PARVATI DEVI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. on 17 December 2021

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 711

PARVATI DEVI

v.

THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 574 of 2012)

DECEMBER 17, 2021

[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANTAND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B and 201 r/w s. 34 – Dowry death– Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased daughter ofinformant (PW-3) was married to A-1 – Within few months ofmarriage, A-1, his father (A-2) and his mother (A-3) startedharassing her for cash and motor cycle – They threatened the victimthat if the demand was not fulfilled then they would throw her outof matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else – Similarmessage was conveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law (PW-2) with whomA-1 had raised the issue of insufficient dowry – It was within 15days of this incident that PW-3 received information from PW-2about his daughter having gone missing from matrimonial home –A missing complaint was lodged with local police after making futilesearch – Five days after the complaint, a dead body was recoveredfrom the banks of the river – PW-3 identified the body as that of hisdaughter – Doctor who conducted autopsy deposed that there wasno evidence of any ante-mortem injury – Trial Court convicted allthe accused under ss.304 B and 201 r/w s.34 on the basis ofcircumstantial evidence – High Court upheld conviction – Appealagainst conviction – A-2 died during pendency of appeal – Held:The circumstances set out in s.304B were established in the light ofthe fact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonialhome within a few months of her marriage and immediately afterdemands of dowry were made on her and that her death hadoccurred under abnormal circumstances – Such a death has to becharactarized as a “dowry death” – There was sufficient evidenceto inculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased) – The circumstancesput together, unerringly pointed to his guilt in extinguishing the lifeof his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing tosatisfy the demands of dowry – The impugned judgment and orderof sentence imposed on A-1 is maintained – However, against A-3

711

A

B

C

DEF

GH

A(Mother-in-law), evidence showed only omnibus allegations againsther with respect to dowry demands – Prosecution was not able toindicate any specific allegations, nor pointed to any specificevidence or testimony against her – Conviction order against her isset aside.

BDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1 Section 304B IPC read in conjunction withSection 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt thatonce the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a womanhas been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connectionCwith any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Courtshall proceed on a presumption that the persons who havesubjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with thedemand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaningof Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however,rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able toDdemonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients ofSection 304B IPC have not been satisfied. [Para 17][722-C-E]

Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359: [2011] 1 SCR 724; Maya Devi and Anr. v. State ofHaryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 : [2015] 11 SCR 903 –Erelied on .

1.2 In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigationconducted by the prosecution, the circumstances set out inSection 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of thefact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonialFhome within a few months of her marriage and immediately afterdemands of dowry were made on her and that her death hadoccurred under abnormal circumstances, such a death would haveto be charactarized as a “dowry death”. [Para 18][722-E-F]

2. Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearlyGindicates that the deceased woman had died under abnormalcircumstances that could only be explained by her husband andin-laws, as she was residing at her matrimonial home when shesuddenly disappeared and no plausible explanation was offeredfor her disappearance. The plea raised on behalf of the accusedH

that the body recovered from the banks of Barakar river wasunidentifiable, is devoid of merits when PW-3, father of thedeceased testified that he could recognize the dead body as thatof the deceased, from a part of the face that had remained intactand from the clothes that were found on the body. As regards A-1, the High Court and the trial Court have rightly raised apresumption against him under Section 113B of the EvidenceAct which prescribes that the Court shall presume that a personhas caused a dowry death of a woman if it is shown that soonbefore her death, she had been subjected by such person to crueltyor harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.[Para 19][722-F-H; 723-A-B]

3.1. The case of the prosecution rests solely oncircumstantial evidence. No eye witness was produced who couldtestify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banksof river Barakar. From the circumstances, there can be twohypothesis. One is that the deceased was done away with withinthe four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body wassmuggled out and dumped into the river. The second pre-supposition would be that the deceased was alive when she wastaken to the river-side under some pretext and pushed in, leadingto her death by drowning. If the first assumption is taken to becorrect, then surely, some villager would have seen the accusedpersons carrying the dead body to the river where it was finallydumped. However, the prosecution has not produced any villagerwho was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken out ofthe matrimonial home and carried to the river. Therefore, thisversion would have to be discarded in favour of the second onewhich is that the deceased was alive, when she was accompaniedto the river and then she was forcibly pushed in and could notemerge alive from the watery grave. The latter assumption alsogains strength from the post mortem report which records thatthere were no signs of any ante mortem injury on the body. If thedeceased was killed in the house, then the body would certainlyhave revealed some signs of struggle. [Para 21][723-E-H;724-A-B]

