BACHNI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

                    [2011] 2 S.C.R. 627

                 BACHNI DEVI AND ANR.                          A
                             V.
  STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME
                 DEPARTMENT              ..,.-
            (Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2006)
                                                               B
                    FEBRUARY 8, 2011
          [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048:
                                                               c
    Offence of Dowry death - Ingredients required to be
proved by the prosecution - Stated.

     Dowry - Meaning of - Held: For purposes of s. 3048 /PC,
'dowry' has the same meaning as in s.2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act - Mere demand for 'dowry' before marriage, D
at the time of marriage or any time after the marriage is an
offence - The term 'dowry' is defined comprehensively to
include properties of all sorts as it takes within its fold 'any
property or valuable security' given or agreed to be given jn
connection with marriage either directly or indirectly - If a E
demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly,
has a nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute
'demand for dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand
being immaterial - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.2
                                                               F
      Dowry death - Wife of appellant no.2 died within 3 months
of her marriage - She was found dead by hanging from a
ceiling fan in the appellants' house - Allegation that deceased
was subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant no. 1
(mother-in~law) and appellant no.2 in connection with demand G
of motorcycle - Conviction of the appellants u/s.304-8 IPC-
Challenge to - Held: That the deceased was subjected to
harassment and ill-treatment by the appellants after PW-8
(father of the deceased) refused to accede to their demand
                            627                                H
    628    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A for purchase of motorcycle is established by the evidence of
  PW-8 and PW-9- Then there is evidence of PW-10 that PW-
  8 had called him and DW-1 to his house where appellant no.1
  had made demand of motorcycle - PW-10 stated that he
  sought to reason to appellant no. 1 about inability of PW-8 to
B give motorcycle at which appellant ho. 1 got angry and warned
  that the deceased would not be allowed to stay in her
  matrimonial home - It was established that unlawful demand
  of motorcycle was made by the appellants from PW-8 and the
  deceased was harassed on account of his failure to provide
c the motorcycle and that led the deceased to commit suicide
  by hanging - The demand of motorcycle by appellant no. 1
  from PW-8 was for the appellant no.2 and when PW-8 showed
  his inability to meet that demand, the appellant no.2 started
  harassing and ill-treating the deceased - In this view of the
0 matter, it cannot be said that there was no demand by the
  appellant no.2 - No merit in the contention of the appellants
  that the demand of motorcycle does not qualify as a 'demand
  for dowry' - All the essential ingredients to bring home the
  guilt under s. 3048 /PC were established against the ·
E appellants by the prosecution evidence -Presumption under
  s. 1138 of the Evidence Act was fully attracted - The
  appellants failed to rebut such presumption - Evidence Act,
   1872 - s.1138.

         Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Enactment of - Purpose
    stated.

         The wife of appellant no.2/(A-2) died within 3 months
    of her marriage. She was found dead by hanging from a
    ceiling fan in the appellants' house. PW-8, the father of
    the deceased, is a Rikshawpuller.

         The trial court held that the prosecution was able to
    establish that the death was within seven years of her
    marriage and otherwise than under normal
    circumstances; that before her death, the deceased was
  BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 629
               SECY. HOME DEPTT.
  subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant no.1/     A
  (A-1) (mother-in-law) and appellant no.2 in connection
  with the demand of motorcycle and that the appellants
  were guilty of causing dowry death. The appellants were
  convicted by the trial court under Section 304-B IPC and
  sentenced to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment.    B
  The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

       In the instant appeal, the appellants submitted that it
  was highly improbable that a demand for a motorcycle
  would be made from PW-8 knowing well that it could not C
  be fulfilled by him as he was a Rikshawpuller earning Rs.
  20/- per day. The appellants contended that the evidence
  let in by the prosecution was not trustworthy at all and
  the demand for dowry is not established. They submitted
  that the only independent witness of demand was DW-1
  but he was not examined by the prosecution, though, OW- D
  1 was examined in defence and he has denied that any
  demand was made by appellant no.1 in his presence. The
  appellants argued that there was no evidence of demand
  of motorcycle by the appellant no.2 and further that in
  any case the demand of motorcycle for the purposes of E
  the business does not qualify as a 'demand for dowry'
  and, therefore, no offence under Section 304-B IPC can ·
  be said to have been made out against the appellants.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court                       F
         HELD:1.1. Section 304B was inserted in IPC with
,. effect from November 19, 1986 by the Dowry Prohibition·
    (Amendment) Act, 1986. Thereby substantive offence
    relating to 'dowry death' was introduced in the IPC. For
    making out an offence of 'dowry death' under Section G
    :304B, the following ingredients have to be proved by the
    1>rosecution:(a) death of a woman must have been
  · (;aused by anyburns or bodily injury or her death must
    have occurred otherwise than under normal
    circumstances; (b)such death must have occurred H
   630      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A within seven years of her marriage;(c) soon before her
  death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or
  harassment by her husband or any relative of her
  husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in
  connection with the demand for dowry. Pertinently, for
B the purposes of Section 3048 IPC, 'dowry' has the same
  meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibitfon Act,
  1961. [Paras 11, 12, 13 and 14] (635-E-F; 636-B-F]

