Page 1

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   1                        

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 613 OF 2007

INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS.      Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT                       Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04-

12-2006 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal  

No. 1822 of 2006.

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  Anitha  @  

Rinkudevi got married to the appellant No. 1 in the  

year 2002. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and  

mother respectively of appellant No. 1. On 18-05-2004,  

Rinkudevi poured kerosene over her body and died out of  

burns. Her brother Munnakumar lodged a complaint on 21-

05-2004 before the Assistant Police Commissioner, 'J'  

Division,  Ahmedabad  City  in  which  he  alleged  that

Page 2

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   2                        

Rinkudevi had written to him that the appellants were  

harassing her since two years after the marriage for  

not bringing dowry such as table, chair, sofa set, bed,  

scooter, colour T.V. and along with the complaint he  

produced xerox copy of a letter dated 16-02-2004 said  

to have been written by Rinkudevi. In the complaint,  

Munnakumar  further  alleged  that  the  appellants  were  

using slangs against Rinkudevi and used to beat her and  

were giving physical and mental harassment to her for  

not bringing dowry and instigated her to commit suicide  

by sprinkling kerosene on her body. The complaint was  

registered  as  FIR  and  after  investigation,  a  charge  

sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections  

304B, 498A and 306 read with Section 114, IPC.

3. At  the  trial,  amongst  other  witnesses,  

Munnakumar was examined as PW3 and he proved not only  

his complaint (Ext. 25) but also the letter dated 16-

02-2004  (Ext. 49)  said to  have been  written by  the  

deceased  to  him  from  Ahmedabad.  The  appellants  led  

defence  evidence  through  DW  1  who  is  said  to  have  

written a letter dated 23-02-2004 (Ext. 44) and the  

defence of the appellants was that the deceased was in  

Chaksiriya village with her brother's family in Bihar  

and was not at Ahmedabad on 16-02-2004 from where the

Page 3

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   3                        

letter (Ext. 49) is said to have been written by her to  

PW 3. The further case of the appellants in defence was  

that the deceased was a minor when she got married to  

the appellant No. 1 and she committed suicide because  

she wanted to remain with her parents in Chaksiriya  

village and did not want to live with the appellants at  

Ahmedabad.  The  Trial  Court  disbelieved  the  defence  

evidence and convicted the appellants under Sections  

304B, 498A and 306, IPC on the basis of the evidence of  

PW 3 and Ext. 49 written by the deceased to PW 3 and  

Ext. 31 written by PW 3 to the deceased. The appellants  

challenged the findings of the Trial Court in the High  

Court  in  the  Criminal  Appeal,  but  the  High  Court  

maintained conviction of the appellants.

4. After  hearing  Mr.  Haresh  Raichura,  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellants,  and  Ms.  Pinky  Behara,  

learned counsel for the State, at length, we find that  

besides  Ext.  49,  there  is  no  other  evidence  of  a  

prosecution witness to establish that the appellants  

had, in any way, subjected the deceased to cruelty or  

harassment. In other words, the letter dated 16-02-2004  

alleged to have been written by the deceased (Ext. 49)  

to  PW  3  is  the  only  evidence  produced  by  the  

prosecution to prove that the appellants had subjected

Page 4

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   4                        

the deceased to harassment and cruelty in connection  

with demand for dowry. But, we have grave doubts as to  

whether the said letter dated 16-02-2004 (Ext. 49) was  

at all written by the deceased to PW 3 for various  

reasons. The said letter dated 16-02-2004 is alleged to  

have been written by the deceased from Ahmedabad. PW 3  

has not stated in his evidence specifically that on 16-

02-2004 the deceased was at Ahmedabad. On the other  

hand, DW 1 has stated in his evidence that on 15-02-

2004, his wife and he had gone to Chaksiriya village  

which  was  the  home  of  his  wife  and  they  stayed  at  

Chaksiriya up to 21-02-2004 and everyday they used to  

meet Munnakumar (PW 3) and the deceased and PW 3 wanted  

to send the deceased to Ahmedabad but the deceased was  

not willing to go to Ahmedabad and she used to say that  

if she is sent to Ahmedabad, she will commit suicide.  

DW 1 has further stated in his evidence that he had  

written an inland letter dated 23-02-2004 (Ext. 44) to  

appellant  No.  2  and  he  has  also  stated  that  the  

handwritings and signature in the letter marked as Ext.  

