Page 1

‘REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2011

Dinesh                                                    …..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana                                  ….Respondent       

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and  

order dated 17th February, 2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in  

Criminal Appeal No. 1006-SB of 1998 whereby learned Judge of the High  

Court  dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant  challenging  the  

judgment of conviction/sentence passed by the trial court.

2. The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of Manju  

Bala  was  solemnized  with  Dinesh,  appellant-accused  about  four  years  

1

Page 2

before her death.  Dowry in accordance with their financial capacity was  

given by her parents at the time of marriage.  However, appellant and his  

two brothers, namely Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were not satisfied with the  

dowry and started harassing her for not bringing dowry to their satisfaction.  

Although,  mediators  also  requested  accused  persons  not  to  harass  the  

deceased Manju Bala, their requests fell flat. It has also been alleged that  

the accused persons,  appellant  and his two brothers,  did not  permit the  

parents of Manju Bala to meet her for the past several months prior to the  

death.   

3. Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months when  

accused Vinod went to the house of her parents on the fateful day i.e.  on  

7.6.1994  and informed them that  Manju Bala  was  seriously ill.   When  

Manju Bala’s  father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the  

house of accused persons for seeing her, they noticed accused Dinesh and  

his mother carrying Manju Bala in a tractor to Civil Hospital Fatehabad.  

Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor.   On arriving at  

Civil Hospital,  they learnt that  Manju  Bala  had  died  before  reaching the  

Hospital.  Munni Bai – mother of the deceased suspected that her daughter  

was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers, namely Vinod and  

Rakesh, for not satisfying their demand for dowry.  On her statement, FIR  

2

Page 3

No.441 dated 8.6.1994 under section 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code  

(in short ‘IPC’) was registered in the Police Station, Fatehabad and all the  

three accused were arrested.  On finding a prima facie case under aforesaid  

sections, the accused persons were charge sheeted.   

4. In  order  to  prove  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  nine  

witnesses  and closed the evidence.   Factum of marriage between Manju  

Bala and Dinesh was admitted when the accused persons were examined  

under Section 313, Cr.P.C.  However, it was denied that Manju Bala was  

ever harassed for bringing dowry.  Accused controverted the allegations and  

claimed that they had good relations with Manju, who at the time of first  

delivery developed complication and child died.  Thereafter, when she was  

about to deliver child, she again developed complication and resultantly she  

died.  During trial, the accused examined three witnesses in their defence.

5. The Trial Court after concluding the trial found the charge under  

Sections 498-A and 304-B,  IPC framed against  accused Dinesh proved.  

The Trial Court  opined that  the prosecution failed to  prove the charges  

under aforesaid sections against the other two accused Vinod and Rakesh  

and accordingly acquitted them of the charge.   The Additional Sessions  

Judge convicted  Dinesh and sentenced  him to  undergo RI  for  one year  

3

Page 4

under Section 498-A and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.  In default of payment of  

fine,  the  accused-appellant  was  further  directed  to  undergo  RI  for  six  

months.   He  was  further  sentenced  to  undergo RI  for  ten  years  under  

Section 304-B, IPC.  Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.   

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, appellant  

approached the High Court preferring Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 1998.  

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the essential  

ingredients  of  Section  304-B,  IPC,  learned  Judge  of  the  High  Court  

dismissed the appeal observing that there is evidence with regard to the  

factum of persisting demand of dowry and on account of failure to meet the  

demand for dowry, Manju Bala was compelled to commit suicide within a  

period of four years of marriage, though the precise date of her marriage is  

not in evidence but both sides admitted that marriage was solemnized about  

four years prior to her death.

7.   We have gone through the judgment passed by Trial Court and  

also by the Appellate Court.   Both the Courts on appreciation of entire  

evidence  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  prosecution  has  proved  the  

charges  against  the  appellant.   The  High  Court  while  affirming  the  

judgment of the Trial Court has considered the provision of Section 304-B,  

4

Page 5

I.P.C.  and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.   The High Court  

relied upon the evidences of PWs.1, 2 and 5 to come to the conclusion that  

there had been persistent demand for dowry and also the complainant was  

not allowed to meet the deceased and further the death was caused by the  

consumption  of  oreganophosphorus  compound,  which  conclusively  

establishes the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal  

Code.  The High Court  further recorded the findings that  the totality of  

evidence reveal  persisting demand for  dowry and on the failure of the  

complainant to meet the demand, the deceased was compelled to commit  

the suicide within the period of four years of marriage.

