Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1797 OF 2012

MONJU ROY & ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL                  …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. The appellants stand convicted under Sections 498A, 306  

and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentenced to  

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (“RI”) for 10 years and to pay  

fine of Rs.5000/-.   In default, to undergo further imprisonment  

for two years.   They also stand sentenced to suffer RI for three  

years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/-  and  in  default  to  suffer  

further  imprisonment for  three months under  Sections 498A  

and 306 IPC.

2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar Roy on  

20th February, 1994.  According to the prosecution, Sekhar Roy,  

his  mother,  two  sisters  and  brother  raised  a  demand  of  

Rs.5000/- and since the said demand was not fulfilled, Shanti  

Roy was harassed and even kept without food.  On 31st July,  

Page  of

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

1995, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting  

herself on fire.  She was pregnant carrying eight months’ old  

foetus.   Chittaranjan  Saha  (PW1),  brother  of  the  deceased  

lodged First Information Report.  After conducting investigation,  

appellants Monju Roy, Anju Roy, sisters of Sekhar Roy, Tulshi  

Roy, brother of Sekhar Roy, Sumitra Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy  

and Sekhar Roy, husband of the deceased were sent up for  

trial.  Sumitra Roy died on 27th August, 2001 during pendency  

of the trial.   

3. The  prosecution  examined  17  witnesses  and  also  

produced  documents  in  support  of  its  case.   The  witnesses  

examined included brother of the deceased PW 5 and mother  

of  the  deceased  PW  14  to  prove  that  the  deceased  was  

harassed by demand of dowry.  Accepting the evidence, the  

trial  court  convicted  and  sentenced  the  three  appellants  as  

mentioned above and also Sekhar Roy who has not preferred  

appeal and is said to have undergone the sentence awarded to  

him.  The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence with  

the  modification  that  instead  of  life  imprisonment  under  

Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for ten  

years was awarded.

4. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants   

Shri Pijush K. Roy and Shri Kabir S. Bose for the State of West

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

Bengal  and  with  their  assistance  have  gone  through  the  

record.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  

omnibus allegation against all  the family members could not  

be taken at the face value, having regard to the well known  

tendency of naming all the family members by the family of an  

unfortunate victim.  In such circumstances, the court may be  

cautious in accepting such omnibus allegations against all the  

family members unless there is an independent corroboration  

of such allegation.  He submitted that in the present case, the  

allegation is that all the five family members raised a demand  

of Rs.5000/- and beyond stating that all the family members  

harassed  her,  no  individual  role  in  harassment  has  been  

specified.  The benefit of dowry could go either to the husband  

or at best his mother and not to the siblings who are alleged to  

have  joined  in  such  demand.   There  is  no  independent  

corroboration  of  the  allegation  as  such  allegation  has  been  

made for the first time in the FIR.  The allegation is based on  

the  version  given  to  the  witnesses  three  months  after  the  

marriage  or  thereafter,  though  it  is  stated  that  the  witness  

continued  to  receive  information  about  such  demand  even  

thereafter  upto  15-20  days  prior  to  the  occurrence.   He  

submitted that mother-in-law of the deceased has already died

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

and husband of  the deceased has  undergone the  sentence.  

The  appellants  who  are  two  sisters  and  one  brother  of  the  

husband of the deceased have been in custody for more than  

four years and two months.   The possibility of exaggeration  

about the number of family members who raised demand of  

dowry was not ruled out.  Even if demand was jointly made,  

the appellants have not been assigned any role in harassment  

in absence of which, presumption under Section 113B of the  

Evidence Act could not be raised against them.  Reliance has  

been  placed  on  observations  of  this  Court  in   

Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.1.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  opposed  the  above  

submission and pointed out that the deceased was pregnant  

for eight months and would not have committed suicide within  

two years of marriage unless the harassment for dowry had  

been  caused.   He  submitted  that  there  is  no  reason  to  

disbelieve the version of close relatives of the deceased that  

dowry  was  demanded  by  all  the  family  members  and  the  

demand continued till her death.  All the members have been  

specifically named.  The death having taken place within seven  

years  of  marriage  in  circumstances  other  than  normal,  

statutory presumption under Section 304B clearly arises and  

1                 2000 (5) SCC 207

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing  

the appellants.  