44 were his. We find that Ext. 44 is an inland letter  

and bears the postal stamp of not only the post office  

of  'dispatch' in  Bihar but  also the  post office  of  

'receipt' in Ahmedabad. The evidence of DW 1 supported  

by Ext. 44 thus makes it probable that the deceased was

Page 5

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   5                        

not at Ahmedabad but at Chaksiriya village in Bihar on  

16-02-2004  when  she  is  alleged  to  have  written  the  

letter  (Ext.  49)  alleging  demand  of  dowry  and  ill-

treatment by the appellants towards her. Moreover, from  

a reading of Ext. 49 which is in Hindi, we find that at  

many places the author of the letter has used words in  

'puling' instead of 'striling', which raises serious  

doubts as to whether the letter has been written by a  

woman or by a man. Since there are grave doubts as to  

whether the letter (Ext. 49) was actually written by  

the deceased or not, conviction of the appellants only  

on  the  basis  of  the  said  letter  (Ext.  49)  for  the  

offences  under  Sections  304B,  498A  and  306,  IPC  is  

unsafe.

5. Coming  now  to  Ext.31,  we  find  that  the  

letter (Ext. 31) is dated 25-04-2004 and is admitted by  

PW 3 to have been written by him from Chaksiria in  

Bihar to the deceased at Ahmedabad. Relevant portions  

from this letter (Ext. 31) are extracted hereinbelow:

“... ... ... ...

The main reason for writing this letter  is  that  since  when  you  have  gone  (sic)  I  have  been  waiting  for  your  letter.  But  unfortunately,  I  have  not  received  even  a  single letter. But after talking to you on  telephone, I am satisfied that this time you  are living happily and not being misbehaved.

Page 6

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   6                        

... ... ... ... ...

Further, I have to say that you have  not to think anything about Rs.33,000/- as  to from where your Bhaiya will manage the  amount. Regarding it, I want to convey you  that I have so much self confidence and high  thinking that not to talk of Rs.33,000/-, I  would  have  paid  even  Rs.43,000/-  provided  that you are alright. You should not face  further problems. What more should I write.  It is better to write less and understand  more.”

From the aforesaid contents of the letter dated 25-04-

2004 of PW 3 to the deceased, it is clear that after  

talking  to  the  deceased  on  telephone,  PW  3  was  

satisfied that the deceased was living happily and was  

not being misbehaved with. This letter is dated 25-04-

2004 and was most proximate to 18-05-2004 when the  

deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her  

body and this letter is evidence of the fact that the  

deceased was happy and was not being misbehaved with  

by  anybody.  This  being  the  evidence,  there  are  

reasonable doubts in the story of the prosecution that  

the appellants had subjected the deceased to cruelty  

or harassment soon before her death.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  State,  Ms.  Pinky  

Behara, vehemently submitted that in Ext.31, there is  

also  a  mention  that  PW  3  will  provide  not  just  

Rs.33,000/- but even Rs.43,000/- provided the deceased

Page 7

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   7                        

was  alright  so  that  the  deceased  did  not  face  any  

problems.  She  submitted  that  this  would  show  that  

there was some demand of dowry on PW 3 in connection  

with the marriage of the deceased. On a reading of  

Ext. 31, it is difficult for the Court to record a  

definite  finding  that  there  was  a  demand  of  

Rs.33,000/- or Rs.43,000/- towards dowry. In any case,  

even if there was such demand of dowry of Rs.33,000/-  

or Rs.43,000/-, mere 'demand of dowry' without proof  

of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' caused to the deceased by  

the appellants cannot make the appellants liable for  

the offences under Sections 304B, 498A or 306, IPC.

7. To establish the offence of dowry death under  

Section 304B, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond  

reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has  

subjected  the  deceased  to  cruelty  or  harassment  in  

connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.  

Similarly,  to  establish  the  offence  under  Section  

498A,  IPC  the  prosecution  has  to  prove  beyond  

reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has  

subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in Clauses  

(a) and (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC.  

In the present case, the prosecution has not been able  

to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants

Page 8

       CRIMINAL APPEAL 613 OF 2007   8                        

have  subjected  the  deceased  to  any  cruelty  or  

harassment. Further,  we have noticed from Ext. 31  

written by PW 3 to the deceased on 25-04-2004 that  

after talking to the deceased on telephone, he was  

satisfied  that  she  was  living  happily  and  was  not  

being misbehaved with. No other material having come  

in  evidence  to  establish  that  the  appellants  

instigated  the  deceased  to  commit  suicide,  it  is  

difficult for the Court to hold that the appellants  

had in any way abetted the suicide by the deceased on  

18-05-2004.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the  

impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the  

judgment of the Trial Court and allow the appeal. The  

appellants  are  on  bail  and  their  bail  bonds  are  

discharged.

............................J. (A.K. PATNAIK)                 

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

NEW DELHI, MARCH 18, 2013