Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.851     OF     2010   

Rajesh Bhatnagar … Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.850     OF     2010   

Mukesh Bhatnagar … Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Swatanter     Kumar,     J  .

1. Learned Second Additional District Judge, Haridwar, vide its  

judgment dated 2nd December, 1996 held all the three accused,  

namely, Mukesh Bhatnagar, Rajesh Bhatnagar and Smt. Kailasho  

@ Kailashwati, guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304B  

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for causing the death of Smt.

Page 2

Renu motivated by non-payment of dowry demands and sentenced  

all of them to undergo life imprisonment.  Against this judgment,  

the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.  The High  

Court vide its judgment dated 14th October, 2009 dismissed the  

appeal of all the accused confirming the conviction and order of  

sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.  Aggrieved therefrom,  

two of the accused have preferred separate appeals.  Criminal  

Appeal No.851 of 2010 has been preferred by the accused Rajesh  

Bhatnagar while Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2010 has been  

preferred by Mukesh Bhatnagar.  As both these appeals arise from  

a common judgment, we shall dispose of these appeals by this  

common judgment.  The prosecution filed a charge sheet in terms  

of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).  

After completing the investigation and examining the witnesses, the  

investigating officer presented the charge sheet stating that these  

three appellants had committed an offence punishable under  

Section 304B IPC as together they had burnt, by pouring kerosene,  

Renu, the deceased wife of the accused Mukesh Bhatnagar, as she  

and her parents failed to satisfy their demands of dowry.  

2. The facts, as they appear from the record of the case, are that  

Ms. Renu (deceased) was daughter of Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatnagar,  

widow of Rajbahadur, resident of Mohalla Kayasthwada,

Page 3

Sikandrabad, Police Station Bulandshahar.  Vimla Devi had sought  

a marriage alliance for her daughter Ms. Renu.  Finally, the mother  

of Ms. Renu and Mukesh’s family had agreed to alliance of marriage  

between Mukesh and Renu.  When the engagement (sagai)  

ceremony was to be performed at the house of Mukesh, family of  

Ms. Renu along with their relations, Sanjay Bhatnagar, Shailendera  

Bhatnagar and others had gone to the house of Mukesh.  At that  

time itself, Mukesh, his brother Rajesh and his mother Kailasho (all  

the accused) demanded a refrigerator as dowry.  The mother and  

relations of the deceased expressed their inability to buy a  

refrigerator but their request brought no results and the accused  

family pressurized them to pay Rs.10,000/- for purchasing the  

refrigerator then and there.  Upon persuasion by their own  

relations, the family of Ms. Renu paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to  

Rajesh Bhatnagar for purchasing the refrigerator, whereafter the  

ceremony was performed.  On 26th May, 1994, the marriage  

between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites at Roorkee.  

The family of Ms. Renu had come to Roorkee from Sikandrabad to  

perform the marriage at Roorkee to the convenience of the boy’s  

family.  After performing the marriage, Ms. Renu went to her  

matrimonial home while her other family members came back to  

their house at Sikandrabad (Bulandshahar).  Not even one and a

Page 4

half months of the marriage had elapsed but Mukesh is stated to  

have brought Renu to her parental home, where he informed her  

family that a television and a cooler had not been given as dowry in  

the marriage and these articles should be given immediately.  If this  

was not done, he would not take Renu back to her matrimonial  

home.  The members of Renu’s family tried to impress upon  

Mukesh not to pressurize them so much, but Mukesh persisted  

with his demands.  At that time, Ms Renu also informed her family  

members that all the accused persons were beating her frequently  

for not bringing television and cooler as part of the dowry.  

However, left with no alternative, the mother and uncle of Ms. Renu  

assured Mukesh that everything would be settled and he need not  

worry.  However, the television and cooler were not given at that  

time.  The behavior of the accused towards Ms. Renu did not  

change and whenever she came to her parental home, she  

complained about the behavior of her in-laws and demands of  

dowry from them.  She even wrote letters to her family from time to  

time complaining of cruel behavior of the accused towards her.  In  

May 1995, Ms. Renu gave birth to a male child.  On 18th October,  

1995, unfortunately, the father of Ms. Renu expired and thereafter  

the family was not able to meet the dowry demands raised by the  

accused persons.  Sometime in the second week of November 1995,

Page 5

Ms. Renu came to her parental home at 11.00 p.m. in the night.  

