Munshi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.911/2023 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 4639 OF 2018

MUNSHI .… Appellant Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH … Respondent

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal was filed by three convicts

namely Kamlesh Singh, Vishwaraj Singh and Munshi

Singh. Vide order dated 17.05.2018, the appeal qua

appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed and notice was issued

only qua appellant No.3, namely, Munshi. He is the brother

of husband of the deceased. The other two appellants are

husband and brother of the deceased.

2. An FIR (Crime Case) No.30 of 1993 was registered Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.03.24 16:21:02 IST Reason:

on the complaint of Chander Singh (PW­1) son of

Muneshwar Singh stating therein that marriage of his sister 2

Janki Devi (deceased) was solemnised with Kamlesh Singh

about four years ago. Sufficient dowry was given as per

their standard. Immediately after the marriage, family of the

husband started demanding a buffalo and a Vicky and

pressurised her. She was even beaten up. His deceased

sister had talked to him about this many times. When he

talked to the husband and her in­laws about this, he was

abused and pushed out of their house. They threatened

that they will kill her sister.

3. On 27.02.1993, Vishwaraj Singh (brother­in­law

of the deceased) said to his brother Shivraj Singh (PW­2)

that in case the demand is not met, it will not be good for

them. On 28.02.1993, having come to know about the

death of his sister, a complaint was made to the police that

she had been killed as the demand of dowry was not met.

Charge­sheet was presented. After trial, Kamlesh Singh, the

husband, Vishwaraj Singh and the present appellant,

brothers­in­law of the deceased, were held guilty of charges

under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short “the IPC), and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. They were convicted and sentenced 3

to undergo 10 years rigours imprisonment under Section

304B, 2 years under Section 498A of the IPC and 2 years

rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. In appeal filed before the High Court

at Allahabad, the judgment and order of the trial court was

upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant No.3­

Munshi submitted that no case was made out against him

as there are no direct allegations regarding his being party to

alleged torture of the deceased for demand of dowry. The

allegations in the complaint or the evidence led are quite

general in nature. The appellant had been convicted only

with the aid of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 (for short “the Evidence Act”) on presumption.

However, that presumption will not be available in the case

in hand for the reason that there is no evidence of cruelty or

harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before

the death of the sister of the complainant. The appellant

being the brother of husband of the deceased was not going

to receive anything, neither the buffalo nor the Vicky. Even

Section 304B IPC also provides that any cruelty or 4

harassment by the husband or any relative has to be soon

before the death. In fact, the deceased died of consuming

poison for which the appellant has nothing to do with in

particular.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

State submitted that it is a case of dowry death just four

years after the marriage. A young girl was killed on account

of torture for not meeting the demands of greedy in­laws.

There are specific allegations in the complaint and the

evidence led by the prosecution. The appeal qua husband

and one of the brother­in­law of the deceased has already

been dismissed by this Court and the fate of the present

appeal also has to be in the same line as his role is also

similar.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the relevant referred record. The cause of death as available

from the forensic report is poison. The allegation in the FIR

lodged by the brother of the deceased is that the marriage of

his sister was solemnised with Kamlesh Singh about four

years prior to the incident. They were not happy with the

dowry and had been making repeated demand of buffalo and 5

a Vicky. As the same was not fulfilled, the deceased was

being harassed. They had even misbehaved with the

complainant when he visited to resolve the issue. They had

even threatened to kill her.

7. It is not in dispute that there is no eye­witness to

the crime. The entire case of the prosecution rests on

circumstantial evidence of the prosecution. Total four

witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Chander

Singh (PW­1) had stated that even a day before the

occurrence when his brother Shivraj Singh (PW­2) had gone

to see the parikrama mela, Devgawan, where he met the

accused Vishwaraj Singh, the other brother­in­law of the

deceased, who reiterated the demand of dowry. In his entire

statement, besides the general allegations that the sister of

the deceased was being harassed for not meeting their

demand of buffalo and a Vicky, the appellant has not been

specifically named. To put the record straight, it is added

here that Vishwaraj Singh’s conviction has been upheld.

However, nothing specific has been stated by Chander Singh

(PW­1)­the complainant to bring home the guilt of the

appellant­Munshi for raising presumption as contained in 6 Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence

Act. In his cross­examination, he stated that he had seen

his sister 4/5 months before her death. That means he had

not even visited the matrimonial house of the sister on the

birth of her daughter who was about two months old at the

time of incident. Similarly, in the statement of Shivraj

Singh, brother of the complainant, the allegations are quite

general in nature with no specific allegation against the

appellant soon before the incident, which is sine qua non for

invoking presumption under Section 304B IPC and 113B of

the Evidence Act.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the

evidence produced on record by the prosecution is not

sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant­Munshi

who is brother­in­law of the deceased, by raising

presumption.

7

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the

Trial Court are set aside with respect to the conviction and

sentence of the appellant­Munshi. Bail bonds submitted by

him are cancelled.

…………………J. [Abhay S. Oka]

.…………………J. [Rajesh Bindal] New Delhi March 23, 2023.