8. Assailing  the  impugned  judgment  of  conviction,  Mr.  Rishi  

Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, firstly  contended  

that in absence of evidence that the deceased soon before her death was  

subjected to cruelty, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B,  

IPC cannot at all be  sustained.   Learned counsel also submits that Munni  

Bai, mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1 deposed that she  

was not aware about the reason of the death of the deceased. The witness  

was declared hostile by the prosecution and during her cross-examination  

she  categorically admitted  that  the  police  did  not  record  her  statement  

according to her narration. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention  

5

Page 6

to the evidence of these witnesses on cross examination where she was  

confronted with the fact of alleged demand for dowry where the witness  

admitted  that  she  had  not  stated  before  the  police  that  accused  were  

demanding T.V. and a golden chain.  Learned counsel contended that PW-

2 Rakesh Kumar, who was  one of the mediators  in the said marriage,  

wrongly stated that the alleged demand for dowry by the accused persons  

were made approximately four years before the date of occurrence. On the  

basis of these evidence, learned counsel contended that the courts below  

without looking into the various material contradictions have passed the  

impugned order of conviction.  Learned counsel submitted that the High  

Court completely overlooked the most essential ingredient i.e. soon before  

her death the deceased must have subjected to cruelty or harassment in  

connection with demand for dowry.  Lastly, it was contended that even  

admitting the evidence on record the demand, if any, was made about four  

years  before  the  death  of  the  deceased  even  then  by  no  stretch  of  

imagination it can be held that soon before her death the deceased was  

subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment  in  connection with  the  demand for  

dowry.

9. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the  

prosecution,  has  supported  the  impugned  judgment  by  drawing  our  

attention to the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

6

Page 7

10. Before we discuss the facts in evidence brought on record, we  

wish to discuss the relevant provisions which are involved in this case.  As  

noticed, the appellant is convicted under Section 304-B of I.P.C. The said  

section reads as under:-

“304-B-  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). (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.”

11.    Another relevant provision which needs to be discussed is Section  

113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,  1872.  The said provision is quoted  

hereinbelow:-

“113-B.   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  had been subjected by such person to cruelty or  

7

Page 8

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.”

12.  These two provisions in Indian Penal Code and Indian Evidence  

Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986  

with a  view to combating the increasing menace of dowry death.   The  

legislative intent  of enacting these  provisions is  to  curb the menace of  

dowry death.  This Court while considering the legislative intent in the case  

of  State of Punjab vs.  Iqbal Singh, AIR (1991) SC 1532 observed as  

under:-

“8. The legislative intent is  clear  to  curb the  menace of dowry deaths, etc., with a firm hand.  We must keep in mind this legislative intent. It  must  be  remembered  that  since  crimes  are  generally  committed  in  the  privacy  of  residential homes and in secrecy, independent  and direct evidence is not easy to get. That is  why the legislature has by introducing Sections  113-A and 113-B in the Evidence Act tried to  strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting  a  presumption  to  be  raised  if  certain  foundational  facts  are  established  and  the  unfortunate event has taken place within seven  years of marriage. This period of seven years is  considered to be the turbulent one after which  the legislature assumes that the couple would  have settled down in life. If a married women is  subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband or his family members Section 498-A,  

8

Page 9

IPC  would  be  attracted.  If  such  cruelty  or  harassment was inflicted by the husband or his  relative for, or in connection with, any demand  for  dowry  immediately  preceding  death  by  burns  and  bodily  injury  or  in  abnormal  circumstances within seven years of marriage,  such  husband  or  relative  is  deemed  to  have  caused her death and is liable to be punished  under Section 304-B, IPC. When the question  at issue is whether a person is guilty of dowry  death of a woman and the evidence discloses  that  immediately  before  her  death  she  was  subjected  by  such  person  to  cruelty  and/or  harassment  for,  or  in  connection  with,  any  demand for  dowry,  Section  113-B,  Evidence  Act provides that the court shall presume that  such person had caused the dowry death.  Of  course  if there  is  proof of the person having  intentionally caused her death that would attract  Section  302,  IPC.  Then we  have  a  situation  where the husband or his relative by his wilful  conduct creates a situation which he knows will  drive  the  woman to  commit suicide  and  she  actually does so,  the case would squarely fall  within the ambit of Section 306, IPC. In such a  case  the  conduct  of  the  person  would  tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually  pushing the woman into a desperate situation of  no return which would compel her to put an end  to her miseries by committing suicide.”

13. If we read the aforementioned two provisions i.e. Section 304-B,  

IPC  and  Section  113-B  of  the  Evidence  Act,  it  is  evident  that  the  

prosecution must have brought on record the materials to show that soon  

before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.   

9

Page 10

14.  In the case of Ramesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC  

388, this Court held that the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a  

natural or incidental death so as to bring it within the purview of “Death  

occurring otherwise  than in the  normal circumstances”.  The expression  

“soon before” is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act  

and Section 304-B, IPC are pressed into service.  Hence, the prosecution is  

obliged to  show that  soon  before  the  occurrence  there  was  cruelty  or  

harassment only attracting the provision of Section 113-B.

15. The expression “soon before” is a relative term as held by this  

Court, which is required to be considered under the specific circumstances  

of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any  

time of allotment.  It can be said that the term “soon before” is synonyms  

with  the  term “immediately before”.   The  determination of  the  period  

which can come within term “soon before” is left to be determined by  

courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

16. In the case of  Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5  

SCC  207,  it  was  held  that  in  case  of  dowry  death  the  circumstances  

showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not  

10

Page 11

restricted  to  a  particular  instances  but  normally refer  to  a   course  of  

conduct.  Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.  If the cruelty  

or harassment or demand of dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be  

deemed to be “soon before death”.