She was alone and had not even brought her child with her.  Being  

surprised, her mother had asked her what had happened.  She  

started crying and informed her mother and uncle that the accused  

persons were very unhappy, as the television and cooler had not  

been given and they had turned her out of the matrimonial home,  

refusing to even give her, her child.  The mother and the uncle tried  

to pacify Ms. Renu and told her that with the passage of time,  

things would get settled and she should go back to her matrimonial  

home.  After 20-25 days, Mukesh came to his in-laws’  house.  

During their meeting, the mother and uncle of Ms. Renu told  

Mukesh to treat her properly and said that the child should not be  

kept away from Ms. Renu.  They also assured him that as soon as  

they could make some arrangement, they would give the television  

and cooler to Mukesh.  After this assurance, Mukesh took Renu  

with him to the matrimonial home.  While leaving, Renu told her  

mother that though they were sending her to her matrimonial  

home, her in-laws would kill her and she may not come back at all.  

3. On 17th February, 1996, the uncle of Renu received a call from  

PW3, Anoop Sharma, resident of Roorkee, informing him that some  

accident had taken place and Renu was not well.  He asked them to  

come to Roorkee immediately.  Mother and uncle of Renu came to

Page 6

Roorkee, where they learnt and believed that for failing to give  

television and cooler, Renu’s mother-in-law, brother-in-law and  

husband had sprinkled kerosene and set Renu on fire.  Before  

setting her on fire, accused Mukesh had also beat her and when  

Renu attempted to defend herself, even Mukesh received some  

bruises on his person.  On 17th February, 1996 itself, the mother of  

the deceased lodged a complaint with the Police Station  

Gangnahar, Roorkee and case No.32 of 1996 under Section 304B  

IPC was registered on that very day.   

4. PW5, Sub-Inspector R.P. Purohit and PW7, Deputy S.P., M.L.  

Ghai, along with other police officers, reached the place of  

occurrence, filled the panchayatnama, Ext.Ka-7, prepared the  

sketch of the place of occurrence and took the body of the deceased  

into custody vide Exts.Ka-8 and Ka-1.  The dead body was sent for  

post mortem and photographs of the dead body were taken vide  

Exts. 1, 3 and 3.  The articles found at place of occurrence, like  

container containing kerosene, empty container which was having  

smell of kerosene, the stove pin, burnt ash, cloth rope, bangles,  

cloths of the deceased, one match box, etc. were recovered from the  

site and were taken into custody vide Exts. 18 to 27.  The post  

mortem report of the deceased was Ext. Ka-6 whereafter the dead  

body was handed over to her family members.  Injuries were also

Page 7

found on the person of the accused Mukesh and he was subjected  

to medical examination on 17th February, 1996 at about 12.30 p.m.  

vide Ext. Ka-22.  When M.L. Ghai, PW7, on 17th February, 1996  

before the arrest of the accused persons went to their house, he  

found the house open and the accused were absconding.  He had  

directed that a lock be put on the door of the house, which was  

later opened and the site map Ext.Ka-9 was prepared.   

5. All the accused faced the trial and were convicted.  Their  

conviction and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court were  

confirmed by the High Court, as already noticed above.  This is how  

the present appeals come up for consideration of this Court.  

6. First and foremost, it has been contended on behalf of the  

appellants that in the present case, the ingredients of Section 304  

B IPC are not satisfied and as such, they cannot be convicted for  

that offence.  This contention is sought to be buttressed by the  

counsel while relying upon the letters Exts. Ka-2 to Ka-5 (four  

letters).  The argument is that since no complaint of dowry has  

been made in these letters, therefore, it must follow that there was  

no demand of dowry made by the accused persons.  In absence of  

such demand, the rigours of Section 304B do not come into play.  

Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in the

Page 8

cases of Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan & Ors. [AIR 1998 SC  

774] and Rajesh Tandon v. State of Punjab [1994 (1) SCALE 816].   

7. Before we examine the merit or otherwise of this contention, it  

will be useful to state the basic ingredients of Section 304B IPC.  