3.2 There is sufficient evidence brought on record toinculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased). The circumstances put A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Atogether, unerringly point to his guilt in extinguishing the life ofhis wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing tosatisfy the demands of dowry. The impugned judgment and orderof sentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference andis maintained. [Para 22][724-B-C]

B3.3 As for A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence on recordonly certain omnibus allegations have been made against her withrespect to dowry demands. The respondent-State has not beenable to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specificevidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only directevidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of theCvictim) mentions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. Thefindings of the Courts below convicting A-3 for the offence underSections 304B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC is interferedwith. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required tobe detained in any other case. [Para 23][724-D-F]

DG.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC152 : [2010] 2 SCR 380; Ashok Kumar v. State ofHaryana (2010) 12 SCC 350 : [2010] 7 SCR 1119 –referred to.

E

F

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.574 of 2012.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2007 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Appeal No.345 of 1999 (R).

GWith

Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2012

Aabhas Parimal, Somanatha Padhan, Satya Kam Sharma, Ms.Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.

H

Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Mrs. L. BhaswatiSingh, Aditya Narayan Das, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. Ram Sahay Mahto, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 575/2012(hereinafter referred to as A-1) and his mother Parvati Devi, appellantin Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012 (hereinafter referred to as A-3) areaggrieved by the common judgment dated 1[st] May, 2007 passed by theHigh Court of Jharkhand upholding the judgment of conviction dated20[th] September, 1999 under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34IPC passed by the 5[th] Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencingthem and Nema Mahto (father of A-1 and husband of A-3) to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and three yearsrespectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently.For the record, Nema Mahto had also preferred an appeal registered asSLP (Crl.) No. 6955 of 2009 which abated on his expiring during itspendency.

2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the impugnedjudgment is that the informant, Bodhi Mahto (PW–3) had got his daughter,Fulwa Devi, married to Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1) in the year 1997 andwithin a few months of the marriage, A-1, his father Nema Mahto (sincedeceased) and mother, Parvati Devi (A-3) started to harass Fulwa Deviraising a demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a Rajdoot Motorcycle. On expressing the inability of her parents to satisfy their demands,she was brutally assaulted and threatened that A-1 would be married offto another girl. Thereafter, on information being received that his daughterhad gone missing from her matrimonial home, P.W.3 rushed to her homebut finding her traceless, he approached Birni Police Station and lodgeda missing complaint. A case was registered by the local police on 8[th]August, 1997 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 being Case No. 71 of 1997, forthe offences under Sections 304/201/34 IPC. On completion of theinvestigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused forthe aforesaid offences along with Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act.

3. Five days after the FIR was lodged by PW-3 on 13[th] August,1997, a skeleton was recovered from the banks of river Barakar, at adistance of about one kilometer short of Village Sirmadih which was A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aassumed to be that of Fulwa Devi. Charges were framed against thethree accused under Sections 304B/34, 201/34 IPC. To bring home theguilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereasthe accused examined six witnesses. The material witnesses examinedby the prosecution included Dr. B.P. Singh (PW-1), the doctor who hadconducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, Sahdeo MahtoB(PW-2), brother–in–law of the deceased, Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), fatherof the deceased as well as the informant, Jogeshwar Mahto (PW-4),brother of the deceased, Tiki Devi (PW-5), wife of PW–4 (sister-in-law/Bhabhi of the deceased) and Suresh Prasad Singh (PW-6), theInvestigating Officer.C4. After a critical analysis of the deposition of the aforesaidwitnesses, the High Court summarized their testimony. Dr. BhupendraPrasad Singh (PW–1) deposed that he had conducted the autopsy of thedead body produced before him as that of Fulwa Devi and found thebody to be highly decomposed. The left leg, left forearm and left handDwere absent. Similarly, the right upper limb and right lower limb belowthe knee joint were absent. No evidence of any ante-mortem injury wasfound. The time that had elapsed till the post-mortem examination wasconducted, was assessed as one week.

5. Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), the informant and the father of theEdeceased testified that his deceased daughter was married to A-1 andwithin a few months of her marriage, the accused had started maltreatingher and complained about inadequate dowry given by her parents. Theyhad demanded cash of Rs. 20,000/- and a Rajdoot Motor cycle from hisdaughter and had threatened that if their demand was not met, she wouldbe exterminated. Fulwa Devi had shared this demand of additional dowryFwith her parents, brother and sister-in-law. A similar message wasconveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law, Sahadeo Mahto (PW-2) with whomthe accused had raised the issue of insufficient dowry. PW–3 deposedthat when he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter in the monthof “Ashar”, A-1 and his father (A-2, since deceased) had cautionedGhim that if he did not fulfill their demand, they would throw out FulwaDevi from the matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else.It was within a period of fifteen days of the aforesaid incident that PW–3 received information from PW-2 about his daughter having gone missingfrom her matrimonial home. On rushing to her matrimonial home andlooking all over for her, when she could not be traced, an FIR was lodgedH

with the local Police as PW – 3 stated that he had reason to believe thatthe accused had murdered her and concealed her body somewhere. Itwas only after five days of lodging of the complaint that the dead bodyof the deceased was recovered. PW–2 and PW–3 went to the spotwhere the dead body was recovered. On seeing the face that was partlyintact and by identifying the clothes, PW-3 identified the body as that ofhis daughter. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused,PW-3 stood firm by his testimony, that remained unshaken.

6. Sahdeo Mahto (PW-2), son-in-law of PW–3 and JogeshwarMahto (PW-4) son of PW–3 testified on the very same lines as PW-3.They deposed that Fulwa Devi was being ill-treated and besidesdemanding dowry from her, she had been threatened that if the demandfor dowry was not fulfilled, her husband would get re-marrried to someoneelse. PW–4 stated that during her visit to her parental home, Fulwa Devihad informed her family members about the demands of dowry made onher by all the accused and the threat extended to her that if their demandswere not met, they would go in for a second marriage of their son, A-1.

7. Both the witnesses narrated as to how they came to knowabout the deceased going missing from her matrimonial home. PW–2deposed that he came to know from third parties that Fulwa Devi wasmissing from her matrimonial home and her dead body had been throwninto Barakar river after she was murdered. He immediately informedhis father-in-law, PW–3 who set out in search of his daughter on thebanks of the river. PW-3 made an extensive search along with his son-in-law, PW-2 and his son, PW-4 and also informed the Police. The restof the version of both the witnesses on the aspect of recovery of a deadbody from the banks of the nearby river and identification by them of thebody as that of Fulwa Devi, remained consistent with one corroboratingthe other.

8. The High Court has observed that the evidence of SahdeoMahto, PW–2, is relevant to the extent that prior to her death, FulwaDevi had spoken to him about the dowry demand made on her by theaccused persons. He was not an eye-witness to the incident but statedon hearsay that he came to know from a villager that the dead body ofFulwa Devi was thrown in Barakar river after she was murdered by theaccused. The said witness did identify the dead body as that of FulwaDevi on the basis of the clothes that she was wearing. Jogeshwar Mahto,PW-4 has corroborated the testimony of his father, PW–3 on the aspect A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aof demand of dowry and the fact that Fulwa Devi had communicatedthis at her parental home during one of her visits. All the three witnessestook a common stand that demands of dowry were made on the deceasedclose to the time that she had gone missing from her matrimonial homeand that she was last residing at her matrimonial home when she hadsuddenly vanished one fine day.B

9. The High Court has adversely commented on the slip shodmanner in which the investigation was conducted by the InvestigatingOfficer, Suresh Prasad Singh (PW- 6) who recorded the statements ofthe witnesses, prepared the inquest report of Fulwa Devi, testified aboutthe two places of occurrence namely, the matrimonial home of theCdeceased at village Karni and the spot at the bank of river Barakarwhere the dead body was found, but failed to record the statements ofany of the residents of the village that comprised of only twenty-fivehouses including the statement of the neighbours of the accused; nor didhe make any concerted effort to trace the dead body of the deceased. ItDwas only on persistent efforts made by the father, brother and brother-in-law of the deceased viz., PW-3, PW-4 and PW-2 respectively, thatthe dead body was ultimately located after almost a week from the dateFulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial home by which time,the body had got decomposed to a large extent.

