Monju Roy & Ors vs State Of West Bengal

Page 1 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 27 th 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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

Page 8