Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2008

STATE OF RAJASTHAN     ... APPELLANT

Versus

GIRDHARI LAL            ...RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This  appeal has been preferred by the State of  

Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 14th  

March, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the  

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.  By the impugned  

judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal  

filed by the respondent­Girdhari Lal, modified the  

sentence and convicted him under Section 306 IPC  

instead of 304B IPC. For the said offence, the Division  

Bench sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous  

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/­, in default he has  

to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.  

Since the respondent­Girdhari Lal had already undergone  

imprisonment for a period of more than six years, the  

High Court directed to release him forthwith, if not  

required to be detained in any other case.

Page 2

2

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

The informant­Jugal Kishore(PW.1) – father of the  

deceased Babita in his written complaint on 11th  

August, 1998 informed that his daughter­Babita (since  

deceased) was married to respondent­Girdhari Lal four  

years back. Her in­laws were harassing Babita in  

connection with demand for dowry from the initial days  

of her marriage.   Earlier also the in­laws of Babita  

made attempt to set her ablaze and neighbourers rescued  

her.  Later, the in­laws assured her parents that they  

will not harass Babita, but she was burnt to death on  

10th August, 1998.

3. On the said complaint a case under Section 304B  

and 498A IPC was registered and investigation was  

commenced. After the investigation chargesheet was  

filed. In due course, the case came up for trial to the  

Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The charge under  

Section 304B IPC framed against the respondent was  

denied by him who claimed trial. Altogether 9 witnesses  

were examined in support of the case of the  

prosecution. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.  

P.C., the respondent claimed innocence. Two defence  

witnesses were also examined. The trial court on  

appreciation of  evidence and on  hearing  the  parties  

convicted the respondent under Section 304­B IPC and  

sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

Page 3

3

On appeal, as noticed above, the Division Bench of  

the High Court partly allowed the appeal, convicted the  

respondent under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC  

and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous  

imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/­, in default he has  

to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant­State submitted  

that the deceased­Babita died within 7 years of her  

marriage under unnatural circumstances and respondent  

did not inform the parents of the deceased regarding  

the incident. The burden to prove innocence lies on the  

respondent after the prosecution has proved that the  

deceased died under the unnatural circumstances within  

seven years of marriage. Further, according to the  

learned counsel for the State, the High Court has  

failed to appreciate that Jugal Kishore (PW.1), Nand  

Lal (PW.4) and Smt. Bimla (PW.7) have made statements  

regarding harassment and torture by the in­laws of the  

deceased in relation to the demand for dowry which has  

been corroborated by the statement of other witnesses  

and the documents on record. The aforesaid facts were  

not properly appreciated by the High Court while  

converting the conviction from Section 304B IPC to 306  

IPC and reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to  

five years imprisonment.

Page 4

4

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on  

the other hand supported the decision rendered by the  

High Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and gone through the materials on record.

7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial, we  

notice that Babita died of burn injuries within 5 to 6  

years of her marriage with respondent­Girdhari Lal,  

thereby the death occurred otherwise than under normal  

circumstances. A bare look at the postmortem report  

(Ext.P­6) shows that the deceased died because of the  

extensive burns. Therefore, the question that arises  

for determination is whether Babita’s death is an  

instance of dowry death or whether she was driven to  

commit suicide by her husband?  

8. The main ingredient of the offence under Section  

304B which is required to be established by the State  

is whether “soon before her death” Babita was subjected  

to cruelty and harassment by her husband, “for or in  

connection with demand of dowry”, to allege “dowry  

death”.

Jugal Kishore (PW.1) is himself the complainant  

and is the father of the deceased­Babita. He stated  

that his daughter was married to Girdhari Lal about 6  

or 7 years back. The said statement was recorded on  

12th June, 2000 and the incident occurred on 10th  

August, 1998. Shyam Lal Mahajan, another resident of

Page 5

5

the Village Chhavsari, where the marriage of Babita was  

solemnised, by his statement stated that the marriage  

of Babita was solemnised with accused Girdhari Lal in  

the year 1992­93. Similar was the statement made on  

12th June, 2000 by Jagdish Prasad (PW.3) and he stated  

that the marriage of Babita was solemnised with the  

accused Girdhari Lal about 6 or 7 years back.  