E10. Linking the chain of circumstantial evidence from the pointwhen Fulwa Devi had informed her parents and relations about the dowrydemands made upon her by the accused within a few months of hermarriage to the stage when she had suddenly gone missing from hermatrimonial home and finally, when her body was recovered on the banksof river Barakar, the High Court concurred with the findings returned byFthe trial Court for inculpating all the three accused on the following basis:

“(i) The deceased Fulwa Devi was married with Ram SahayMahto S/o. Nema Mahto and Parvati Devi within seven years ofher death; G(ii) The dead body of the deceased was found in river Barakar on13.8.97 and there are consistent evidence that the deceased diedotherwise than under normal circumstances;

(iii) The deceased was at her Sasural prior to her death;

(iv) The deceased was traceless but neither information was givenHto her parents nor information was given to the police;

(v) The deceased was subjected to assault and harassment bythe accused persons who are husband and his other relatives;

(vi) Such cruelty and harassment was in connectionwith demandof dowry;

(vii) Such cruelty and harassment was made soon before herdeath.”

11. The High Court agreed with the view expressed by the trialCourt that the accused have miserably failed to explain the circumstancesunder which the deceased had vanished from her matrimonial home andhas outrightly rejected the defence set up by the accused that she wasnot residing with her husband and in-laws; rather, she was living withher brother-in-law, PW–2. Another plea taken by the accused that thedead body recovered from the banks of river Barakar was unidentifiable,was also turned down, having regard to the fact that the accused failedto explain the circumstance in which the deceased went missing fromher matrimonial home and became traceless. The conduct of the accusedof failing to inform the family members or the police about the deceasedgoing missing from her matrimonial home and failure on their part tomake any effort to search her out, were also held against them. In fact,PW-4, brother of the deceased had categorically deposed that when hehad gone to her matrimonial home, he found it to be locked and all theaccused were absconding just after the occurrence which was a criticalcircumstance that was held against them.

12. For examining the case of the prosecution and the evidenceadduced by the accused, we may extract below the relevant provisionof Section 304B IPC that relates to “dowry death”: - “304B Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman iscaused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise thanunder normal circumstances within seven years of her marriageand it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected tocruelty or har-assment by her husband or any relative of herhusband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, suchdeath shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relativeshall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shallhave the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 (28 of 1961).

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished withimprison-ment for a term which shall not be less than seven yearsbut which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

13. As can be seen from the aforesaid provision, for convictingthe accused for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, theBfollowing pre-requisites must be met:

(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burnsor bodily injury or occured otherwise than under normalcircumstance;

(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period ofCseven years of her marriage;

(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty orharassment at the hands of her husband, soon before herdeath; and

(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for orrelated to any demand for dowry.14. Coming next to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the same refers to a presumption relating to a dowry death and isphrased as below:- D

E“113B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the questionis whether a person has committed the dowry death of a womanand it is shown that soon before her death such woman has beensubjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or inconnection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presumethat such person had caused the dowry death.FExplanation - For the purposes of this section, “dowry death”shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the IndianPenal Code (45 of 1860).”

The explanation appended to Section 304B IPC states that theGword “dowry” shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 2 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as follows:

“2. Definition of ‘dowry’ - In this Act, “dowry” means anyproperty or valuable security given or agreed to be given eitherdirectly or indirectly –

H

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;Aor (b)by the parents of either party to a marriage by any otherperson, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;at or before or any time after the marriage in connectionwith the marriage of the said parties, but does not includedower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the MuslimPersonal law (Shariat) applies.”

B

15. The import of the aforesaid provisions has been explained inseveral decisions of this Court. In Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana1 , ithas been held that:

C

“17. While considering the case under Section 498-A (Sic. Section304-B), cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity oftime of death and it should be continuous and such continuousharassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make lifeof the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide.”

D

16. In Maya Devi and Anr. vs. State of Haryana2, it was heldthat:

“23. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the mainingredients of the offence which is required to be established isthat “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty orharassment “for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”.The expression “soon before her death” used in Section 304-IPCand Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea ofproximity test. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe appellants submitted that there is no proximity for the allegeddemand of dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim,we shall advert to while considering the evidence led in by theprosecution. Though the language used is “soon before her death”,no definite period has been enacted and the expression “soonbefore her death” has not been defined in both the enactments.Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come withinthe term “soon before her death” is to be determined by the courts,depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval F

G

1 (2011) 11 SCC 359

2 (2015) 17 SCC 405

H

Ashould not be much between the cruelty or harassment concernedand the death in question. In other words, there must be existenceof a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty basedon dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incidentof cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not todisturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it wouldBbe of no consequence.”[Also refer to G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka3 andAshok Kumar vs. State of Haryana4]

17. Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B ofCthe Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecutionhas been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to crueltyor harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soonbefore her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that thepersons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connectionwith the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaningDof Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable andcan be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogentevidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not beensatisfied.