7. We have  given  serious  thought  to  the  question  raised  

about the possibility of exaggeration in prosecution version in  

implicating all the family members.   

8. While  we do not  find any ground to  interfere  with  the  

view  taken  by  the  courts  below  that  the  deceased  was  

subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry  

demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of  

naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not  

ruled out.  In Kans Raj, this Court observed :

“5………A tendency has, however, developed for   roping  in  all  relations  of  the  in-laws  of  the   deceased  wives  in  the  matters  of  dowry  deaths   which,  if  not  discouraged,  is  likely  to  affect  the   case  of  the  prosecution  even  against  the  real   culprits.  In their  over enthusiasm and anxiety to   seek conviction for maximum people, the parents   of  the  deceased have been found to  be making   efforts  for  involving  other  relations  which   ultimately  weaken  the  case  of  the  prosecution  even against the real accused as appears to have   happened in the instant case.”

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning  distant  relatives  without  there  being  specific   material.  Only the husband, his parents or at best   close  family  members  may  be  expected  to  demand  dowry  or  to  harass  the  wife  but  not   distant relations, unless there is tangible material   to support allegations made against such distant   relations.  Mere naming of distant relations is not   enough  to  summon  them  in  absence  of  any  specific role and material to support such role.

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

9. In  Raja  Lal  Singh vs. State  of  Jharkhand2, it  was  observed :

“14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5   Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased  Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the  deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri   told them that dowry was demanded by not only   Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh  and  his  wife  Sanjana  Devi,  but  we  are  of  the   opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip   Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only   to spread the net wide as often happens in cases   like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been   observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in   Kamesh Panjiyar  v.  State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC  388],   etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip   Singh  and  Sanjana  Devi  and  set  aside  the   impugned  judgments  of  the  High  Court  and  the  trial  court  insofar  as  it  relates  to  them and  we  direct  that  they  be  released  forthwith  unless   required in connection with some other case.”

10. Moreover, ingredient of offence under Section 304B is not  

mere demand of dowry but “cruelty or harassment” for or in  

connection with demand of dowry.  In Amar Singh vs. State  

of Rajasthan3, it was observed :

“29. ………..  What  is  punishable  under  Section  498-A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or   harassment by the husband or the relative of the   husband on the woman. It will be also clear from  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that only when  it  is shown that soon before her death a woman  has  been subjected  by  any 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  within  the  meaning  of  Section  304-B  IPC.  The  act  of   subjecting  a woman to cruelty or harassment for,   or in connection with,  any demand for dowry by   the accused, therefore, must be established by the   

2                 (2007) 15 SCC 415 3                 (2010) 9 SCC 64

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

prosecution  for  the  court  to  presume  that  the  accused has caused the dowry death.”  

11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl  

dies  an  unnatural  death,  allegation  of  demand  of  dowry  or  

harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales.  

At  the  same  time,  omnibus  allegation  against  all  family  

members particularly  against brothers and sisters and other  

relatives  do  not  stand  on  same  footing  as  husband  and  

parents.   In  such  case,  apart  from  general  allegation  of  

demand of  dowry court  has to be satisfied that harassment  

was also caused by all the named members.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, even  

if it is accepted that the appellants were involved in raising the  

demand  for  dowry  there  is  material  that  the  appellants  

harassed the victim resulting in her death.  Normally, it is the  

husband or parents of the husband who may be benefitted by  

the dowry and may be in a position to harass and not all other  

relatives, though no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that  

regard.  It is also true that till such an unfortunate event takes  

place, the family members may not disclose the demand of  

dowry being  a  private  matter  and  under  the  hope that  the  

relationship  of  the  couple  may  improve.   However,  having  

regard  to  the  nature  of  their  relationships,  there  being

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012

possibility  of  the  appellants’  having been named by way of  

exaggeration, we are of the view that the appellants deserve  

to be given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the  

present case.

13. Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 304B  

IPC  without  interfering  with  conviction  and  sentence  under  

other heads.  Since the appellants are said to have already  

undergone the sentence awarded for other charges which may  

be  verified,  they  may  be  released  from  custody  forthwith  

unless required in any other case.

……..…………………………….J.     [T.S. THAKUR]

.….………………………………..J.             [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

NEW DELHI APRIL 17, 2015