17. Prima facie we are of the view that neither definite period has  

been  indicted  in  the  aforementioned  section  nor  the  expression  “soon  

before” has been defined.  In the case of Dhian Singh & Anr. vs. State of   

Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 759, this Court held that:-

“The contention of the appellant’s counsel  is that even if it is proved that there was cruelty  on account of demand of dowry, such cruelty  shall be soon before the death and there must  be  proximate connection between the alleged  cruelty and the death of the deceased. It is true  that the prosecution has to establish that there  must  be  nexus  between  the  cruelty  and  the  suicide  and the  cruelty meted out  must  have  induced  the  victim  to  commit  suicide.  The  appellant has no case that there was any other  reason for her to commit suicide. The evidence  shows  that  the  first  appellant  had  demanded  dowry and he had sent her away from his house  and only after mediation she was taken back to  the  appellant’s  house  and  death  happened  within a period of two months thereafter. These  facts  clearly  show  that  the  suicide  was  the  result of the harassment or cruelty meted out to  the deceased.  The presumption under Section  113-B  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act  could  be  invoked against the appellant and the Sessions  Court rightly found the appellant guilty of the  

11

Page 12

offence  punishable  under  Section  304-B IPC  and Section 201 IPC.”

18. Coming to the facts of the present case, it has been sufficiently  

proved  that  the  death  was  caused  due  to  consumption  of  

oreganophosphorus compound which is a pesticide.  Dr. S.P. Mimani and  

Dr. S.P. Dadich (PW-9) conducted postmortem examination on the dead  

body of the deceased.  They collected viscera including parts of stomach,  

intestine, lung, kidney and blood.  On examination of the viscera it was  

found  containing oreganophosphorus  compound  which  is  a  poisonous  

substance.   In the opinion of  Dr.  S.P.  Mimani (PW-9)  the  death was  

caused by the aforementioned compound.  Admittedly, the marriage was  

solemnised before four years from the date of occurrence.  The defence of  

the  accused  that  the  death  was  caused  due  to  some  complication  

developed at the advanced stage of pregnancy, is without any basis.  The  

mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1, deposed that at the  

time of marriage dowry was paid as per their financial position.  After the  

marriage the deceased Manju Bala visited her paternal home and informed  

her parents that her husband Dinesh and his brothers Vinod Kumar and  

Rakesh were ill-treating her for not bringing television and gold chain in  

dowry.  This was brought to the notice of Suresh and Rakesh, who acted  

as mediators at the time of settlement of marriage proposal and requested  

12

Page 13

the accused persons not to harass the deceased but they did not heed to it.  

PW-1 further deposed that the accused person did not allow them to meet  

their daughter.  The evidence of PW- 1 was corroborated by Ram Naresh  

(PW-5),  who also  reiterated  that  the accused persons  were  demanding  

television and a gold chain and the deceased was subjected to cruelty for  

not bringing enough dowry.  PW-5 further deposed that when he went to  

the house of accused persons at the time of marriage of his brother Vinod,  

he was again reminded that he should come to their house only after giving  

television and gold chain.  From the evidence of other witnesses,  it is  

sufficiently established that there had been persistent demand for dowry  

from the  side  of  the  accused  persons  and  for  non-fulfilment  of  their  

demand the deceased  Manju Bala  was  being subjected  to  cruelty and  

harassment.   Because  of  persistent  demand for  dowry and  continuous  

torture, harassment and cruelty meted out on the deceased Manju Bala,  

she died by consuming pesticide.

19. Considering the evidence referred to hereinbefore and the conduct  

of the accused persons, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that the  

deceased died because of cruelty, harassment and demand for dowry.  We  

are also of the considered opinion that there is a proximate connection  

between  cruelty,  harassment  and  death  of  the  deceased  as  discussed  

13

Page 14

above.  There are sufficient materials showing that the accused persons  

started demanding television and gold chain etc.  after the marriage and  

that their demand continued and the parents were not allowed to meet their  

daughter unless their demands were fulfilled.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Sessions Court  

and the High Court have come to the correct finding that the accused is  

guilty of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and that the presumption  

contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is fully applicable to the  

facts of the case.

21. In our considered opinion, therefore, the judgment of conviction  

passed by the courts below needs no interference by this Court.  Hence,  

there  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal  and  is  accordingly  dismissed.   The  

appellant  shall  be  taken into custody forthwith to  serve  the remaining  

sentence.

………………………….J. (Dipak Misra)

………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

14

Page 15

New Delhi, April 25, 2014.

15

Page 16

ITEM NO.1A             COURT NO.12             SECTION IIB

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 578 OF 2011

DINESH                                    Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                          Respondent(s)

[HEARD BY : HON'BLE DIPAK MISRA AND HON'BLE M.Y.EQBAL,  JJ.]

Date:25/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for Judgment          today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.(Not Present)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal pronounced the  

judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  Mr.  

Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable  

judgment, which is placed on the file, the appeal  

is dismissed.

The  appellant  shall  be  taken  into  custody  

forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

(Parveen Kr.Chawla) Court Master

(Phoolan Wati Arora)        Assistant Registrar         

16