Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2008

Bhola Ram …..Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab      …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question for consideration is whether the appellant  

Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by both the Trial Court and  

the High Court for having caused the dowry death of Janki  

Devi, an offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section  

498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, Bhola  

Ram  deserves  an  acquittal  since  there  is  no  evidence  

inculpating him.  

The facts: Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 1 of 17

Page 2

2. Darshan  Ram  married  Janki  Devi  on  30th June,  1986  

after which they resided in Darshan Ram’s house in village  

Mehma Sarja.  The couple has a female child.

3. At the time of their marriage, Janki Devi’s family gave  

dowry within their means to Darshan Ram and his family.  

But  according to the prosecution,  his  brothers Parshottam  

Ram and Bhola Ram (the appellant) and his sister Krishna  

Devi  and mother  Vidya Devi  demanded more dowry from  

time to time.

4. Janki Devi’s family was unable to fulfill  the additional  

demands for dowry and, according to the prosecution, she  

was humiliated and cruelly treated by Darshan Ram’s family  

for their incapacity.  Being unable to face the harassment,  

cruelty and humiliation meted out by Darshan Ram’s family,  

Janki Devi consumed poison and thereby committed suicide  

on 6th September, 1989.

5. About  one  and  a  half  months  before  her  death,  a  

demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made by Janki Devi’s in-laws for  

the purchase of a car.  Janki Devi’s father PW-2 Nath Ram  

borrowed this amount from PW-1 Nirbhai Singh for meeting  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 2 of 17

Page 3

the dowry demand.  The amount was then handed over by  

him to Darshan Ram in the presence of other members of his  

family.

6. Unfortunately,  Darshan  Ram’s  family  was  not  fully  

satisfied with  this  payment.  According  to  the  prosecution,  

about a fortnight before her death, Janki Devi came to her  

father and told him that there was a further demand for an  

amount of Rs.  30,000/-  for  purchasing some articles for  a  

service  station  proposed  to  be  run  by  Darshan  Ram and  

Bhola Ram. Thereupon, Nath Ram accompanied Janki Devi to  

her matrimonial home and informed Darshan Ram and the  

other accused that he would not be able to pay this amount.  

On this, Darshan Ram’s family informed him that he should  

pay the amount failing which he could take Janki Devi back  

with him.  Nath Ram requested the family not to insist on the  

demand  and  left  Janki  Devi  at  her  matrimonial  home  in  

village Mehma Sarja.   

7. On 3rd September, 1989 PW-3 Des Raj, the brother of  

Nath Ram’s wife, informed Nath Ram about Janki Devi being  

ill-treated on account of  Nath Ram’s inability  to  meet the  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 3 of 17

Page 4

additional demand for dowry.  Again on 5th September, 1989  

Des Raj informed Nath Ram that Janki Devi wanted to meet  

Nath Ram and was weeping in his presence.

8. On receiving this information, Nath Ram went to village  

Mehma  Sarja  along  with  his  brother  PW-4  Sukhdev  Ram.  

When they reached the bus stand in the village they were  

informed  that  Janki  Devi  had  consumed  poison  and  had  

taken her life, having suffered more than enough cruelty at  

the hands of  the family  of  Darshan Ram.  Nath Ram and  

Sukhdev Ram then proceeded to  Janki  Devi’s  matrimonial  

home and found her lying there but no one from Darshan  

Ram’s family was present in the matrimonial home.  

9. Nath Ram then lodged a First Information Report (FIR)  

in Police Station Nehianwala.  On the basis of the FIR PW-7  

Manminder Singh prepared an inquest report in the presence  

of  Sukhdev Ram. On the next  day,  that  is  7th September,  

1989 PW-5 Dr.  Tirath Goyal  performed an autopsy on the  

dead body of Janki Devi.  He noted that froth was coming out  

from her  nose and mouth.   Her  viscera  were sent  to  the  

Chemical  Examiner who reported that Janki Devi had died  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 4 of 17

Page 5

due to having consumed an organo phosphorus insecticide  

which was poisonous and sufficient  to  cause death in  the  

ordinary course of nature.   