       1.2. The Dowry Prohibition At.1,,,1961 was enacted to
  prohibit the giving or taking of 'ttowry' and for the
C protection of married woman against cruelty and violence
  in the matrimonial home by the husband and in-laws. The
  mere demand for 'dowry' before marriage, at the time of
  marriage or any time after the marriage is an offence. The
  definition of 'dowry' show that the term is defined
D comprehensively to include properties of all sorts as it
  takes within its fold 'any property or valuable security'
  given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage
  either directly or indirectly. If a demand for property or
  valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus with
E marriage, such demand would constitute 'demand for,
  dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand being
  immaterial. [Paras 15, 17] (637-D-F; 640-C-D]

      Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra. (2007) 9 SCC
F 721; S. Gopa/ Reddy v. State of A. P. (1996) 4 SCC 596;
  Panjiyar@ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC
  388 - referred to.
      2. In the facts of the case, it is clearly established that
  the deceased died otherwise than under normal
G circumstances. There is no dispute of fact that death
  occurred within seven years of her marriage. That the
  deceased was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment
  by the appellants after PW-8 refused to accede to their
  demand for purchase of motorcycle is established by the
H evidence of PW-8 and PW-9. Then there is evidence of
 BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 631
              SECY. HOME DEPTT.
 PW-10 that PW-8 had called him and DW-1 to his house             A
 where A-1 had made demand of motorcycle. PW-10 stated
 that he sought to reason to A-1 about inability of PW-8
 to give motorcycle at which A-1 got angry and warned
 that the deceased would not be allowed to stay in her
 matrimonial home. It is true that the appellants produced        B
 DW-1 in defence and he did state in his examination-in-
 chief that he did not meet A-1 at the house of PW-8 but
 in cross-examination when he was confronted with his
 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where it was
 recorded that he and PW-1 Ohad gone to the house of PW-          c
 8 and both of them (PW-10 and DW-1) counselled A-1 to
 desist from demanding motorcycle but she stuck to her
 demand, DW-1 had no explanation to offer. The evidence
 of DW-1 is, therefore, liable to be discarded. In light of the
 evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial court cannot       0
 be said to have erred in holding that it was established
 that unlawful demand of motorcycle was made by A-1 and
 A-2 from PW-8 and the decesded was harassed on
 account of his failure to provide the motorcycle and that
 1.ed the deceased to commit suicide by hanging.                  E
 Pertinently, the demand of motorcycle by A-1 from PW-8
 was for A-2 and when PW-8 showed his inability to meet
 that demand, A-2 started harassing and ill-treating the
 deceased. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that
 there was no demand by A-2. [Para 18) [640-D-H; 641-A-
 q                                                                F

       3. The High Court has also examined the matter
  thoroughly and reached the finding that A-1 and A-2 had
. raised a demand for purchase of motorcycle from PW-8;
  this demand was made within two months of the marriage G
  and was a demand towards 'dowry' and when this
  demand was not met, the deceased was maltreated and
  harassed continuously which led her to take extreme step
  of finishing her life. The above view of the High Court is
  acceptable. There is no merit in the contention of the H
    632      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   appellants that the demand of motorcycle does not
    qualify as a 'demand for dowry'. All the essential
    ingredients to bring home the guilt under Section 3048
    IPC are established against the appellants by the
    prosecution evidence. As a matter of law, the
s   presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act,
    1872 is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of
    the present case. The appellants have failed to rebut the
    presumption under Section 1138. [Para 19] [641-D-F]

                          Case Law Reference:
c
          (2007) 9 sec 121          referred to           Para 9
          (1996) 4 sec 596          referred to           Para 15
          (2005) 2 sec 388          referred to           Para 16
D
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 831 of 2006.

        From the Judgment & Order date 16.12.2004 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
E   No. 113-S.B. of 1991.