Therefore, it is clear that the death of Babita  

happened within 7 years of her marriage.  

9. The death of Babita was caused by the burn  

injuries and thereby death occurred otherwise than  

under normal circumstances. The statement made by Dr.  

J.P. Bugalia (PW.6)   proved the fact that death was  

caused due to the burns. He stated that on 10th August,  

1998 he was working as Medical Jurist in B.D.K.  

Hospital, Jhunjhunu. He along with Dr. P.S. Sahu  

conducted the postmortem of Babita who was admitted in  

the Hospital on 10th August, 1998 at 1.50 p.m. and died  

during the treatment at 4.00 p.m. There were burn  

injuries all over her body.  

10. So far as the harassment and cruelty are  

concerned, Rajender Prasad (PW.8) stated that Girdhari  

Lal used to beat her for dowry. Jugal Kishore(PW.1)  

has also supported the fact that she was being  

subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand by  

stating that Girdhari Lal used to beat and harass  

Babita for dowry after her marriage. Once he was asked

Page 6

6

not to do so but he did not mend his ways. He also  

stated that Girdhari Lal earlier tried to burn her  

alive by pouring kerosene by confining her in a room  

and when he came to know about this incident, he went  

to her in­laws house alongwith Shyam Lal, Phool Chand,  

Rajender, Jagdish, Neki Ram and Man Roop where Girdhari  

Lal and his father begged their pardon for their act of  

burning her alive and assured that they will not repeat  

the incident. Bimla Devi (PW.7), mother of the deceased  

stated in her statement that the accused Girdhari Lal  

and Babita came to their village Chhavsari one month  

prior to the incident and stayed there for one hour.  

Jugal Kishore was not present at the house at that time  

and Babita told her mother to send her father to her  

in­laws because Girdhari Lal used to harass her. This  

statement clearly indicates that Babita was being  

subjected to cruelty and harassment  soon before  the  

death.

11. Now, the question arises as to whether Babita was  

subjected to such cruelty and harassment by her husband  

soon before her death for, or in connection with the  

demand of dowry. The period which can come within the  

term “soon before” cannot be put within the four  

corners of time frame. It is left to the Court for its  

determination depending upon the facts and  

circumstances of each case.

Page 7

7

In the  present case,   Jugal Kishore (PW.1)  and  

Bimla Devi (PW.7) has made ominous statements regarding  

demand of dowry that after the marriage demand of dowry  

was made by the in­laws. It is not made specific as to  

whether Girdhari Lal demanded dowry.

12. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

which deals with the presumption as to dowry death  

reads as follows:

1. Section 113B. 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 has 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 304B of  the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860).  

In the present case there is no evidence on record  

to come to the definite conclusion that soon before her  

death, Babita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by  

her husband, Girdhari Lal for, or in connection with  

any, demand of dowry. In absence of such ingredient the  

presumption that Girdhari Lal had caused the dowry  

death cannot be drawn. The prosecution thereby cannot

Page 8

8

take advantage of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence  

Act, 1872.

13. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

relates to presumption as to abetment of suicide by a  

married woman which reads as follows:

2. 113A. Presumption as to abetment  of suicide by a  married  women.­ When the question is whether the  commission of suicide by a woman  had been abetted by her husband  or any relative of her husband  and it is shown that she had  committed suicide within a period  of seven years from the date of  her marriage and that her husband  or such relative of her husband  had subjected her to cruelty, the  court may presume, having regard  to all the other circumstances of  the case, that such suicide had  been abetted by her husband or by  such relative of her husband.

Explanation – For the purposes of  this section, "cruelty" shall have the  same meaning as in section 498A of the  Indian Panel Code (45 of 1860).

In the instant case, it is established from the  

ocular and documentary evidence that Babita was  

subjected to cruelty and harassment. As a result of  

such treatment of cruelty and harassment she was driven  

to meet the suicidal death. She had committed suicide  

within a period of 7 years from her marriage and that  

her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Therefore,

Page 9

9

the Appellate Court rightly presumed, having regard to  

all other circumstances of the case, that such suicidal  

had been abetted by her husband Girdhari Lal and  

convicted him for the offence under Section 306 IPC.  

Hence, no interference is called for.  

14. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is  

dismissed.   

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

…………………………………………………………………………J.            (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 7,2013.