Acquittal in 304B of IPC

Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2008
Bhola Ram …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The question for consideration is whether the appellant
Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by both the Trial Court and
the High Court for having caused the dowry death of Janki
Devi, an offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, Bhola
Ram deserves an acquittal since there is no evidence
inculpating him.
The facts:
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 1 of 17Page 2
2. Darshan Ram married Janki Devi on 30th June, 1986
after which they resided in Darshan Ram’s house in village
Mehma Sarja. The couple has a female child.
3. At the time of their marriage, Janki Devi’s family gave
dowry within their means to Darshan Ram and his family.
But according to the prosecution, his brothers Parshottam
Ram and Bhola Ram (the appellant) and his sister Krishna
Devi and mother Vidya Devi demanded more dowry from
time to time.
4. Janki Devi’s family was unable to fulfill the additional
demands for dowry and, according to the prosecution, she
was humiliated and cruelly treated by Darshan Ram’s family
for their incapacity. Being unable to face the harassment,
cruelty and humiliation meted out by Darshan Ram’s family,
Janki Devi consumed poison and thereby committed suicide
on 6th September, 1989.
5. About one and a half months before her death, a
demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made by Janki Devi’s in-laws for
the purchase of a car. Janki Devi’s father PW-2 Nath Ram
borrowed this amount from PW-1 Nirbhai Singh for meeting
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 2 of 17Page 3
the dowry demand. The amount was then handed over by
him to Darshan Ram in the presence of other members of his
family.
6. Unfortunately, Darshan Ram’s family was not fully
satisfied with this payment. According to the prosecution,
about a fortnight before her death, Janki Devi came to her
father and told him that there was a further demand for an
amount of Rs. 30,000/- for purchasing some articles for a
service station proposed to be run by Darshan Ram and
Bhola Ram. Thereupon, Nath Ram accompanied Janki Devi to
her matrimonial home and informed Darshan Ram and the
other accused that he would not be able to pay this amount.
On this, Darshan Ram’s family informed him that he should
pay the amount failing which he could take Janki Devi back
with him. Nath Ram requested the family not to insist on the
demand and left Janki Devi at her matrimonial home in
village Mehma Sarja.
7. On 3rd September, 1989 PW-3 Des Raj, the brother of
Nath Ram’s wife, informed Nath Ram about Janki Devi being
ill-treated on account of Nath Ram’s inability to meet the
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 3 of 17Page 4
additional demand for dowry. Again on 5th September, 1989
Des Raj informed Nath Ram that Janki Devi wanted to meet
Nath Ram and was weeping in his presence.
8. On receiving this information, Nath Ram went to village
Mehma Sarja along with his brother PW-4 Sukhdev Ram.
When they reached the bus stand in the village they were
informed that Janki Devi had consumed poison and had
taken her life, having suffered more than enough cruelty at
the hands of the family of Darshan Ram. Nath Ram and
Sukhdev Ram then proceeded to Janki Devi’s matrimonial
home and found her lying there but no one from Darshan
Ram’s family was present in the matrimonial home.
9. Nath Ram then lodged a First Information Report (FIR)
in Police Station Nehianwala. On the basis of the FIR PW-7
Manminder Singh prepared an inquest report in the presence
of Sukhdev Ram. On the next day, that is 7th September,
1989 PW-5 Dr. Tirath Goyal performed an autopsy on the
dead body of Janki Devi. He noted that froth was coming out
from her nose and mouth. Her viscera were sent to the
Chemical Examiner who reported that Janki Devi had died
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 4 of 17Page 5
due to having consumed an organo phosphorus insecticide
which was poisonous and sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
10. On the basis of the above details and further
investigations, a charge sheet was filed against Darshan
Ram and four members of his family (including Bhola Ram)
under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC for causing
the dowry death of Janki Devi.
11. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried by the
Sessions Judge at Bathinda.
Decision of the Trial Judge
12. In his Judgment and Order dated 3rd December, 1991
the Sessions Judge at Bathinda in Sessions Case No. 35 of
15th May, 1990 held that Section 304-B of the IPC required
the prosecution to establish four ingredients, namely: (i) the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, (ii) such
death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage, (iii) soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 5 of 17Page 6
husband, and (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the present
case, all four ingredients were established by the
prosecution.
