STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs GIRIDHARI LAL
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001186-001186 / 2008
Diary number: 25223 / 2007
Advocates: MILIND KUMAR Vs
KAMALDEEP GULATI
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2008
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ... APPELLANT
Versus
GIRDHARI LAL ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the State of
Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 14th
March, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal
filed by the respondentGirdhari Lal, modified the
sentence and convicted him under Section 306 IPC
instead of 304B IPC. For the said offence, the Division
Bench sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/, in default he has
to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.
Since the respondentGirdhari Lal had already undergone
imprisonment for a period of more than six years, the
High Court directed to release him forthwith, if not
required to be detained in any other case.
Page 2
2
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:
The informantJugal Kishore(PW.1) – father of the
deceased Babita in his written complaint on 11th
August, 1998 informed that his daughterBabita (since
deceased) was married to respondentGirdhari Lal four
years back. Her inlaws were harassing Babita in
connection with demand for dowry from the initial days
of her marriage. Earlier also the inlaws of Babita
made attempt to set her ablaze and neighbourers rescued
her. Later, the inlaws assured her parents that they
will not harass Babita, but she was burnt to death on
10th August, 1998.
3. On the said complaint a case under Section 304B
and 498A IPC was registered and investigation was
commenced. After the investigation chargesheet was
filed. In due course, the case came up for trial to the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The charge under
Section 304B IPC framed against the respondent was
denied by him who claimed trial. Altogether 9 witnesses
were examined in support of the case of the
prosecution. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.
P.C., the respondent claimed innocence. Two defence
witnesses were also examined. The trial court on
appreciation of evidence and on hearing the parties
convicted the respondent under Section 304B IPC and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
Page 3
3
On appeal, as noticed above, the Division Bench of
the High Court partly allowed the appeal, convicted the
respondent under Section 306 IPC instead of 304B IPC
and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/, in default he has
to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellantState submitted
that the deceasedBabita died within 7 years of her
marriage under unnatural circumstances and respondent
did not inform the parents of the deceased regarding
the incident. The burden to prove innocence lies on the
respondent after the prosecution has proved that the
deceased died under the unnatural circumstances within
seven years of marriage. Further, according to the
learned counsel for the State, the High Court has
failed to appreciate that Jugal Kishore (PW.1), Nand
Lal (PW.4) and Smt. Bimla (PW.7) have made statements
regarding harassment and torture by the inlaws of the
deceased in relation to the demand for dowry which has
been corroborated by the statement of other witnesses
and the documents on record. The aforesaid facts were
not properly appreciated by the High Court while
converting the conviction from Section 304B IPC to 306
IPC and reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to
five years imprisonment.
Page 4
4
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on
the other hand supported the decision rendered by the
High Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the materials on record.
7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial, we
notice that Babita died of burn injuries within 5 to 6
years of her marriage with respondentGirdhari Lal,
thereby the death occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances. A bare look at the postmortem report
(Ext.P6) shows that the deceased died because of the
extensive burns. Therefore, the question that arises
for determination is whether Babita’s death is an
instance of dowry death or whether she was driven to
commit suicide by her husband?
8. The main ingredient of the offence under Section
304B which is required to be established by the State
is whether “soon before her death” Babita was subjected
to cruelty and harassment by her husband, “for or in
connection with demand of dowry”, to allege “dowry
death”.
Jugal Kishore (PW.1) is himself the complainant
and is the father of the deceasedBabita. He stated
that his daughter was married to Girdhari Lal about 6
or 7 years back. The said statement was recorded on
12th June, 2000 and the incident occurred on 10th
August, 1998. Shyam Lal Mahajan, another resident of
Page 5
5
the Village Chhavsari, where the marriage of Babita was
solemnised, by his statement stated that the marriage
of Babita was solemnised with accused Girdhari Lal in
the year 199293. Similar was the statement made on
12th June, 2000 by Jagdish Prasad (PW.3) and he stated
that the marriage of Babita was solemnised with the
accused Girdhari Lal about 6 or 7 years back.
Therefore, it is clear that the death of Babita
happened within 7 years of her marriage.
9. The death of Babita was caused by the burn
injuries and thereby death occurred otherwise than
under normal circumstances. The statement made by Dr.
J.P. Bugalia (PW.6) proved the fact that death was
caused due to the burns. He stated that on 10th August,
1998 he was working as Medical Jurist in B.D.K.
Hospital, Jhunjhunu. He along with Dr. P.S. Sahu
conducted the postmortem of Babita who was admitted in
the Hospital on 10th August, 1998 at 1.50 p.m. and died
during the treatment at 4.00 p.m. There were burn
injuries all over her body.
10. So far as the harassment and cruelty are
concerned, Rajender Prasad (PW.8) stated that Girdhari
Lal used to beat her for dowry. Jugal Kishore(PW.1)
has also supported the fact that she was being
subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand by
stating that Girdhari Lal used to beat and harass
Babita for dowry after her marriage. Once he was asked
Page 6
6
not to do so but he did not mend his ways. He also
stated that Girdhari Lal earlier tried to burn her
alive by pouring kerosene by confining her in a room
and when he came to know about this incident, he went
to her inlaws house alongwith Shyam Lal, Phool Chand,
Rajender, Jagdish, Neki Ram and Man Roop where Girdhari
Lal and his father begged their pardon for their act of
burning her alive and assured that they will not repeat
the incident. Bimla Devi (PW.7), mother of the deceased
stated in her statement that the accused Girdhari Lal
and Babita came to their village Chhavsari one month
prior to the incident and stayed there for one hour.
Jugal Kishore was not present at the house at that time
and Babita told her mother to send her father to her
inlaws because Girdhari Lal used to harass her. This
statement clearly indicates that Babita was being
subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before the
death.
11. Now, the question arises as to whether Babita was
subjected to such cruelty and harassment by her husband
soon before her death for, or in connection with the
demand of dowry. The period which can come within the
term “soon before” cannot be put within the four
corners of time frame. It is left to the Court for its
determination depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
Page 7
7
In the present case, Jugal Kishore (PW.1) and
Bimla Devi (PW.7) has made ominous statements regarding
demand of dowry that after the marriage demand of dowry
was made by the inlaws. It is not made specific as to
whether Girdhari Lal demanded dowry.
12. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
which deals with the presumption as to dowry death
reads as follows:
1. Section 113B. 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 has 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.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860).
In the present case there is no evidence on record
to come to the definite conclusion that soon before her
death, Babita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband, Girdhari Lal for, or in connection with
any, demand of dowry. In absence of such ingredient the
presumption that Girdhari Lal had caused the dowry
death cannot be drawn. The prosecution thereby cannot
Page 8
8
take advantage of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
13. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
relates to presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman which reads as follows:
2. 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation – For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Panel Code (45 of 1860).
In the instant case, it is established from the
ocular and documentary evidence that Babita was
subjected to cruelty and harassment. As a result of
such treatment of cruelty and harassment she was driven
to meet the suicidal death. She had committed suicide
within a period of 7 years from her marriage and that
her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Therefore,
Page 9
9
the Appellate Court rightly presumed, having regard to
all other circumstances of the case, that such suicidal
had been abetted by her husband Girdhari Lal and
convicted him for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Hence, no interference is called for.
14. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is
dismissed.
……………………………………………………………………………J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………………………………………J. (A.K. SIKRI)
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 7,2013.