MANU/SC/1180/2013

Equivalent Citation: AIR2014SC 817, 2014 (1) ALD(C rl.) 687 (SC ), 2014 (84) AC C 371, 2014 (2) ALT (C rl.) 261 (SC ), I(2014)C C R671(SC ),
2014C riLJ561, 2014(1)C rimes355(SC ), I(2014)DMC 722SC , JT2013(15)SC 9, 2014(1)RC R(C riminal)535, 2013(13)SC ALE691, (2014)4SC C 129,
2014 (1) SC J 701

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2008
Decided On: 13.11.2013
Appellants: Surinder Singh
Vs.
Respondent: State of Haryana
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Tarun Gupta and M.K.
Ghose, Advs. for S. Janani, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Kamal Mohan Gupta and Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Advs.
JUDGMENT
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
1 . In this appeal judgment and order dated 01/11/2007 passed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court is under challenge.
2 . The Appellant is original accused No. 1. He was tried along with Hazura Singh-
original accused No. 2, Narata Singh-original accused No. 3 and Kaushalya-original
accused No. 4 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian
Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge Yamuna Nagar in Sessions Case No. 60
of 1994. Appellant is the husband of deceased Anita ("the deceased" or "Anita").
Accused No. 2 is his father, accused No. 3 is his uncle and accused No. 4 is his
mother.
3 . The deceased was daughter of Ram Lal. Admittedly, she was married to the
Appellant on 24/04/1994. According to the prosecution, the accused were not
satisfied with the quality and quantity of the dowry given at the time of marriage.
They used to taunt and beat the deceased. At times, they used to keep her hungry.
She had informed her brothers and father about this ill-treatment and harassment.
Her brother Ashok Kumar and his brother-in-law Pawan Kumar went to the house of
the accused and protested. At that time the accused told Ashok Kumar that if he had
so much affection for his sister he should give Rs. 60,000/- for the business of the
Appellant. Ashok Kumar expressed his helplessness to meet the demand. Ashok
Kumar sent his younger brother Satish Kumar to bring the deceased home, but, the
accused told him that he should take the deceased home after some days. On
22/07/1994 the uncle of the Appellant i.e. accused No. 3-Narata Singh went to the
house of the parents of the deceased and told them that Anita-the deceased had
committed suicide by burning herself. Ashok Kumar accompanied by his father,
brother Satish Kumar and brother-in-law Pawan Kumar went to the house of the

20-03-2019 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

accused. The burnt dead body of Anita was found kept on a cot in the verandah.
Ashok Kumar, then, went to P.S. Yamunanagar and lodged FIR Exhibit-PK. On
completion of investigation the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.
4. The prosecution examined, inter alia, PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar,
who unfolded the prosecution story about the ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased. PW-9 Dr. V.K. Nagpal conducted the post-mortem and gave report Exhibit-
PH. PW-11 Maharaj Singh, DSP, who conducted the investigation, gave details of
investigation.
5 . The accused denied the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment to the
deceased. The Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure stated that the deceased was well looked after. Lot of affection
was shown to her. When she was carrying, proper medical treatment was given to
her. She developed complications and pregnancy had to be terminated. The doctors
told her that whenever she conceives she will have problem of bleeding. The
deceased was last examined on 19/07/1994. After her abortion the deceased was in
depression and, therefore, she committed suicide. The accused examined three
doctors. They are DW-1 Dr. Mrs. Iqbal Kaur, DW-2 Dr. Fitu Mago and DW-3 Dr. C.
Vijayendra. DW-4 Anil Kumar, the brother-in-law produced letter Exhibit-DF received
by him from the deceased.
6 . The trial court by its judgment and order dated 01/08/1998 convicted the
Appellant and other accused for offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years each. The accused
were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer RI for two years each. They were ordered to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, they were directed to undergo RI for six months. The
substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7 . The accused carried an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High
Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that allegations made against
them were vague and that they were living separately from the Appellant. The High
Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, hence, this
appeal to this Court.
8 . Learned senior counsel for the Appellant Mr. Nidhesh Gupta submitted that since
on the same set of evidence all the other accused have been acquitted the Appellant
should also have been acquitted because no part of the evidence involves the
Appellant alone. Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that
the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the Appellant. Counsel
submitted that, in any case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged
cruelty and harassment was in connection with dowry. The allegations are too
general and vague. No specific allegations are made against the Appellant therefore
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. Presumptions under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
also do not arise in this case. The witnesses have made only bald statements. No
independent witnesses like neighbours have been examined to prove that the
deceased was treated with cruelty. Thus, the conviction of the Appellant under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. In this connection counsel
relied on Surinder Kaur and Anr. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0167/2004 :
(2004) 4 SCC 109, Durga Prasad and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
MANU/SC/0396/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 73 andGeeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of

