Page 1

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 1

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1447-1448 OF 2007

SATYA PAL  .....   APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .....   RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK J.

1. These are  appeals against the judgment dated  

16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.  

334-DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997.

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  a  First  

Information  Report  was  lodged  by  Sombir  (the  

complainant)  on  14th July,  1992  alleging  therein,  

inter alia, that his sister Rajwanti  was married to  

the  appellant  and  after  one  or  two  months  of  the  

marriage she came home and told her mother that her  

in-laws were demanding dowry in the shape of a flour  

machine, electric motor with equipment to chop the  

fodder  and  these  articles  were  given  in  December  

1991,  when  his  sister  Rajwanti  gave  birth  to  male  

child and the in-laws of Rajwanti became happy.  But  

thereafter Rajwanti came after sometime and told that  

her  mother-in-law,  sister-in-law  and  brother-in-law

Page 2

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 2

and  husband(appellant)  were  demanding  a  fridge,  

cooler and  TV, but the mother and father of Rajwanti  

said that if this demand is met the demands will go  

on  increasing  and  Rajwanti  left  for  her  in-laws'  

house on 19th June, 1992.  Thereafter on 12th July,  

1992 at about 9:00a.m. the complainant had been to  

the house of Rajwanti and he saw that the appellant  

and  Subhash  pushed  Rajwanti  into  a  well  and  as  a  

result  Rajwanti  died.   A  case  was  registered  and  

investigation  was  conducted  by  the   police  and  a  

charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his  

other family members under Sections 302/34 IPC and  

under Section 304B IPC.

3. At the trial, amongst others, the complainant  

was  examined  as  P.W.  1  and  the  mother  of  

Rajwanti(deceased) was examined as P.W. 2.  The trial  

court,  however,  held  in  its  judgment  dated  9th  

October,  2006  that  there  was  no  satisfactory  

explanation about the inordinate delay of 51 hours in  

lodging the FIR with the police and it appears that  

the  aforesaid  time  was  utilised   for  implicating  

certain  persons  after  consultations  and  

deliberations.  The  trial  court  was  thus  of  the  

opinion  that  the  offence  under  Section  302/34  IPC  

framed  against  the  accused  persons  has  not  been  

proved  by  the  prosecution  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  

On the charge under Section 304B IPC, the trial court  

found that there were improvements in the evidence of

Page 3

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 3

PWs. 1 and 2 over their statements made before the  

police  under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  and  accordingly,  

disbelieved Pws 1 and 2 and held that the demand  of  

dowry  as  well  as  harassment  and  cruelty  by  the  

appellant or any of his relatives in connection with  

the demand for dowry had not been proved and hence  

the  presumption  under  Section  113B  of  the  Indian  

Evidence Act was not attracted and the appellant and  

his  family  member  could  not  be  held  guilty  under  

Section 304B IPC.

4. The State as well as the complainant went in  

appeal to the High Court in separate Criminal Appeal  

No. 334 -DB of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 246 of  

1997 respectively and the High Court in the impugned  

judgment  dated 16th March, 2007 found on the basis of  

the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2  that after about two  

months from November, 1991 when the earlier demand of  

dowry  was  fulfilled  on  the  occasion  of  Chuchak  

ceremony, the appellant and his family members made a  

fresh demand of television, fridge, cooler and the  

deceased  was  subjected  to  beatings  for  this  fresh  

demand and this led P.W. 1 to make a visit to the  

matrimonial  house  of  the  deceased  in  the  month  of  

June,  1992  and  he  persuaded  the  appellant  and  his  

family members not to make such demands but on 12th  

July, 1992, within one month of such visit, the death  

of the deceased took place in the matrimonial house.  

The  High  Court,  further,  held  that  since  the

Page 4

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 4

prosecution has been able to prove both the fact of  

demand of dowry in the shape of television, fridge  

and cooler  and the fact of harassment or cruelty  

meted out to the deceased soon before her death, the  

presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act  

was attracted and the appellant has not been able to  

rebut  the  presumption  and  was  thus  guilty  of  the  

offences under Section 304B as well as under Section  

498A IPC.

5. At the hearing before us, learned counsel for  

the  appellant,  vehemently  submitted  that  the  view  

taken by the trial court on the evidence of P.Ws. 1  

and 2 was not a correct view inasmuch as there were  

substantial  improvements  made  by  P.Ws.  1  and  2  in  

Court over their statements made to the police under  

Section 161 CrP.C.  He submitted that the findings of  

the High Court on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.  

1  and  2  that  the  deceased  was  subjected  to  a  

subsequent  demand  of  television,  fridge  and  cooler  

and  also  was  subjected  to  cruelty  soon  before  her  

death were not at all correct.  He submitted that the  

trial court was right in taking a view that the delay  

of 51 hours in lodging the FIR by P.W. 1 was not  

properly  explained  and,  therefore,  the  prosecution  

story could not be believed.