10. On  the  basis  of  the  above  details  and  further  

investigations,  a  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  Darshan  

Ram and four members of his family (including Bhola Ram)  

under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC for causing  

the dowry death of Janki Devi.

11. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried by the  

Sessions Judge at Bathinda.

Decision of the Trial Judge 12. In his Judgment and Order dated 3rd December, 1991  

the Sessions Judge at Bathinda in Sessions Case No. 35 of  

15th May, 1990 held that Section 304-B of the IPC required  

the prosecution to establish four ingredients, namely: (i) the  

death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or  

occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, (ii) such  

death  should  have  occurred  within  seven  years  of  her  

marriage, (iii)  soon before her death she was subjected to  

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 5 of 17

Page 6

husband, and (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for,  

or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the present  

case,  all  four  ingredients  were  established  by  the  

prosecution.

13. It was further held that  Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and  

their  mother  Vidya Devi  were living together  in  the same  

house at village Mehma Sarja and that they had demanded  

additional  dowry  from  Janki  Devi’s  family.  However,  

Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were living separately and  

they could not be said to have caused the dowry death of  

Janki Devi. Consequently, Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi  

were found not guilty of the charges framed against them  

and  they  were  acquitted.   However,  the  Sessions  Judge  

found that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi, by their  

attitude  and  behaviour,  caused  Janki  Devi  to  take  the  

extreme step of  taking her  own life.  These three accused  

were  accordingly  convicted  for  offences  punishable  under  

Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with  

fine for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and 2  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 6 of 17

Page 7

years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section  

498-A of the IPC.     

14. The accused preferred two appeals (one by Vidya Devi  

and the other by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram) against their  

conviction  and  sentence in  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana.

Decision of the High Court 15. In so far as Vidya Devi is concerned, her conviction was  

upheld by the High Court and she preferred a Special Leave  

Petition  in  this  Court.   She  was  granted  special  leave  to  

appeal but during the pendency of her appeal she passed  

away and accordingly her appeal was disposed of.

16. Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram preferred a joint appeal in  

the High Court  being Criminal  Appeal  No.  25 SB of  1992.  

This appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who by his  

Judgment  and  Order  dated  5th July,  2004  upheld  their  

conviction and sentence.  

17. The High Court held that Vidya Devi, Darshan Ram and  

Bhola Ram were all residing together in the same house at  

village  Mehma Sarja.  It  was  held  that  the  amount  of  Rs.  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 7 of 17

Page 8

10,000/- initially taken from Nath Ram was used to purchase  

a car for Darshan Ram and that car was being plied as a taxi  

by him. It was also held that a service station was at the  

initial stages of being established by Darshan Ram and Bhola  

Ram  and  that  they  needed  Rs.  30,000/-  for  expenses  in  

connection with that venture. Since all three convicts were  

residing together at village Mehma Sarja, they were equally  

responsible for demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi  

and her father and thereby compelling her to take her life.

18. It  appears that  Darshan Ram has not  challenged the  

Judgment  and  Order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  his  

conviction and sentence have attained finality.

19. We are, therefore, only concerned with the appeal filed  

by Bhola Ram who challenged his conviction and sentence in  

this Court and was granted special  leave to appeal on 8th  

July, 2008.  He was also granted bail by this Court on the  

same day and we are told that even today, he is on bail.

Discussion 20. Learned counsel for Bhola Ram submitted that in fact  

there is no specific allegation against him. The statements of  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 8 of 17

Page 9

all  the  witnesses  are  omnibus  or  generic  in  nature  and  

Darshan Ram and other members of his family have been  

generally  accused  of  having  demanded  additional  dowry  

from Janki Devi’s family.  It is submitted that in the absence  

of  any  particular  allegation,  demands  for  dowry  made by  

Darshan Ram cannot be attributed to Bhola Ram and under  

these circumstances, there is really no evidence to uphold  

his conviction.

21. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel  

for the State that the three convicts were jointly and directly  

concerned with the demands of additional dowry made on  

Janki Devi and her family.  Consequently, it is not possible to  

segregate the case of Bhola Ram from that of the other two  

convicts.   

22. We  are  unable  to  accept  the  contention  of  learned  

counsel for the State.  The Sessions Judge found that there  

was  no  evidence  that  Parshottam  Ram  and  Krishna  Devi  

made  demands  for  additional  dowry  from  Nath  Ram.  

Accordingly,  they  were  acquitted  at  the  trial  stage  itself.  

Therefore, the segregation process, based on the evidence  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 9 of 17

Page 10

on  record,  had  begun  at  the  trial  stage.  This  is  clearly  

because in a dowry death, some actors play an active role  

while others play a passive role. Consequntly, to sustain the  

conviction  of  Bhola  Ram,  there  must  be  some suggestive  

evidence and not  generic  evidence implicating him in the  

demand for additional dowry from Nath Ram.   

23. As observed by the Law Commission of India (LCI) in its  

91st Report of 10th August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) the truth  

may not come in a dowry death case due to the sequestered  

nature of the offence. This is what the LCI said:

“Those who have studied crime and its incidence know  that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a  difficult  matter  and  still  more  difficult  is  successful  prosecution of the offender.  Crimes that lead to dowry  deaths are almost invariably committed within the safe  precincts  of  a  residential  house.  The  criminal  is  a  member of the family; other members of the family (if  residing in the same house) are either guilty associates  in crime, or silent but conniving witnesses to it. In any  case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth  may not come out of  the chains.  There would be no  other  eye  witnesses,  except  for  members  of  the  family.”

24. This passage also clearly brings out that in a case of a  

dowry death, every member of the family may not be fully  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 10 of 17

Page 11

and equally guilty. The degree of involvement may differ – as  

an associate, as a silent witness, as a conniving witness and  

so on.   

25. So far as this case is concerned, we have gone through  

the evidence of all the witnesses on record and while there is  

no doubt that Janki Devi died an unnatural death within a  

few  years  of  her  marriage  to  Darshan  Ram,  no  definite  

allegation has been made by any of the witnesses including  

Nath Ram or anybody from his family that Bhola Ram had  

demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in his  

family  or  had  treated  Janki  Devi  with  cruelty  or  in  a  

humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry  

death.

26. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 2007  

the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC  

were held to be as follows:

“In order to seek a conviction against a person for the  offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to  prove that:

(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or  bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under  normal circumstances;

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 11 of 17

Page 12

(b)  such  death  should  have  occurred  within  7  years of her marriage; (c)  the  deceased  was  subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment by her husband or by any relative of  her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in  connection with the demand of dowry; and (e)  to  such  cruelty  or  harassment  the deceased  should  have  been  subjected  soon  before  her  death.”

27. It  is  true  that  there  was  a  demand  of  dowry  of  Rs.  

10,000/-  which  was  paid  by  Nath  Ram by  borrowing  this  

amount from Nirbhai  Singh,  but  that  demand was for  the  

purchase  of  a  car  for  use  by  Darshan  Ram.  Under  the  

circumstances, it can safely be presumed that Darshan Ram  

made the demand for additional dowry for his benefit. Bhola  

Ram  may  have  been  a  silent  or  a  passively  conniving  

participant, but there is nothing on record to suggest that he  

had  either  actively  made  such  a  demand  or  that  the  

demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his benefit  

either directly or indirectly.

28. Similarly,  the evidence on record does not show that  

the  demand  of  another  amount  of  Rs.30,000/-  from Nath  

Ram just a fortnight before Janki Devi took her life was made  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 12 of 17

Page 13

by Bhola  Ram to  purchase articles  for  the service station  

being set up by him and Darshan Ram at village Nehianwala.  

At best, it could be said that this amount was intended for  

use for the joint business venture of Bhola Ram and Darshan  

Ram. Given that the earlier demand for additional dowry was  

made for the benefit of Darshan Ram, it is more than likely  

that this demand was also made by him. In any event, there  

is  again  nothing  to  suggest  that  Bhola  Ram  was  in  any  

manner actively concerned in making the demand directly or  

indirectly from Nath Ram.