18. In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigation conductedEby the prosecution, we are of the view that the circumstances set out inSection 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of the factthat the deceased, Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonialhome within a few months of her marriage and immediately afterdemands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurredFunder abnormal circumstances, such a death would have to becharactarized as a “dowry death”.

19. Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearlyindicates that Fulwa Devi had died under abnormal circumstances thatcould only be explained by her husband and in-laws, as she was residingGat her matrimonial home when she suddenly disappeared and no plausibleexplanation was offered for her disappearance. The plea raised on behalfof the accused that the body recovered from the banks of Barakar riverwas unidentifiable, is devoid of merits when PW-3, father of the deceasedtestified that he could recognize the dead body as that of Fulwa Devi, 3 (2010) 3 SCC 152H4 (2010) 12 SCC 350

from a part of the face that had remained intact and from the clothesthat were found on the body. As regards A-1, the High Court and thetrial Court have rightly raised a presumption against him under Section113B of the Indian Evidence Act which prescribes that the Court shallpresume that a person has caused a dowry death of a woman if it isshown that soon before her death, she had been subjected by such personto cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.How far could this be held against A-3, will be discussed later.

20. The plea taken by A-1 that he was not present in the village atthe time of the occurrence and was at Kolkata, has been rightly rejectedas meritless. Similarly, the testimonies of Babulal Yadav, DW-3 andBasudeo Mahto, DW-4 were disbelieved, particularly since DW–3claimed to be the uncle of A-1, but could not even furnish the name ofhis nephew’s wife and DW–4, cousin of A-1 had deposed that he did notknow about his marriage or whether his wife was dead or alive. Neitherof the two witnesses could produce any documentary evidence in supportof their stand that at the relevant time, A-1, was working in Kolkata.DW–6, Kauteshwar Yadav, who hails from the village where the saidaccused resided but has deposed that he himself is not a permanentresident thereof, miserably failed to establish an illicit relationship betweenthe deceased and her brother–in-law, Sahdeo Mahto (PW–2) or thatshe was living with him and not residing at her matrimonial home.

21. As discussed above, the case of the prosecution rests solelyon circumstantial evidence. No eye witness has been produced whocould testify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banksof river Barakar. From the circumstances narrated above, there can betwo hypothesis. One is that the deceased was done away with withinthe four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body was smuggledout and dumped into the river. The second pre-supposition would be thatthe deceased was alive when she was taken to the river-side undersome pretext and pushed in, leading to her death by drowning. If the firstassumption is taken to be correct, then surely, some villager would haveseen the accused persons carrying the dead body to the river where itwas finally dumped. However, the prosecution has not produced anyvillager who was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken outof the matrimonial home and carried to the river. Therefore, this versionwould have to be discarded in favour of the second one which is that thedeceased was alive, when she was accompanied to the river and then A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ashe was forcibly pushed in and could not emerge alive from the waterygrave. The latter assumption also gains strength from the post mortemreport which records that there were no signs of any ante mortem injuryon the body. If the deceased was killed in the house, then the bodywould certainly have revealed some signs of struggle.

B22. There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpateRam Sahay Mahto, A-1 (husband of the deceased). The circumstancesput together, unerringly point to his guilt in extinguishing the life of hiswife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to satisfy thedemands of dowry. In our view, the impugned judgment and order ofsentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference and is maintained.CCriminal Appeal No. 575 of 2012 filed by A-1 is accordingly dismissed.The said appellant who is presently on bail, is directed to surrender beforethe Trial Court/Superintendent of Jail within four weeks to undergo theremaining period of his sentence.

23. As for Parvati Devi, A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidenceDon record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against herwith respect to dowry demands. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point toany specific evidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only directevidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the victim)Ementions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. In view of the above,we are of the opinion that it is necessary to interfere with the findings ofthe Courts below convicting A-3 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574of 2012) for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section34, IPC. The said appeal filed by A-3 is accordingly allowed. She isdirected to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in anyFother case.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

G

H