The requirement of Section 304B is that the death of a woman be  

caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than in normal  

circumstances, within seven years of her marriage.  Further, it  

should be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to  

cruelty or harassment by her husband or her husband’s family or  

relatives and thirdly, that such harassment should be in relation to  

a demand for dowry.  Once these three ingredients are satisfied, her  

death shall be treated as a ‘dowry death’ and once a ‘dowry death’  

occurs, such husband or relative shall be presumed to have caused  

her death.  Thus, by fiction of law, the husband or relative would be  

presumed to have committed the offence of dowry death rendering  

them liable for punishment unless the presumption is rebutted.  It  

is not only a presumption of law in relation to a death but also a  

deemed liability fastened upon the husband/relative by operation  

of law.  This Court, in the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana  

[(2011) 11 SCC 359], while analyzing the provisions of Section 304B  

of the Act, held as under :

Page 9

“18. In such a fact situation, the provisions of  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872  providing for presumption that the accused is  responsible for dowry death, have to be pressed  in service. The said provisions read as under:

“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 harassment for, or in  connection with, any demand for dowry, the  court shall presume that such person had  caused the dowry death.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. It may be mentioned herein that the  legislature in its wisdom has used the word  “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on  the part of the court to presume that death had  been committed by the person who had  subjected her to cruelty or harassment in  connection with any demand of dowry. It is  unlike the provisions of Section 113-A of the  Evidence Act where a discretion has been  conferred upon the court wherein it had been  provided that court may presume abetment of  suicide by a married woman. Therefore, in view  of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut  the presumption and in case of Section 113-B  relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove  shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused.  The only requirements are that death of a  woman has been caused by means other than  any natural circumstances; that death has been  caused or occurred within 7 years of her  marriage; and such woman had been subjected  to cruelty or harassment by her husband or  any relative of her husband in connection with  any demand of dowry.

20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients  of such death have been established by the

Page 10

prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a  presumption that the accused has caused the  dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention  herein that the expression “soon before her  death”  has not been defined in either of the  statutes. Therefore, in each case, the Court has  to analyse the facts and circumstances leading  to the death of the victim and decide if there is  any proximate connection between the demand  of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and  the death. (Vide T. Aruntperunjothi v. State; Devi  Lal v. State of Rajasthan; State of Rajasthan v.  Jaggu Ram, SCC p. 56, para 13; Anand Kumar  v. State of M.P. and Undavalli Narayana Rao v.  State of A.P.)”

8. Similar view was also taken by this Court in the case of  

Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder & Anr. v. State of West Bengal  

[(2008) 1 SCC 202].

9. In light of the enunciated principles, now we will revert back  

to the facts of the present case.  Immediately upon death of the  

deceased, PW2, Smt. Vimla Devi, mother of the deceased had  

lodged the report with the police where she had given in writing the  

complete facts, as we have stated above, and it is not necessary for  

us to repeat her complaint here.  When her deposition was recorded  

in the Court, she, again, on oath, reiterated the complete facts.  

According to her, the demand of dowry in relation to various items  

persisted right from the date of engagement, uptil the death of the  

deceased.  Firstly, demand was raised in relation to purchase of a

Page 11

refrigerator, for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given and it was  

only thereafter that the engagement ceremony could be completed.  

Thereafter, television and cooler were also demanded, for which  

they had thrown out the deceased Ms. Renu from her matrimonial  

home and it was only upon the assurance given by the mother and  

the uncle of the deceased that Mukesh and his family had agreed to  

take her back to the matrimonial home.  It must be noticed that on  

18th October, 1995, the father of the deceased had died, but despite  

such death, the demands of dowry persisted from the accused  

persons.  Not only this, while Ms. Renu was leaving her home for  

the last time along with Mukesh, after Mukesh was assured that in  

future they would arrange for television and cooler, she had  

categorically stated that she apprehends danger to her life and she  

may not come back to her home.  These circumstances clearly show  

the kind of threat and fear under which the deceased was living.  