20-03-2019 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

Uttar Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0895/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 741 Counsel further
submitted that so far as demand of Rs. 60,000/- is concerned, no date of demand is
mentioned, therefore, it is not possible to say that this alleged demand was made
soon before the death. Moreover, the demand was made for business of the
Appellant, therefore, it cannot be called a dowry demand. In this connection counsel
relied on Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by
Public Prosecutor MANU/SC/0253/2013 : (2013) 3 SCC 684. Drawing our attention
to letter Exhibit-DF dated 16/07/1994 counsel submitted that this letter was written
by the deceased just 15 days before the date of incident to DW-4 Anil Kumar, who is
brother-in-law of the Appellant. In that letter she has made no grievance about the
alleged harassment or cruelty. In fact, she has made fond reference to the members
of the Appellant's family. This shows that allegations of harassment and cruelty are
false. Counsel also drew our attention to the evidence of the doctors examined by the
Appellant in support of his defence. He submitted that it is clear from their evidence
that while the deceased was pregnant she was bleeding and, therefore, her pregnancy
had to be terminated. The deceased was told that she may not conceive a child.
Thereafter, the deceased went into depression. She appears to have committed
suicide while in depression. In the circumstances, the Appellant cannot be convicted
under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction and sentence
deserves to be set aside.
9. Learned Counsel for the State of Haryana Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta submitted that
PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers of the deceased, have unfolded
the prosecution case. They are reliable and trustworthy witnesses. They have
described the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and the demand of dowry made
by the Appellant. Counsel submitted that the demand of Rs. 60,000/- related to the
Appellant's business. The evidence of PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar
makes reference to the specific date of demand and specific amount, which was
demanded by the Appellant. Counsel submitted that deceased Anita died within 94
days of marriage. There can be no doubt that her death caused by burns was
otherwise than under normal circumstances. The conviction of the Appellant is legal
and perfectly justified and, therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
1 0 . The evidence of PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers of the
deceased, gives us the prosecution story. PW-7 Ashok Kumar is the complainant,
hence, we shall first advert to his evidence. He stated that the deceased was married
to the Appellant on 20/04/1994. The accused were not satisfied with the quality and
the quantity of the dowry given by them at the time of marriage. They used to taunt
the deceased and the deceased had told him about this many times. The accused
used to demand Rs. 60,000/- for the business of the Appellant or for getting him
some job. PW-7 Ashok Kumar further stated that once he and his brother-in-law
Pawan Kumar visited the house of the Appellant to request the accused to treat the
deceased properly. According to him, the accused told him that if he had so much
affection for his sister he should pay Rs. 60,000/- to them. He expressed inability to
do so. On 05/07/1994 the deceased came to their house and even at that time she
told them about the demand of Rs. 60,000/-. PW-7 Ashok Kumar further stated that
on 21/07/1994 they received a message that Anita should be taken home. He sent his
brother PW-6 Satish Kumar to bring his sister home but the accused did not send her.
On 22/07/1994 Narata Singh, uncle of the Appellant, came to their house and told
them that Anita had committed suicide. PW-7 Ashok Kumar went to the house of the
accused along with his brother PW-6 Satish Kumar, his father and brother-in-law
Pawan Kumar. He saw the dead body of his sister kept in a verandah. He, then,
lodged FIR Exhibit-PK. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR also PW-7 Ashok Kumar

