Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANA versus ANGOORI DEVI & ANR. on 13 June 2019
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1041
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1801 of 2013)
JUNE 13, 2019
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:s. 498-A r/w 304B – Dowry death – Deathof victim due to burn injuries within 7 years of marriage, otherwisethan under normal circumstances – Conviction u/s. 498A r/w 304B– However, set aside by the High Court – Interference with – Held:Not called for – High Court rightly found that the evidence of thecomplainant-father of the victim did not show any proximateconnection between the demand of dowry and the act of cruelty ofharassment and or the death – Prosecution was unable to provethat the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon beforeher death in connection with any demand for dowry – Thus, theevidence being weak, was not sufficient to convict the respondents.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Considering the evidence, the High Court did notfind the evidence strong enough to hold the respondents guilty.To attract Section 304B of the Penal Code, the prosecution hasto establish that soon before the death the deceased wassubjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demandfor dowry. The High Court rightly found that the evidence didnot show any proximate connection between the demand of dowryand the act of cruelty of harassment and or the death. Theprosecution has not been able to prove that the victim wassubjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death inconnection with any demand for dowry. Under Section 304B, theprosecution cannot escape from discharging its burden of provingthat the harassment or cruelty was related to demand for dowrysoon before death. The High Court has been swayed by the factthat the evidence of the complainant-father of the victim, did notevince direct knowledge of demand of dowry. The judgment andorder under appeal is not liable to be interfered with. [Para 15-17] [1044-F-H; 1045-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.1801 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2012 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.984-SB of1998
B
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. for the Appellant.
Sudhir Naagar, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.C
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana is against a judgmentand order dated 3.5.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the appeal filed by therespondents, reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Jhajhar convicting the respondents underDSections 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal code andacquitting the respondents.
2. The victim (Babli) and her sister (Neeru) were married to twobrothers, Kartar (Respondent No.3) and Pawan, sons of Smt. AngooriDevi (Respondent No.1) and Akhey Ram (Respondent No.2). After 3E½ years of marriage the victim, wife of Kartar Singh (Respondent No.3)died of burn injuries.
3. The victim’s father (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’)lodged an FIR, pursuant to which Sessions Crime No. 9 of 29.3.1996was commenced. It was alleged that about 1 & ¼ years ago when hisFdaughter Babli was pregnant, her in-laws had asked her to leave thehouse and return only if she brought Rs.60,000/-.
4. It is alleged that the victim informed her parents about thisdemand and she started living with her parents. She gave birth to adaughter, after which she stayed with her parents for 5 to 6 months.GThereafter, the complainant requested the accused to take the victimback. It is stated that the victim has lived with her in-laws for about 20days, after which she was thrown out from her matrimonial home. Hermother-in-law (Respondent No. 1) and father-in-law (Respondent No.2) demanded gold ring and a chain. It is stated that a village Panchayatwas convened after which Babli was sent to her in-laws house on H
H
29.10.1995. On 3.12.1995, the complainant came to know about thedeath of the victim. He came to know that the victim had been burnt todeath. He went to the spot and saw the dead body.
5. According to the complaint, since the victim had died due totorture and beating by her in-laws to press their demand for dowry, thematter was reported to the Sadar Police Station, Bahadurgarh.Investigation was commenced and the body of the victim was sent forpost mortem examination. The post mortem report opined that thecause of death was shock as a result of anti-mortem superficial deepburns over entire body.
6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. No witnesses wereexamined on behalf of the defence. In the examination under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent No. 3, KartarSingh, husband of the victim, deposed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,being his parents, resided separately.
7. The complainant who deposed as the 4[th] prosecution witness(PW4) stated that immediately after marriage the respondent startedharassing the victim for dowry and also used to beat his daughter. Thevictim was thrown out of the house when she was in the family way asthey wanted her to bring Rs.60,000/- in cash, gold articles and aRefrigerator.
8. According to the complainant, as he could not afford to givecash and ornaments, the victim was thrown out. While the victim wasat his house, she gave birth to a girl child. After about six months,through the intervention of a Panchayat, he sent the victim back to hermatrimonial home. No member of the Panchayat was examined.
9. The victim stayed there for 15-20 days, after which she wasset on fire and killed by the accused. According to the complainant,Rakesh, elder brother of Akhey Ram (Respondent No. 3) came to hisvillage and told him about the death of the victim. Thereafter, thecomplainant along with villagers went to the house of accused and sawthe victim lying dead.
10. The complainant has, in his evidence, claimed that his youngerdaughter, Neetu told him that the victim had been killed by the accusedand later set on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body. The youngerdaughter Neetu was, however, not examined by the prosecution.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A11. The victim’s brother, Subhash who deposed as the 5[th]prosecution witness (PW-5) more or less reiterated what the complainant,his father, had said.
12. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. Therespondent No.3 has in his statement under Section 313 stated that hisBparents did not live with him and that he was not at home when the incident took place.
13. The High Court found that the complainant did, in his evidence,say that he had first hand knowledge of demand of dowry. The HighCourt refused to uphold the conviction on the basis of hearsay evidence,Csince the primary witness Neetu was never produced in Court to giveevidence. Moreover, the High Court found discrepancies between hisevidence in Court and his statement to the Police, with which he hadbeen confronted.
14. The High Court found substance in the submission made byDthe Counsel for the respondents that if the respondents had really harassedor maltreated the victim, her sister married to another son of therespondent Nos. 1 and 2, brother of the respondent No.3, would nothave abstained from giving evidence. The Court also opined that counselwas justified in submitting that if there had been harassment as a resultof greed for dowry, the victim and her sister who was married to theEvictim’s brother-in-law (husband’s brother) would also have been harassedand tortured. There is no allegation of harassment of the victim’s sisterNeetu.
15. Considering the evidence, the Court did not find the evidencestrong enough to hold the respondents guilty. We agree with the HighFCourt that the evidence is weak, and not sufficient for conviction.
16. It is true, that the victim died of burns. The death was otherwisethan under normal circumstances and within 7 years of marriage.However, to attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, theprosecution has to establish that soon before the death the deceasedGwas subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand fordowry. The High Court rightly found that the evidence did not show anyproximate connection between the demand of dowry and the act ofcruelty of harassment and or the death. The prosecution has not beenable to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassmentsoon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.H
STATE OF HARYANA v. ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
17. Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecutioncannot escape from discharging its burden of proving that the harassmentor cruelty was related to demand for dowry soon before death. In thiscase, the High Court has been swayed by the fact that the evidence ofthe complainant, being the father of the victim, did not evince directknowledge of demand of dowry. The judgment and order under appealis not liable to be interfered with.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H