PW1 is the uncle of the deceased, who also fully corroborated the  

statement of PW2.  According to this witness, Mukesh had climbed  

up to the roof and said that he would not come down and would  

not permit the engagement ceremony to be completed, unless a  

fridge was brought.  Then Rs.10,000/- was given to his brother  

Rajesh Bhatnagar, whereafter the ceremony was completed.  There  

is no contradiction or variation in the statements of PW1 and PW2.

Page 12

10. One Anoop Sharma had informed them on 17th February,  

1996 that Ms. Renu had met with an accident.  Anoop Sharma was  

examined by the prosecution as PW3, and this witness admitted  

that he had got the marriage arranged between Renu and Mukesh  

and when he had gone to meet his aunt, who lived in Roorkee,  

while passing by the place situated near the house of Mukesh, then  

he saw the gathering of people there and had made the call to Ms.  

Renu’s family from the STD booth to Sikandrabad.  This is another  

circumstance which shows that the accused persons were totally  

irresponsible and did not even care to inform the family of the  

deceased, about her death.  Dr. Vipin Kumar Premi, PW4, along  

with Dr. R.K. Pande, had performed the post mortem on the dead  

body of the deceased Renu.  According to the doctor, the whole of  

the body was burnt up to the stage of first and second degree burns  

and the deceased had expired due to ante mortem injuries and  

shock.  Sub Inspector R.P. Purohit, the Investigating Officer, (PW5)  

has testified with regard to the inquest investigation, recovery of  

articles from the place of occurrence and recording of statements of  

witnesses.  In his examination, he specifically denied that the body  

of the deceased was handed over to Mukesh and Rajesh after post  

mortem.  Deputy Superintendent of Police M.L. Ghai, PW-7 had  

also visited the spot after complainant Smt. Vimla Devi was

Page 13

examined.  He prepared the site plan and conducted the inquest.  

This witness clearly stated that when at 8.00 p.m. on 17th February,  

1996, he went to the house of Mukesh, to make inquiries upon the  

formal registration of the case, he did not find the accused persons  

on the spot and, in fact, they had left the house open and fled.  

Therefore, he had got the house locked by a Havaldar of Chowki  

Tehsil.   

11. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was persistent  

demand of dowry by the accused persons and they had killed her  

by sprinkling kerosene on her and putting her on fire.  There can be  

no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven  

years of her marriage.  Thus, the ingredients of Section 304B are  

fully satisfied in the present case.  We are least satisfied with the  

contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that  

merely because the letters on record do not specifically mention the  

dowry demands, such letters have to be construed by themselves  

without reference to other evidence and rebutting the presumption  

of a dowry death, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.  These  

letters have to be read in conjunction with the statements of PW1  

and PW2.  It is difficult for one to imagine that these letters should  

have been worded by the deceased as submitted on behalf of the  

accused.  She never knew with certainty that she was going to die

Page 14

shortly.  The letters clearly spell out the beatings given to her, the  

cruelties inflicted on her and reference to the conduct of the family.  

The evidence has to be appreciated in its entirety.  Neither the  

letters can be ignored nor the statements of PW1 and PW2.  If the  

letters had made no reference to beatings, cruelty and ill-treatment  

meted out to the deceased and not demonstrating the grievance,  

apprehensions and fear that she was entertaining in her mind, but  

were letters simpliciter mentioning about her well being and that  

she and her in-laws were living happily without complaint against  

each other, the matter would have been different.  In the judgment  

relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, it  

has specifically been recorded that the letters produced in those  

cases had clearly stated that relations between the parties were  

cordial and there was no reference to any alleged cruelty or  

harassment meted out to the deceased by any of the accused in  

that case.  On the contrary, in the letters, it was specifically  

recorded that the deceased was happy with all the members of the  

family.  The oral and documentary evidence in those cases had  

clearly shown that the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty  

or harassment.  In those cases, there was no evidence of demand of  

dowry and cruelty to the deceased, which certainly is not the case  

here.  In the case before us, there is definite ocular, expert and

Page 15

documentary evidence to show that the deceased died an unnatural  

death, she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment, there was  

demand of dowry of specific items like refrigerator, television and  

cooler and she died within seven years of her marriage.   

12. Then the learned counsel appearing for the appellant  

contended that the accused Mukesh had suffered 12 injuries on his  

person in attempts to rescue the deceased and there was no  

proximity between the demand of refrigerator and the occurrence.  

Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence charged.  

According to him, in any case, the courts ought not to have  

awarded the punishment of life imprisonment to the accused  

persons keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the fact  

that both the accused were young persons while their mother was  

an aged lady.  He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court  

in the case of Hemchand v. State of Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 727].  

These contentions again are without any substance.  No doubt, as  

per the statement of the doctor, there were nearly 12 injuries found  

on the body of the accused Mukesh.  Question is, how did he suffer  

these injuries?  No doubt the accused had suffered number of  

injuries.  PW8, Dr. D.D. Lumbahas explained the injuries on the  

body of the accused Mukesh as follows :

Page 16

“(1) Abraded swelling 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right  upper eyelid.

(2) Abraded swelling 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm, right  side face, just below right eye.

(3) Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.2 cm, left side neck,  front middle past.

(4) Three abrasions in an area of 6.0 cm x 3.5  cm, each measuring 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, 0.6  cm x 0.4 cm, and 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, right  upper arm inner side lower past.

(5) Two faint contusions 2.0 cm apast, each  measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm and 2.0 cm x  0.8 cm right chest, front, upper past.

(6) Faint contusion 2.5 cm x 0.4 cm, left side  chest, front upper past.

(7) Abrasion 1.4 cm x 0.3 cm, left side chest  outer side 9.0 cm below armpit.

(8) Two abrasion 1.5 cm apast, each measuring  5.0 x 0.5 cm and 6.0 x 0.5 cm, left upper  arm outer side, middle past.

(9) Abrasion 0.8 x 0.2 cm, left upper arm,  back, lower past.

(10) Abrasion 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm, right back upper  past.

(11) Two abrasion 2.0 cm apast, each measuring  3.0 cm x 0.3 cm and 6.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right  back outer site/at to the right armpit.

(12) Abrasion 13.0 cm x 0.5 cm, right upper arm  back outer upper 2/3.”

13. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to  

how and when the accused Mukesh suffered the injuries.  

According to the accused, he had suffered these injuries when he

Page 17

was trying to break open the door of the kitchen with the intention  

to save the deceased, because it was projected by the defence that  

the deceased had died because of an accident of stove fire while  

cooking the food.  This entire gamut of projections by the defence  

counsel are not only afterthoughts but, in fact, nothing but  

falsehood.  This aspect has been well considered by the Trial Court,  

which recorded the following reasons for rejecting this theory  

propounded on behalf of the defence :

“(1) On the spot, a pin of stove was opened,  however, the stove was not burning.  The  switch of heater was also off and it was also  not found on.

(2) There was no cooked food.

(3) On the spot the empty container was found  which contained kerosene oil smell.  Besides this, the one container containing  kerosene oil was found.

XXX XXX XXX

(5) From the body of deceased and from earth,  kerosene oil smell was coming.

(6) The deceased was not wearing synthetic  clothes.  No half burnt cloth was found.

(7) About 12 injuries were found on the person  of accused Mukesh on different parts of the  body.  On the spot, the broken bangles of  deceased were found.  All these things go to  prove that deceased was fighting for her life.  No explanation was given by Mukesh for his  injuries.

Page 18

(8) The entrance of kitchen was not having any  door and the statement given by defence  that the door of the kitchen was closed and  he had to open the door by pushing it from  his hands and chest, is a false statement.

(9) Before the death, deceased has discharged  faecal matter and there was rigor mortis on  her dead body, which indicates that  deceased was afraid of her death.  This fact  goes to prove that occurrence had not taken  place as has been said by accused persons.

(10) The dead body was having first degree and  second degree burn injuries and it goes to  prove that kerosene oil was sprinkled on  the body.  It completely rules out the death  of accident.”

