Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors

Page 1 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

insufficient dowry and the appellant raised a demand for

motor cycle apart from the demands by his mother and

younger brother. After about three months of marriage, the

deceased gave a telephonic call to her father about the

demand for dowry. Her father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along

with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12), met the

husband of the deceased and his other relatives and

pleaded that she may not be harassed as he was not in a

position to give more dowry. The accused, however,

continued to harass her. On 29th April, 2001, the deceased

again telephoned her father about the harassment on which

Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the accused and

brought back the deceased to her parental home. However,

on the next day, the appellant came to the place of his in-

laws and insisted that the deceased be sent with him,

threatening that otherwise he will divorce her. On this, the

deceased was sent with the appellant. Next day, on 1 st

May, 2001, at about 12 O’clock, information was received

by the family of the deceased that she had received burn

injuries and was taken to the hospital. Father of the

deceased Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) along with his younger

brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12) and brother in-law Guddar Mal

2 Page 2 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

(PW-10) reached the hospital at 2.00 P.M. where the

deceased told them that she was given beatings and set on

fire by the appellant and his family members. Thereafter,

the deceased died on account of extensive burn injuries.

3. Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report

(Exhibit PA/1). SI Rakham Singh (PW-13) conducted the

investigation and sent up the accused for trial. The

prosecution led evidence in support of its case comprising

of relatives to prove demand of dowry, apart from medical

evidence and evidence of investigation. The accused denied

the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased

committed suicide on account of harassment by her uncle

Raghubir Lal (PW-12) who wanted her to relinquish her

rights in the parental property. The accused examined

Vinod Kumar (DW-1) who had taken the deceased to the

hospital and stated that her relations with the accused were

cordial. Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the appellant was

also examined who stated that at the time of alleged

incident, the appellant was on duty.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on

record, held that the prosecution case was proved beyond

3 Page 3 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant and the co-

accused.

5. On further appeal, the High Court upheld the

conviction of the appellant but acquitted the co-accused

Champa Devi (mother of the appellant) and Lalit Kumar

(brother of the appellant).

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the evidence on record.

7. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel

Shri G.C. Shahpuri submitted that the prosecution failed to

prove the demand of dowry “soon before the death” which

was the necessary ingredient for the offence under Section

304 B, IPC. He relied upon Judgment of this Court in

Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana1. It was also

submitted that the deceased had left a suicide note (Exhibit

P-4) to the effect that nobody be held responsible if

something happened to her and in the said note there is no

allegation of demand of dowry. He lastly submitted that

since the High Court had acquitted mother and brother of

the appellant on the same evidence, the case of the

appellant being at par, there was no justification to convict

him.

1 AIR (2014) SC 2555

4 Page 4 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

8. We have given due consideration to the submissions

advanced on behalf of the appellant but we do not find any

merit.

9. There is consistent evidence on record to prove

harassment for dowry soon before the death of the

deceased. The deceased died within 10 months of the

marriage. According to PW3, father of the deceased, after

three months of the marriage, the deceased informed him

that the appellant and his family were harassing her for

dowry. He, along with PW-12, went to the house of the

appellant and requested them not to harass her. Again,

three days before the occurrence, on 28 April, 2001, the

deceased informed her father about the dowry harassment

on which her uncle PW-12, along with his wife, went to the

house of the accused and brought the deceased to her

parental home. The appellant took her away on the threat

of divorce and on the next day, she died of burn injuries.

Similar version has been given by Guddar Mal (PW-10) and

Raghubir Lal (PW-12). The version is supported by her

death by burning. There is no other cogent reason to

explain the cause of her death except the harassment for

dowry. There is live and proximate link between the

5 Page 5 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

demand of dowry and death. In these circumstances, it

cannot be held that there is no evidence of demand of

dowry “soon before the death”. In Manohar Lal (supra)

relied upon on behalf of the appellant, this Court noted that

there was neither any specific instance suggesting cruelty

or harassment nor any of the witnesses had stated that the

deceased was harassed “soon before the death” in

connection with the demand of dowry. Contrary to the fact

situation noticed in the said case, in the present case, all

the three witnesses mentioned above – Kashmiri Lal,

Guddar Mal and Raghubir Lal have specifically and

categorically deposed about demand of dowry soon before

her death.

10. We may now refer to the suicide note. It, inter alia,

states :

“All the doors are closed for me. Besides this, no other way is available to me and I adopted the way which I liked.”

The tenor of the suicide note clearly shows that the

deceased was in helpless condition and she found no other

way to come out of the situation. The suicide note cannot

be taken to be encyclopaedia of the entire situation in which

the deceased was placed. It is not possible to infer from the

said note that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial

6 Page 6 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

home. Mere mention that nobody may be held responsible,

while also stating that all the doors were closed for her and

she had no other way available (except to leave the world),

is not enough to exonerate the appellant. When a young

married girl finds herself in helpless situation and decides to

end her life, in absence of any other circumstance, it is

natural to infer that she was unhappy in her matrimonial

home. A suicide note cannot be treated as conclusive of

there being no one responsible for the situation when

evidence on record categorically points to harassment for

dowry. One cannot lose sight of the fact that unfortunately

the menace dowry deaths still exists in our society and has

been subject of expert studies. The Law Commission, in its

91thst Report dated 10th August, 1983, recommended reform

of the law to deal with the situation which led to

incorporation of Sections 304 B in IPC, making ‘dowry death’

an offence and Section 113B in the Evidence Act which

provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case

of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when

it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for

dowry soon before her death. These aspects have been

7 Page 7 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

considered by this Court in Hira Lal and Ors. vs. State

(Govt. of NCT) Delhi2 and other judgments.

11. The circumstances have thus to be appreciated in the

light of the above social and legislative background. As

already noted, in the present case, there is plethora of

evidence to prove the demand of dowry “soon before the

death” giving rise to the presumption against the appellant.

12. As regards the claim for parity of the case of the

appellant with his mother and brother who have been

acquitted, the High Court has rightly found his case to be

distinguishable from the case of his mother and brother.

The husband is not only primarily responsible for safety of

his wife, he is expected to be conversant with her state of

mind more than any other relative. If the wife commits

suicide by setting herself on fire, proceeded by

dissatisfaction of the husband and his family from the

dowry, the interference of harassment against the husband

may be patent. Responsibility of the husband towards his

wife is qualitatively different and higher as against his other

relatives.

13. On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned in

Section 113 B, if the statutory presumption arises against

2 (2003) 8 SCC 80

8 Page 8 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

the accused which shifts the burden on the accused, the

accused must give cogent explanation. Failure to give an

explanation or giving of false explanation can be taken as

an additional circumstance against him. The requirement

of allegations of demand of dowry against the relatives of

the husband may have to be more specific and the Court

may be more cautious in dealing with such allegations, if

there is any doubt about over implication, but responsibility

of the husband may be obvious from the circumstances. In

these circumstances, the case of the appellant cannot stand

at par with his mother and brother who have been acquitted

by the High Court, by way of caution against over

implication, as well as for want of cogent evidence against

them. Case of the husband stands on different footing.

14. Thus, we have no hesitation in upholding the

conviction and sentence of the appellant as we do not find

any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders of the

courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant.

15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is

directed to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence

failing which he may be arrested and committed to custody

to complete the sentence awarded to him.

9

Page 9 Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2013

……..…………………………….J. [ T.S. THAKUR ]

.….………………………………..J. [ ADARSH KUMAR

GOEL ]

……..…………………………….J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 14, 2014

10 Page 10