moreover,  the High Court  found discrepancies between his

evidence in Court and his statement to the Police, with which

he had been confronted.  

14. The  High  Court  found  substance  in  the  submission

made  by  the  Counsel  for  the  respondents  that  if  the

respondents  had really  harassed or  maltreated the  victim,

her sister married to another son of the respondent Nos. 1

and  2,  brother  of  the  respondent  No.3,  would  not  have

abstained from giving evidence.  The Court also opined that

counsel  was  justified in  submitting  that  if  there  had been

harassment as a result of greed for dowry, the victim and her

sister  who  was  married  to  the  victim’s  brother-in-law

6

(husband’s  brother)  would  also  have  been  harassed  and

tortured.  There is no allegation of harassment of the victim’s

sister Neetu.

15. Considering the  evidence,  the Court  did  not  find the

evidence strong enough to hold the respondents guilty.  We

agree with the High Court that the evidence is weak, and not

sufficient for conviction.     

16. It is true, that the victim died of burns.  The death was

otherwise  than  under  normal  circumstances  and  within  7

years of marriage.  However, to attract Section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that soon

before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and

harassment in connection with demand for dowry.  The High

Court  rightly  found  that  the  evidence  did  not  show  any

proximate connection between the demand of dowry and the

act  of  cruelty  of  harassment  and  or  the  death.  The

prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was

subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in

connection with any demand for dowry.

17. Under  Section  304B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  the

prosecution  cannot  escape  from discharging  its  burden  of

proving  that  the  harassment  or  cruelty  was  related  to

7

demand for dowry soon before death.  In this case, the High

Court has been swayed by the fact that the evidence of the

complainant, being the father of the victim, did not evince

direct knowledge of demand of dowry.   The judgment and

order under appeal is not liable to be interfered with.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.   

……………......................................J.   [ Indira Banerjee ]                            

………………...................................J. [ Ajay Rastogi ]                                  

NEW DELHI JUNE 13, 2019