14. The above reasoning given by the Trial Court deserves  

acceptance by us.  Furthermore, the entire conduct of the accused  

is such as to lead to only one plausible conclusion, i.e., all the  

accused together had caused the death of the deceased.  The  

arguments of the defence are strange because if the accused had  

attempted to save the deceased, then he would have suffered some  

burn injuries.  But as per the above details of injuries, there was  

not even a single burn injury found on the body of the accused  

Mukesh.  These injuries were such that one could suffer only if he  

was struggling or fighting with another person, as then alone could  

he suffer such bruises or minor cuts.  Absence of any cooking  

material in the kitchen is another very important circumstance  

which would belie the stand of this accused.  An accused who

Page 19

raises a false plea before the Court would normally earn the  

criticism of the Court leading to adverse inference.  This Court in  

the case of Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328] has held  

as follows :

“21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on  the court to put in an enquiry or trial  questions to the accused for the purpose of  enabling him to explain any of the  circumstances appearing in the evidence  against him.  It follows as a necessary  corollary therefrom that each material  circumstance appearing in the evidence  against the accused is required to be put to  him specifically, distinctly and separately and  failure to do so amounts to a serious  irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that  the accused was prejudiced.

22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is  to establish a direct dialogue between the  court and the accused.  If a point in the  evidence is important against the accused, and  the conviction is intended to be based upon it,  it is right and proper that the accused should  be questioned about the matter and be given  an opportunity of explaining it.  Where no  specific question has been put by the trial  court on an inculpatory material in the  prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial.  Of course, all evidence, it would vitiate the  trial.  Of course, all these are subject to rider  whether they have caused miscarriage of  justice or prejudice.  This Court also expressed  a similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. State  (Delhi Admn.) while dealing with Section 342 of  the Criminal procedure Code, 1898  (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code).  Non-indication of inculpatory material in its  relevant facts by the trial court to the accused

Page 20

adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution  case.  Recording of a statement of the accused  under Section 313 is not a purposeless  exercise.”

15. As far as the contention of the accused that there was no  

proximity or nexus between the alleged demand of refrigerator and  

the death of the deceased and the accused is, thus, entitled to  

benefit of acquittal is concerned, it requires to be noticed only for  

being rejected.  The demand for refrigerator was the first demand of  

dowry, that too, at the time of engagement.  This demand was  

instantaneously fulfilled by the family of the deceased under  

compulsion and threat that the engagement ceremony would not be  

performed if the refrigerator or money was not given.  The demand  

of dowry raised by the accused persons later for television and  

cooler could not be satisfied by the family of the deceased for  

financial limitations upon the death of father of the deceased.  As a  

result, the deceased was treated with cruelty and physical assault.  

In fact, it ultimately led to her brutal murder at the hands of the  

husband and his family members.  Not only this, the conduct of the  

accused prior to and immediately after the occurrence clearly  

shows that they were not innocent.  Otherwise, there was no  

occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased was  

handed over to her relations.  These circumstances, along with the

Page 21

circumstances stated by the Trial Court, are inconsistent with their  

innocence and consistent only with hypothesis that they had killed  

the deceased by setting her on fire.  No explanation, much less a  

satisfactory explanation, has been rendered by the accused persons  

in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  On the contrary, the  

trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and  

explanations given by the defence for accused Mukesh having  

suffered injuries on his body are patently false and not worthy of  

credence.   

16. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that  

the accused are not entitled to any benefit, much less acquittal,  

from this Court.  We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in  

the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra  

Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC 684] where, under somewhat similar  

circumstances, the Court rejected the plea of the innocence of the  

accused taking into consideration the conduct of the accused and  

his failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation.

17. Now we are left with the last contention of the counsel for the  

appellant that this is a case where the Court may not uphold the  

sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below.  We see  

no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused which will

Page 22

persuade us to take any view other than the view taken by the Trial  

Court on the question of quantum of sentence.  Even in the case of  

Hemchand (supra), relied upon by the appellant, this Court had  

said that it is only in rare cases that the Court should impose  

punishment of life imprisonment.  When the offence of Section  

304B is proved, the manner in which the offence has been  

committed is found to be brutal, it had been committed for  

satisfaction of dowry demands, particularly, for material goods like  

television or cooler and furthermore the accused takes up a false  

defence before the Court to claim that it was a case of an accidental  

death and not that of dowry death, then the Court normally would  

not exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the accused by  

awarding lesser sentence than life imprisonment.

18. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in the  

appeals.  Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly.

.…................................J.  [Swatanter Kumar]

  .…................................J.                     [Ranjan Gogoi]

New Delhi

Page 23

May 10, 2012