20-03-2019 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

has stated that the accused demanded Rs. 60,000/-, for the business of the Appellant
or for getting him some job. PW-6 Satish Kumar corroborates PW-7 Ashok Kumar.
PW-6 Satish Kumar also stated that accused were not satisfied with the dowry and
they used to taunt his sister for bringing less and inferior quality of dowry. He stated
that the accused used to beat the deceased and keep her hungry and the deceased
used to tell them about the misbehaviour of the accused whenever she came home.
He further stated that on 05/07/1994 the deceased told him that the accused are
demanding Rs. 60,000/- for investing in the business of the Appellant. They
expressed their helplessness to pay the amount. The accused continued to beat the
deceased. He further stated that on 21/07/1994 PW-7 Ashok Kumar received a
message from his sister that she should be brought to their house. He, then, went to
the Appellant's house to bring the deceased home. The accused asked him to fulfill
their demand before taking his sister with him to his house. He returned home alone.
PW-6 Satish Kumar further stated that on 22/07/1994 Narata Singh, uncle of the
Appellant came to their house and informed them that Anita had committed suicide.
He went to the house of the Appellant along with his father and brother and found
that the dead body of Anita was kept in the verandah. Thus, the evidence of these
two witnesses establishes that the deceased was treated with cruelty. She was
subjected to harassment in the Appellant's house because the dowry given in the
marriage was inadequate and not of good quality. It is also established that the
accused wanted Rs. 60,000/- for investing in the Appellant's business or for getting
him some job.
11. The fact that the marriage took place on 20/04/1994 is not disputed. Anita died
on account of burns in the Appellant's house. Her death was otherwise than under
normal circumstances. She died just within 94 days of the marriage. It is true that
the relatives of the Appellant have been acquitted on the ground that there are no
specific allegations against them. It is argued that, therefore, the Appellant should
also be acquitted because the allegations are general as against him also. We are
unable to agree with this submission. There is a great difference between the
allegations levelled against the relatives of the Appellant and the Appellant. The
entire prosecution story revolves around the Appellant. The demand of Rs. 60,000/-
relates to the Appellant. The witnesses are specific on this point. PW-7 Ashok Kumar
has stated so in the FIR also. Therefore, the Appellant's case stands on a different
footing.
12. It is further argued that neither PW-7 Ashok Kumar nor PW-6 Satish Kumar have
stated the exact date on which they went to the house of the accused when the
demand for Rs. 60,000/- was made and, therefore, it is not possible to locate the
date on which demand for Rs. 60,000/- was made. Resultantly, it is not possible to
say whether the demand was made soon before the death of Anita. We have no
hesitation in rejecting this submission.
13. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that 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. Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code states that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with,
any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband

20-03-2019 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Thus, the words 'soon before'
appear in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code. For the presumptions contemplated under these Sections to
spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused
soon before the death. The interpretation of the words 'soon before' is, therefore,
important. The question is how 'soon before? This would obviously depend on facts
and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case.
It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be
mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be
verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be
giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of
economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her
movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is
illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing
pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related
harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be
so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her
dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, 'soon before' is
a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag
may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of
dowry death.
14. In this connection we may refer to judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State
of Punjab MANU/SC/0296/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC 207 where this Court considered the
term 'soon before'. The relevant observations are as under:
..."Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under
specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid
down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term
"immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used
and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These
words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time
of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time
which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the
peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the
deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a
course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the
cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it
shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening
circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on
record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not,
however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and
live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand
of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of
death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be
treated as having become state enough.
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment,
based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be
applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case

20-03-2019 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of
law.
15. The evidence of brothers of Anita show that after marriage Anita was unhappy in
the matrimonial house because of the ill-treatment meted out to her. Anita died
otherwise than under normal circumstances in her husband's house within three
months and four days of marriage. It is, indeed, a very short period. The cruelty was
spread over the short period covering the date of her marriage till her death
displaying a course of conduct. In her case, in our opinion, cruelty caused to her on
any day from the date of her marriage i.e. 20/04/1994 till the date of her death i.e.
22/07/1994 could be cruelty caused 'soon before' her death. Therefore, even if date
of their visit to the Appellant's house, when the demand was made, is not stated by
Anita's brothers in the court, that hardly makes any difference. In any case, the
brothers have stated that on 05/07/1994 Anita came to their house and told them
about the demand. Anita died shortly thereafter.
16. That takes us to the next submission that Rs. 60,000/- were demanded after the
marriage for the business of the Appellant, and, therefore, it is not a dowry demand.
In this connection, reliance is placed on Vipin Jaiswal. In that case the Appellant
therein was married to the deceased on 22/02/1996. The case of the prosecution was
that ever since the marriage, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental
torture by the Appellant and Ors. for not getting sufficient dowry. The trial court
convicted all the accused under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court acquitted the relatives of the Appellant-husband, but, confirmed his
conviction. It is pertinent to note that while acquitting the Appellant this Court took
note of the fact that the deceased had left a suicide note in which she had stated that
nobody from her husband's family was responsible for her death. The High Court
while noting that the allegations against the Appellant were general in nature stated
that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made six months after the marriage and that
was for enabling the Appellant therein to purchase a computer and for setting-up his
own business. This Court held that demand made for purchasing a computer, six
months after the marriage, was not a demand in connection with marriage and was
not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case. Explanation to Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code states that for the purpose of this Sub-section, dowry
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so far as it is material to this case,
states that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
marriage at or before or at any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of the said party. Thus, the emphasis is on property or valuable security
given 'at or before' or 'at any time after' the marriage in connection with marriage.
The amount or things demanded must, therefore, have a nexus with the marriage. In
this case both the brothers i.e. PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers
of the deceased, have clearly stated that the accused were unhappy by the quality
and quantity of the dowry and the deceased was being taunted and beaten-up for
that. The words 'insufficient and inferior quality of dowry' are important. They
indicate that the transaction of giving dowry was not complete. Sufficient quantity of
dowry was not given and that transaction was sought to be completed by asking for
Rs. 60,000/- after the marriage for the business of the Appellant. This demand has a
connection with the marriage. Therefore, in our opinion Vipin Jaiswal is not
applicable to the present case.