6. We find on a reading of the judgment of the  

trial court that the trial court has held that the  

delay of 51 hours in lodging the FIR with the police

Page 5

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 5

by P.W. 1 was a good ground for rejecting the case of  

the prosecution that the accused persons were guilty  

of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC saying that  

this time of 51 hours could have been utilised for  

implicating some innocent persons after consultations  

and deliberations to make out a false story.  The  

High Court has not held the accused persons guilty of  

the offence  under Section 302/34 IPC presumably for  

the very same reason although an appeal was filed by  

the State as well as the complainant challenging the  

findings of the trial court in this regard.   

7. So far as the charges under Section 304B and  

498A IPC are concerned, we find that the trial court  

has  disbelieved the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 on the  

ground  that  there  have  been  improvements  in  their  

evidence over what they had been stated before the  

police under Section 161 CrPC and on the ground that  

there were discrepancies in their evidence.  We have  

gone through the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and we find  

that  the  High  Court  was  right  in  coming  to  the  

conclusion on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and  

2  that  there  was  in  fact  a  demand  of  television,  

fridge and cooler about two months after the earlier  

demand  of  dowry  was  met  in  November,  1991  on  the  

occasion of the chuchak ceremony when the male child  

was born to the deceased and this subsequent demand  

was also followed by beatings and harassment so much  

so that a visit had to be made by P.W. 1 to the

Page 6

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 6

matrimonial  house  of  the  deceased  to  persuade  the  

appellants  and  his  family  members  not  to  make  the  

demands  and  soon  thereafter  the  deceased  died  on  

12th July, 1992.   

8. We, however, find that P.W. 2 had not stated in  

her  Statement  [Exhibit  DA]  before  the  Police  that  

P.W. 1 had not told her that the deceased was beaten  

by the appellant and his family members and that the  

deceased  was  closed  in  a  room,  but  we  find  on  a  

reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 that the deceased  

was  subjected  to  beatings  twice  or  thrice   for  

demands  of  dowry.   Moreover,   P.W  2  when  asked  

whether she has told the Police about the aforesaid  

beatings given to deceased, she has said that she in  

fact,  told  the  police  about  such  beatings.   The  

explanation  to  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  states  that  an  

omission  to  state  a  fact  or  circumstance  in  the  

statement  made  to  the  police  may  amount  to  

contradiction if the same appears to be significant  

and otherwise relevant having regard to the context  

in  which  such  omission  occurs  and  whether  any  

omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular  

context  shall  be  a  question  of  fact.   It  was,  

therefore,  for  the  Court  to  decide  whether  the  

omission  in  the  statement  of  P.W  2  about  the  

beatings given to the deceased   before the police  

was significant enough for the Court to disbelieve  

that the deceased was beaten in connection with the

Page 7

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 7

demand for dowry.  Considering the evidence of P.W. 1  

and P.W. 2  in its entirety, we think that the High  

Court  is  right  in  coming  to  the  finding  that  the  

deceased  was  not  only  subjected  to  a  subsequent  

demand  of  dowry  but  also  subjected  to  cruelty  and  

harassment in connection with such demand for dowry  

soon before her death and that the trial court had  

not taken a correct view on the evidence of P.W. 1  

and PW 2.

9. The  High  Court  had  also  rightly  drawn  the  

presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act  

that  appellant  had  caused  the  dowry  death  of  the  

deceased within the meaning of Section 304B IPC and  

the appellant was required to rebut this presumption  

that he had caused the dowry death.  The appellant  

did make an attempt to rebut this presumption in his  

statement under Section 313  Cr.P.C. while answering  

question  No.  16.   The  appellant  stated  that  the  

deceased  had  died  a  natural  death  because  she  was  

suffering from rheumatic pain (heart disease) and at  

that time she was being treated by Dr. Roop Chand at  

Satnali and she was also attended by Dr. Roop Chand  

on the day of her death.  If this was the defence of  

the  appellant  in  his  statement  under  Section  313  

Cr.P.C. it was incumbent upon him to have produced  

Dr. Roop Chand as a defence witness, but he has not  

done so.  The result is that the appellant has failed  

to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the

Page 8

Crl.A. Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007 8

Indian  Evidence  Act  that  it  is  he  who  had  caused  

dowry  death  of  the  deceased  within  the  meaning  of  

Section 304B of the IPC.

10. We are therefore of the opinion that the High  

Court  was  right  in  reversing  the  judgment  of  

acquittal  against  the  appellant  so  far  as  the  

offences under Sections 304B and 498A are concerned  

and  accordingly  we  dismiss  the  appeal.   Since  the  

appellant is on bail, we direct that his bail bond be  

cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to  

serve out the remaining sentence.  

............................J [A.K. PATNAIK]

............................J  [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

NEW DELHI MARCH 13, 2013.