13. It was further held that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and
their mother Vidya Devi were living together in the same
house at village Mehma Sarja and that they had demanded
additional dowry from Janki Devi’s family. However,
Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were living separately and
they could not be said to have caused the dowry death of
Janki Devi. Consequently, Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi
were found not guilty of the charges framed against them
and they were acquitted. However, the Sessions Judge
found that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi, by their
attitude and behaviour, caused Janki Devi to take the
extreme step of taking her own life. These three accused
were accordingly convicted for offences punishable under
Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with
fine for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and 2
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 6 of 17Page 7
years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section
498-A of the IPC.
14. The accused preferred two appeals (one by Vidya Devi
and the other by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram) against their
conviction and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana.
Decision of the High Court
15. In so far as Vidya Devi is concerned, her conviction was
upheld by the High Court and she preferred a Special Leave
Petition in this Court. She was granted special leave to
appeal but during the pendency of her appeal she passed
away and accordingly her appeal was disposed of.
16. Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram preferred a joint appeal in
the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 25 SB of 1992.
This appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who by his
Judgment and Order dated 5th July, 2004 upheld their
conviction and sentence.
17. The High Court held that Vidya Devi, Darshan Ram and
Bhola Ram were all residing together in the same house at
village Mehma Sarja. It was held that the amount of Rs.
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 7 of 17Page 8
10,000/- initially taken from Nath Ram was used to purchase
a car for Darshan Ram and that car was being plied as a taxi
by him. It was also held that a service station was at the
initial stages of being established by Darshan Ram and Bhola
Ram and that they needed Rs. 30,000/- for expenses in
connection with that venture. Since all three convicts were
residing together at village Mehma Sarja, they were equally
responsible for demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi
and her father and thereby compelling her to take her life.
18. It appears that Darshan Ram has not challenged the
Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge and his
conviction and sentence have attained finality.
19. We are, therefore, only concerned with the appeal filed
by Bhola Ram who challenged his conviction and sentence in
this Court and was granted special leave to appeal on 8th
July, 2008. He was also granted bail by this Court on the
same day and we are told that even today, he is on bail.
Discussion
20. Learned counsel for Bhola Ram submitted that in fact
there is no specific allegation against him. The statements of
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 8 of 17Page 9
all the witnesses are omnibus or generic in nature and
Darshan Ram and other members of his family have been
generally accused of having demanded additional dowry
from Janki Devi’s family. It is submitted that in the absence
of any particular allegation, demands for dowry made by
Darshan Ram cannot be attributed to Bhola Ram and under
these circumstances, there is really no evidence to uphold
his conviction.
21. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel
for the State that the three convicts were jointly and directly
concerned with the demands of additional dowry made on
Janki Devi and her family. Consequently, it is not possible to
segregate the case of Bhola Ram from that of the other two
convicts.
22. We are unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the State. The Sessions Judge found that there
was no evidence that Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi
made demands for additional dowry from Nath Ram.
Accordingly, they were acquitted at the trial stage itself.
Therefore, the segregation process, based on the evidence
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 9 of 17Page 10
on record, had begun at the trial stage. This is clearly
because in a dowry death, some actors play an active role
while others play a passive role. Consequntly, to sustain the
conviction of Bhola Ram, there must be some suggestive
evidence and not generic evidence implicating him in the
demand for additional dowry from Nath Ram.
23. As observed by the Law Commission of India (LCI) in its
91st Report of 10th August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) the truth
may not come in a dowry death case due to the sequestered
nature of the offence. This is what the LCI said:
“Those who have studied crime and its incidence know
that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a
difficult matter and still more difficult is successful
prosecution of the offender. Crimes that lead to dowry
deaths are almost invariably committed within the safe
precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a
member of the family; other members of the family (if
residing in the same house) are either guilty associates
in crime, or silent but conniving witnesses to it. In any
case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth
may not come out of the chains. There would be no
other eye witnesses, except for members of the
family.”

24. This passage also clearly brings out that in a case of a
dowry death, every member of the family may not be fully
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 10 of 17Page 11
and equally guilty. The degree of involvement may differ – as
an associate, as a silent witness, as a conniving witness and
so on.
25. So far as this case is concerned, we have gone through
the evidence of all the witnesses on record and while there is
no doubt that Janki Devi died an unnatural death within a
few years of her marriage to Darshan Ram, no definite
allegation has been made by any of the witnesses including
Nath Ram or anybody from his family that Bhola Ram had
demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in his
family or had treated Janki Devi with cruelty or in a
humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry
death.
26. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 2007
the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC
were held to be as follows:
“In order to seek a conviction against a person for the
offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to
prove that:
(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or
bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 11 of 17Page 12
(b) such death should have occurred within 7
years of her marriage;
(c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or by any relative of
her husband;
(d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with the demand of dowry; and
(e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased
should have been subjected soon before her
death.”