        V. Madhukar, Paritosh Anil (for Hemantikar Wahi) for the
    Appellants.

         Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Teotia, Sanjeev Kumar for
F   the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The mother (A-1) and son (A-2) are in
G appeal as both of them have been convicted by the Additional
  Sessions Judge (I}, Kurukshetra for the offence punishable
  under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
  sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years. The
  High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed their conviction and
H sentence and did not interfere with the judgment of the trial court.
 BACH NI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 633
       SECY. HOME DEPTT. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     2. Kanta died within 3 months of her marriage. On August A
11, 1990, she was found dead by hanging from a ceiling fan in
the appellants' house. Kanta hailed from a poor family. Her
father, Pale Ram (PW-8) is a Rikshawpuller. A-2 and Kanta got
married on May 12, 1990. About 20 days prior to Kanta's death,
A-1. had gone to the house of PW-8 and told .him that her son B
A-2 wanted to start milk vending business and for that a
motorcycle is needed for carrying the milk to the city. She
demanded a motorcycle for A-2 to be purchased by PW-8. PW-
8 did not accede to her demand and told A-1 that he was not
in a position to purchase motorcycle as demanded by her. A-       c
1 warned PW-8 that if he failed to provide a motorcycle to A-2,
then Kanta would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial
home. PW-8 called Amar Singh (PW-10) and Mam Chand
(DW-1) to his house and told them about the demand made
by A-1. A-1 reiterated the demand and warning in their
                                                                0
presence and left the house of PW-8.

        3. This was the beginning of Kanta's end. A-1 and A-2
  started harassing and ill-treating her. Some five days prior to
  Rakshabandhan, A-2 brought Kanta to the house of PW-8. A-
  2 left Kanta there and returned to his house the same day. Kanta E
  told PW-8 about harassment and ill-treatment being meted out
  to her by A-1 and A-2. Three days thereafter, A-2 went to the
  house of PW-8 and told him that he had come to take Kanta
  with him as there was engagement ceremony of his brother. A-
  2 assured PW-8 that he would bring Kanta on the day of F
  Rakshabandhan. Kanta, however, was reluctant in going with
  A-2 as she knew that there was no engagement ceremony at
  her in-laws place. She had apprehension that if she went to her
  matrimonial home, her life would not be spared. PW-8
  persuaded his daughter to go along with A-2 as she has to G
:.
  spend her entire life with him.

   4. On the insistence of her father, Kanta went to her
matrimonial home along with A-2. On the day of
Rakshabandhan, PW-8 and the members of the family waited          H
                                                                  ,
    634      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   for Kanta for whole day but she did not come. After about eight
    days i.e. on August 12, 1990, PW-8 was informed by some
    villager that Kanta was dead. PW-8 then went to the house of
    A-1 and A-2 along with few persons and saw the dead body
    Of ~anta lying in a room. It appeared to PW-8 that Kanta's death
B   h.ad occurred some 2/3 days earlier.

          5. Kanta's death havin.g taken place in unnatural
    circumstances, PW-8 reported the matter to the police
    immediately and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered
C   on that very day (August 12, 1990) at Police Station Ladwa
    under Section 3048 IPC. Karnail Chand (PW-11) started
    investigation, visited the spot and also sent the dead body of
    Kanta for post-mortem. Dr. P.K. Goel (PW-1) conducted
    postmortem on the dead body of Kanta. Upon completion of
    investigation and after committal, A-1 and A-2 were sent up for
D   trial under Section 304-8 IPC.

        6. Besides PW-1, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11, the
    prosecution examined seven other witnesses including the
    deceased's mother Premo (PW-9). In defence, the accused
E   examined DW-1 and Amarjit Kaur (DW-2).

       7. The trial court vide its judgment dated March 6, 1991
  held that the prosecution has been able to establish that the
  death of Kanta was within seven years of her marriage and
  otherwise than under normal circumstances; that before her
F death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by A-1 and
  A-2 in connection with the demand of motorcycle and that A-1
  and A-2 were guilty of causing dowry death. A-1 and A-2 were
  convicted under Section 304-8 IPC accordingly and sentenced
  to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment as noticed above.
G The High Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants
  concurred with trial court and dismissed their appeal.

        8. Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the appellants
    submitted that it was highly improbable that a demand for a
H   motorcycle would be made from PW-8 knowing well that it
8ACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 53·5
     SECY. HOME DEPTI. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
could not be fulfilled by him as he was a Rikshawpuller earning A
Rs. 20/- per day. He argued that the evidence let in by the
prosecution was not trustworthy at all and the demand for dowry
is not established. He would submit that the only independent
witness of demand was DW-1 but he was not examined by the
prosecution. However, DW-1 was examined in defence and he 8 ·
has denied that any demand was made by A-1 in his presence.