20-03-2019 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

1 7 . We are mindful of the fact that in Vipin Jaiswal this Court relied upon
Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/7002/2007 : (2007) 9
SCC 721. In that case the accused was convicted under Section 304B read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident had taken place on 15/09/1991. The
deceased was married to the accused about 2 1/2 years prior to the date of the
incident. The deceased consumed poison and died in the house of the accused. The
allegations were that there was a demand for money and consequent beating of the
deceased. The evidence disclosed that the demand was made for defraying expenses
of manure etc. This Court held that a demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure
cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
This Court held that being a penal provision Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 will have to be construed strictly.
18. It is true that penal provisions have to be construed strictly. However, we may
mention that in Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0146/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 684 this Court was dealing with the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Speaking for this Court, Krishna Iyer, J. held that any
narrow and pedantic, literal and lexical construction of food laws is likely to leave
loopholes for the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law and should be
discouraged and criminal jurisprudence must depart from old canons defeating
criminal statutes calculated to protect the public health and the nation's wealth.
Similar view was taken in Kisan Trimbak Kothula v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0133/1976 : (1977) 1 SCC 300. InState of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal
Damodardas Soni MANU/SC/0518/1979 : (1980) 4 SCC 669, while dealing with
Section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126-H(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules,
a narrow construction given by the High Court was rejected on the ground that that
will emasculate these provisions and render them ineffective as a weapon for
combating gold smuggling. It was further held that the provisions have to be
specially construed in a manner which will suppress the mischief and advance the
object which the legislature had in view.
19. While we reiterate what this Court has said in Appasaheb that a penal statute
has to be construed strictly, in light of Kisan Trimbak and Natwarlal Damodardas, we
are of the opinion that penal statute, even if it has to be strictly construed, must be
so construed as not to defeat its purport. Harassment of a married woman in an
Indian household is a peculiar phenomenon. In most cases it is seen that the
husband or the members of his family are never satisfied with what they get as
dowry. The wife's family is expected to keep fulfilling this insatiable demand in some
form or the other for some period of time after marriage. Such demands are also
fulfilled by parents of the wife for fear of their daughter being ill-treated. The courts
of law cannot lose sight of these realities. The presumption under Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the presumption under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code have a purpose. These are beneficent provisions aimed at giving relief to
a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household. The meaning to be
applied to each word of these provisions has to be in accord with the legislative
intent. Even while construing these provisions strictly care will have to be taken to
see that their object is not frustrated.
20. As stated by this Court in Appasaheb a demand for meeting financial stringency
may not fall within the ambit of the term 'dowry' as defined under the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Similarly, a demand of money made six months after marriage for
setting-up computer business of the husband may not be covered by the term dowry