27. It is true that there was a demand of dowry of Rs.
10,000/- which was paid by Nath Ram by borrowing this
amount from Nirbhai Singh, but that demand was for the
purchase of a car for use by Darshan Ram. Under the
circumstances, it can safely be presumed that Darshan Ram
made the demand for additional dowry for his benefit. Bhola
Ram may have been a silent or a passively conniving
participant, but there is nothing on record to suggest that he
had either actively made such a demand or that the
demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his benefit
either directly or indirectly.
28. Similarly, the evidence on record does not show that
the demand of another amount of Rs.30,000/- from Nath
Ram just a fortnight before Janki Devi took her life was made
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 12 of 17Page 13
by Bhola Ram to purchase articles for the service station
being set up by him and Darshan Ram at village Nehianwala.
At best, it could be said that this amount was intended for
use for the joint business venture of Bhola Ram and Darshan
Ram. Given that the earlier demand for additional dowry was
made for the benefit of Darshan Ram, it is more than likely
that this demand was also made by him. In any event, there
is again nothing to suggest that Bhola Ram was in any
manner actively concerned in making the demand directly or
indirectly from Nath Ram.
29. Consequently, we do not find any evidence to suggest
any active complicity of Bhola Ram in demanding any
additional dowry from Nath Ram either for himself or for
Darshan Ram or his proposed business venture.
30. Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to
bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As
held in Kans Raj a dowry death victim should also have
been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her
husband or a relative. In this case, even assuming the silent
or conniving participation of Bhola Ram in the demands for
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 13 of 17Page 14
dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest
that he actively or passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty
or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High
Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of
an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC or
even considered it.
31. The High Court has relied on the presumption available
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude
that Janki Devi’s death was a dowry death. However, this
presumption cannot be stretched to implicate all and sundry
in Darshan Ram’s family in demanding additional dowry from
Janki Devi’s family and harassing her and treating her with
such cruelty that she had to resort to taking her life. As
mentioned above, there is a possibility of members of the
family having varying roles, active and passive. Depending
on the nature and extent of involvement, a person may be
punished for an offence under Section 498-A or Section 304-
B or Section 306 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. A dowry death will not ipso facto suck
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 14 of 17Page 15
the husband with all his relatives into the net of Section 304-
B of the IPC.
32. It was contended by learned counsel for the State that
Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi were living
together at village Mehma Sarja and so their active
involvement in the dowry death cannot be ruled out. While
these persons may be staying together, it does not lead to
any positive conclusion that each one of them was actively
involved in demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi and
also behaving in a cruel or humiliating manner towards her
resulting in her consuming poison to end her life. In cases of
this nature which attract a reverse onus of proof, the least
that is expected of the prosecution to bring home a charge
under Section 304-B of the IPC is to adduce some evidence
to suggestively implicate a relative, in this case, to
suggestively implicate Bhola Ram both in the demands for
additional dowry and harassment or cruelty. Such evidence
is not available on record and so the mere fact that all the
members of Darshan Ram’s family were living together at
village Mehma Sarja, would not alter the factual situation.
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 15 of 17Page 16
33. Consequently, in the absence of the prosecution
proving the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC, the initial
burden cast on it has not been discharged. Therefore, the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot
be attracted.
Conclusion
34. Based on the evidence available on record (or the lack
of it) we have no doubt that the appeal filed by Bhola Ram
ought to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and he is
acquitted of the charges against him under Section 304-B
and Section 498-A of the IPC in relation to the death of Janki
Devi.
35. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
of Bhola Ram is set aside.
Post script
36. What is a little disturbing about this case is that it is
illustrative of the slow movement of the wheels of criminal
justice delivery. The dowry death took place on 6th
September, 1989. The Trial Court pronounced its decision on
3
rd December, 1991 within two years of Janki Devi’s death.
Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 16 of 17Page 17
The first appeal was decided by the High Court on 5th July,
2004 which is more than twelve years later. A petition for
special leave to appeal was filed in this Court in 2004 and
leave was granted only after a gap of four years in 2008.
Thereafter this appeal was listed for hearing as if it is an
appeal of 2008 rather than a petition of 2004 thereby wiping
away four years of its age in this Court. And even then, it has
taken another five years for its disposal, making a total of
nine years spent in this Court. It is high time those of us who
are judges of this Court and decision makers also become
policy makers.
….…….……………………..J.
(Ranjana Prakash
Desai)
….…….……………………..J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi;
November 11, 2013

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s