29. Consequently, we do not find any evidence to suggest  

any  active  complicity  of  Bhola  Ram  in  demanding  any  

additional  dowry  from Nath  Ram either  for  himself  or  for  

Darshan Ram or his proposed business venture.  

30. Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to  

bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As  

held  in  Kans Raj  a dowry death victim should  also  have  

been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her  

husband or a relative. In this case, even assuming the silent  

or conniving participation of Bhola Ram in the demands for  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 13 of 17

Page 14

dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest  

that he actively or passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty  

or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High  

Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of  

an  offence  punishable  under  Section  304-B  of  the  IPC  or  

even considered it.   

31. The High Court has relied on the presumption available  

under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude  

that  Janki  Devi’s  death was a dowry death.  However,  this  

presumption cannot be stretched to implicate all and sundry  

in Darshan Ram’s family in demanding additional dowry from  

Janki Devi’s family and harassing her and treating her with  

such  cruelty  that  she had to  resort  to  taking  her  life.  As  

mentioned above, there is a possibility of members of the  

family having varying roles, active and passive. Depending  

on the nature and extent of involvement, a person may be  

punished for an offence under Section 498-A or Section 304-

B  or  Section  306  of  the  IPC  or  Section  4  of  the  Dowry  

Prohibition Act, 1961.  A dowry death will not ipso facto suck  

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 14 of 17

Page 15

the husband with all his relatives into the net of Section 304-

B of the IPC.

32. It was contended by learned counsel for the State that  

Darshan  Ram,  Bhola  Ram  and  Vidya  Devi  were  living  

together  at  village  Mehma  Sarja  and  so  their  active  

involvement in the dowry death cannot be ruled out. While  

these persons may be staying together, it does not lead to  

any positive conclusion that each one of them was actively  

involved in demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi and  

also behaving in a cruel or humiliating manner towards her  

resulting in her consuming poison to end her life. In cases of  

this nature which attract a reverse onus of proof, the least  

that is expected of the prosecution to bring home a charge  

under Section 304-B of the IPC is to adduce some evidence  

to  suggestively  implicate  a  relative,  in  this  case,  to  

suggestively implicate Bhola Ram both in the demands for  

additional dowry and harassment or cruelty.  Such evidence  

is not available on record and so the mere fact that all the  

members of Darshan Ram’s family were living together at  

village Mehma Sarja, would not alter the factual situation.

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 15 of 17

Page 16

33. Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  the  prosecution  

proving the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC, the initial  

burden cast on it has not been discharged. Therefore, the  

presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot  

be attracted.  

Conclusion 34. Based on the evidence available on record (or the lack  

of it) we have no doubt that the appeal filed by Bhola Ram  

ought  to  be  allowed.   It  is  accordingly  allowed and he is  

acquitted of the charges against him under Section 304-B  

and Section 498-A of the IPC in relation to the death of Janki  

Devi.

35. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence  

of Bhola Ram is set aside.

Post script 36. What is a little disturbing about this case is that it is  

illustrative of the slow movement of the wheels of criminal  

justice  delivery.  The  dowry  death  took  place  on  6 th  

September, 1989. The Trial Court pronounced its decision on  

3rd December, 1991 within two years of Janki Devi’s death.  Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 16 of 17

Page 17

The first appeal was decided by the High Court on 5th July,  

2004 which is more than twelve years later. A petition for  

special leave to appeal was filed in this Court in 2004 and  

leave was granted only after a gap of four years in 2008.  

Thereafter this appeal  was listed for  hearing as if  it  is  an  

appeal of 2008 rather than a petition of 2004 thereby wiping  

away four years of its age in this Court. And even then, it has  

taken another five years for its disposal, making a total of  

nine years spent in this Court. It is high time those of us who  

are judges of this Court and decision makers also become  

policy makers.  

….…….……………………..J.   (Ranjana Prakash  Desai)

….…….……………………..J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; November 11, 2013

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 17 of 17