20-03-2019 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

as stated in Vipin Jaiswal. But, in this case, the demand is made to complete and
fulfill the demand of dowry made prior to the marriage. The Appellant's grievance
was about the inferior and insufficient dowry given by the deceased's family and after
marriage that was sought to be fulfilled by asking for Rs. 60,000/- for setting-up
Appellant's business or for getting him some job. Insufficient dowry given to the
Appellant was sought to be supplemented by the demand of Rs. 60,000/-. The
present case, therefore, stands on a different footing. Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code is clearly attracted to this case.
21. It was argued that the evidence of the doctors examined by the Appellant show
that the deceased's pregnancy was terminated, that she was told that she may not
conceive a child again and, that, thereafter, she was in depression. It is argued that,
therefore, she committed suicide. It is not possible to accept this submission. Even if
the pregnancy of the deceased was terminated, that would not necessarily lead to
depression. In fact, DW-3 Dr. C. Vijayendra, who terminated the pregnancy of the
deceased stated that it is not necessary that a patient may suffer from depression
after termination of pregnancy. Neither DW-1 Dr. Mrs. Iqbal Kaur or DW-2 Dr. Mrs.
Ritu Mago stated that the deceased was in depression. They stated that there was no
imminent danger to the life of the deceased. No medical record was produced to
show that the deceased was in depression and she was taking medicine for the same.
There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was told that she will never
conceive a child. It is not, therefore, possible to say that the deceased committed
suicide because she was in depression. Reliance was placed on a letter, allegedly
written by the deceased to her husband's brother-in-law. It was submitted that this
letter does not indicate that the deceased was tortured or harassed. In fact, in this
letter the deceased has fondly referred to the members of the Appellant's family. PW-
6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar have not admitted that this letter was written
by their sister. It is also improbable that the deceased would write a letter to the
brother-in-law of her husband. Assuming that she wrote such a letter, she would
never complain about the ill-treatment meted out to her in her matrimonial house to
the brother-in-law of her husband. In any case, even if this letter is held to be
genuine, that does not dilute the evidence of PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok
Kumar. This submission, therefore, does not impress us and is rejected.
22. None of the judgments relied upon by the Appellant's counsel help the Appellant.
They turn on their own facts. In Surinder Kaur the demand was made 2 1/2 years
prior to the death of the deceased and, therefore, it was held that allegations were
not proximate to the death of the deceased hence, Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code was not attracted. In that case the Appellants before this Court were the
relatives of Surinder Kumar, the husband of the deceased. There were no direct
allegations against them. Considering all these circumstances they were acquitted.
This case will have no application to the present case.
23. In Durga Prasad the Appellants were convicted under Sections 498A and 304B
of the Indian Penal Code. This Court acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt on the
ground that except for certain bald statements made by the witnesses alleging cruelty
and harassment to the deceased-wife no other evidence was produced to prove that
she committed suicide because of cruelty and harassment. This case is also not
applicable to the instant case because here the demand of Rs. 60,000/- specifically
relates to the Appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that qua the Appellant there are
no specific allegations. Here the harassment and cruelty is inextricably linked to the
Appellant.

20-03-2019 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin

24. I n Geeta Mehrotra the High Court had refused to quash the complaint filed
against the Appellant (1), who was sister-in-law of the complainant and Appellant
(2), who was brother-in-law of the complainant, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, on the ground that the question of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot
be decided by it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court
left it open to the Appellants to move the trial court. While quashing the proceedings
this Court took note of the fact that the marriage between the complainant wife and
her husband was dissolved by an ex-parte decree of divorce. This Court was of the
view that in the circumstances proceedings initiated prior to the divorce decree ought
not to be prosecuted further. This Court also took into consideration the fact that
there were no specific allegations against the Appellants, who were relatives of the
husband. It appears that in the complaint there was only a casual reference to the
Appellants. The instant case stands on different footing because here evidence is
adduced and the Appellant is convicted. The brothers of the deceased have stated on
oath that Rs. 60,000/- were demanded for the Appellant's business and for that
amount the deceased was harassed and treated with cruelty. That cruelty led to her
death in unnatural circumstances.
25. Before closing, the most commonplace argument must be dealt with. In all cases
of bride burning it is submitted that independent witnesses have not been examined.
When harassment and cruelty is meted out to a woman within the four walls of the
matrimonial home, it is difficult to get independent witnesses to depose about it.
Only the inmates of the house and the relatives of the husband, who cause the
cruelty, witness it. Their servants, being under their obligation, would never depose
against them. Proverbially, neighbours are slippery witnesses. Moreover, witnesses
have a tendency to stay away from courts. This is more so with neighbours. In bride
burning cases who else will, therefore, depose about the misery of the deceased
bride except her parents or her relatives? It is time we accept this reality. We,
therefore, reject this submission.
26. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its
case against the Appellant. The trial court and the High Court have concurrently held
the Appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. We have no hesitation in endorsing the view taken by the trial
court which is confirmed by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The
Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender to the
concerned court.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

20-03-2019 (Page 9 of 9) www.manupatra.com NUALS Cochin