    9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there
was no evidence of demand of motorcycle by A-2. He further
argued that in any case the demand of motorcycle for the
purposes of the business does not qualify as a 'demand for C
dowry' and, therefore, no offence under Section 304-8 IPC can
be said to have been made out against the appellants. In this
regard, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Appasaheb
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 1•
                                                                D
     10. On the other hand, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned
counsel for the State of Haryana, supported the judgment of the
High Court.

     11. Section 3048 was inserted in IPC with effect from E
November 19, 1986 by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment)
Act, 1986 (for s·hort, '(Amendment) Act, 1986'). Thereby
substantive offence relating to 'dowry death' was introduced in
the IPC. Section 30f~ IPC reads as follows:
                         ~)'
      "3048. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is F
      caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwiise
      than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
      marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
      was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
      any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any G
      demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
      death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
      have caused her death.

1.   c2007) 9 sec 121.                                           H
     636      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A          Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section,"
           dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the
           Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ).

           (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
           imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
B
           years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. n

          12. For making out an offence of 'dowry death' under
     Section 3048, the following ingredients have to be proved by
     the prosecution:
c
           (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any
           burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred
           otherwise than under normal circumstances;

           (b) such death must have occurred within seven years
 D         of her marriage;

           (c) soon before her death, she must have been
           subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
           relative of her husband; and
'E
           (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection
           with the demand for dowry.

         13. Pertinently, for the purposes of Section 3048 IPC,
     'dowry' has the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
 F   Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, '1961 Act').

           14. Section 2 of the 1961 Act defines 'Dowry' as follows:

           "2. Definition of 'dowry'.- "Dowry" means any property
           or valuable security given or agreed to be given either
 G
           directly or indirectly-
            (a)   By one party to a marriage to the other
                  party to the marriage; or

 H          {b)   By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any
 BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 637
      SECY. HOME DEPTT. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
              other person to either party to the marriage or to       A
              any other person,
      at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
      with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include
      dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim          8
      Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

       Explanation 1-............ (0mitted).

       Explanation /I-The expression "valuable security" has the
       same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code          c
       (45 of 1860)."

       15. 1961 Act was enacted to prohibit the giving or taking
  of 'dowry' and for the protection of married woman against
  cruelty and violence in the matrimonial home by the husband          D
  and in-laws. The mere demand for 'dowry' before marriage, at
  the time of marriage or any time after the marriage is an
. offence. 1961 Act has been amended by the Parliament on
  more than one occasion and by the (Amendment) Act, 1986,
  Parliament brought in stringent provisions and provided for
  offence relating to 'dowry death'. The amendments became             E
  imperative as the dowry deaths continued to increase to
  disturbing proportions and the existing provisions in 1961 Act
  were found inadequate in dealing with the problems of dowry
  deaths. The definition of 'dowry' reproduced above would show
  that the term is defined comprehensively to include properties       F
  of all sorts as it takes within its fold 'any property or valuable
  security' given or agreed to be given in connection with
  marriage either directly or indirectly. In S. Gopal Reddy v. State
  of A.P. 2, this Court stated as follows:
                                                                       G
       "9. The definition of the term 'dowry' under Section 2 of
       the Act shows that any property or valuable security given
       or "agreed to be given" either directly or !ndirectly by one
       party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage "at
 2.   (1996) 4 sec 596.                                                H
    638       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2011) 2 S.C.R.


A         or before or after the marriage" as a "consideration for the
          marriage of the said parties" would become 'dowry'
          punishable under the Act. Property or valuable security so
          as to constitute 'dowry' within the meaning of the Act must
          therefore be given or demanded "as consideration for the
B         marriage".



          11. The definition of the expression 'dowry' contained in
          Section 2 of the Act cannot be confined merely to the
c         'demand' of money, property or valuable security "made
          at or after the performance of marriage" as is urged by Mr
          Rao. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for
          the definition of 'dowry' emphasised that any money,
          property or valuable security given, as a consideration for
D         marriage, "before, at or after" the marriage would be
          covered by the expression 'dowry' and this definition as
          contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the
          expression 'dowry' occurs in the Act. Meaning of the
          expression 'dowry' as commonly used and understood is
E         different than the peculiar definition thereof under the Act.
          Under Section 4 of the Act, mere demand of 'dowry' is
          sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, -
          any 'demand' of money, property or valuable security
          made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by
F         the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice
          versa would fall within the mischief of 'dowry' under the Act
          where such demand is not properly referable to any legally
          recognised claim and is relatable only to the
          consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would
          include a proposed marriage also more particularly where
G
          the non-fulfilment of the "demand of dowry" leads to the ugly
          consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The
          expression 'dowry' under the Act must be interpreted in the
          sense which the statute wishes to attribute to
           it.. ............. The definition given in the statute is the ·
H
BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 639
     SECY. HOME DEPTI. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     determinative factor. The Act is a piece of social legislation A
     which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil
     of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual
     receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry
     made before or at the time or after the marriage where
     such demand is referable to the consideration of B
     marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is
     prohibited .......... .".

    16. While dealing with the term 'dowry' in Section 3048
IPC, this Court in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kamlesh C
Panjiyar v. State of Bihafl held as under :

     "14. The word "dowry" in Section 304-B IPC has to be
     understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Act.
     Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is
     before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and D
     the third "at any time" after the marriage. The third .occasion
     may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words
     are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties".
     As was observed in the said case "suicidal death" of a
     married woman within seven years of her marriage is E
     covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused .
     ... or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances"
     as expressed in Section 304-B IPC."

     17. Learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon F
the following observations made by this Court in the case of
Appasaheb 1:

     "A demand for money on account of some financial
     stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses
     or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand G
     for dowry as the said word is normally understood".
The above observations of this Court must be understood in

3.   c2oos) 2 sec 388.                                             H
                                                                         ;:




    640      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A   the context of the case. That was a case wherein the
    prosecution evidence did not show 'any demand for dowry' as
    defined in Section 2 of the 1961 Act. The allegation to the effect
    that the deceased was asked to bring money for domestic
    expenses and for purchasing manure in the facts of the case
B   was not found sufficient to be covered by the 'demand for
    dowry'. Appasaheb1 cannot be read to be laying down an
    absolute proposition that a demand for money or some property
    or valuable security on account of some business or financial
    requirement could not be termed as 'demand for dowry'. It was
C   in the facts of the case that it was held so. If a demand for
    property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has a nexus
    with marriage, in our opinion, such demand would constitute
    'demand for dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand being
    immaterial.

D        18. In the backdrop of the above legal position, if we look
  at the facts of the case, it is clearly established that Kanta died
  otherwise than under normal circumstances. There is no
  dispute of fact that death of Kanta occurred within seven years
  of her marriage. That Kanta was subjected to harassment and
E ill-treatment by A-1 and A-2 after PW-8 refused to accede to
  their demand for purchase of motorcycle is established by the
  evidence of PW-8 and PW-9. Then there is evidence of PW-
  10 that PW-8 had called him and DW-1 to his house where A-
  1 had made demand of motorcycle. PW-10 stated that he
F sought to reason to A-1 about inability of PW-8 to give
  motorcycle at which A-1 got angry and warned that Kanta would
  not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial home. It is true that
  the appellants produced DW-1 in defence and he did state in
  his examination-in-chief that he did not meet A-1 at the house
G of PW-8 but in cross-examination when he was confronted with
  his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (portion A to A) where
  it was recorded that he and PW-10 had gone to the house of
  PW-8 and both of them (PW-10 and DW-1) counselled A-1 to
  desist from demanding motorcycle but she stuck to her
H demand, DW-1 had no explanation to offer. The evidence of
· 8ACHNI DEYI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 641
       SECY. HOME DEPTI. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
 DW-1 is, therefore, liable to be discarded. In light of the A
 evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial court cannot be said
 to have erred in holding that it was established that unlawful
 demand of motorcycle was made by A-1 and A-2 from PW-8
 and Kanta was harassed on account of his failure to provide
 the motorcycle and that led Kanta to commit suicide by hanging. 8
 Pertinently, the demand of motorcycle by A-1 from PW-8 was
 for A-2 and when PW-8 showed his inability to meet that
 demand, A-2 started harassing and· ill-treating Kanta. In this
 view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was no 9emand
 by A-2.                                                            C

      19. The High Court has also examined the matter
 thoroughly and reached the finding that A-1 and A-2 had raised
 a demand for purchase of motorcycle from PW-8; this demand
 was made within two months of the marriage and was a
 demand towards 'dowry' and when this demand was not met, D
 Kanta was maltreated and harassed continuously which led her
 to take extreme step of finishing her life. We agree with the
 above view of the High Court. There is no merit in the contention
 of the counsel for the appellants that the demand of motorcycle
 does not qualify as a 'demand for dowry'. All the essential E
 ingredients to bring home the guilt under Section 3048 IPC are
 established against the appellants by the prosecution evidence.
 As a matter of law, the presumption under Section 1138 of the
 Evidence Act, 1872 is fully attracted in the facts and
 circumstances of the present case. The appellants have failed F
 to rebut the presumption under Section 1138.

      20. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the
 appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Two months' time is
 given to A-1 to surrender for undergoing the sentence awarded G
 to her.

 8.8.8.                                      Appeal dismissed.


                                                                   H