DAVINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                         [2014] 9 S.C.R. 208


A                        DAVINDER SINGH
                                   v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2011)

                           JULY 02, 2014.
B
           [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                     S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860: s.3048 - Presumption under -
C   Essential ingredients - Discussed - In the instant case, the
    victim-deceased was harassed by accused-husband on
    account of dowry demand - Victim informed her brother a day
    prior to incident about the torture in connection with dowry -
    The next day, when the brother and maternal uncle of the
D   victim went to the matrimonial home of deceased they found
    her dead body in burnt condition - Courts below convicted
    accused-husband u/s.3048 - On appeal, held: The
    statements of brother and maternal uncle showed that the
    death took place within seven months of marriage - Death
E   was due to burns i.e. not in normal circumstances - The
    statements of brother and maternal uncle were specific as
    they were eye witnesses - In their statements, they specifically
    stated about the harassment in connection with demand of
    dowry - Victim died within seven months of marriage - She
F   a/so telephonical/y complained about harassment - The
    prosecution thus proved that there was harassment in
    connection with dowry soon before death of the victim - The
    prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of s. 304-
    8 /PC - Trial court rightly presumed that the accused had
G   caused the dowry death of the victim - No interference with
    the order of conviction - Crime against women.

        Prosecution case was that the appellant was married
    to the victim-deceased 6-7 months before the date of

H                                 208
       DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB               209


 incident. The deceased was harassed by appellant-            A
 husband and her in-laws on account of dowry demand.
 A day prior to the incident, the deceased telephoned her
 brother, PW-2 and informed about the torture and
 harassment in connection with dowry. PW-2 went to the
 house of deceased along with his maternal uncle, PW-3        B
 to enquire about the welfare of the deceased. They came
 back by saying that they would come next day along with
 some respectable person to settle the dispute.

         On fateful day, when PW-2 with PW-3 and· one 'TS'    C
    who was mediator in arranging the marriage of the
!.- deceased with the appellant reached the matrimonial
    house of the deceased, they heard screams from the
   _roof. They heard mother-in-law of the deceased saying
   -that the deceased should not be spared. They went
    upstairs and found the dead body of the deceased lying    D
    in the bathroom in a burnt condition. A plastic can and
    match box was also found near her body.

      The trial court convicted the appellant under section
  304-B IPC. The High Court confirmed the order of            E
1 conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the
  order of the conviction.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.· For the purpose of Section 304-B, IPC a      F
  presumption can be raised only on proof of the following
  essentials: Death of woman has been caused by burns
  or bodily injury or not under normal circumstances. The
  said death have occurred within seven years of her
  marriage. The woman was subjected to cruelty or             G
  harassment by her husband or his relatives. Such cruelty
- or harassment was for, or in connection with, any
  demand for dowry and she was meted out with such
  cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. [Para
  10) -[216-C-F)                                              H
    210       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A       Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC
    3828: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Hira Lal & Others Vs. State
    (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) s sec-so: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR
    734 . ,. . relied on.

    _ i. In the instant case, the statements of PW-2 and
8
  PW-3 showed that the death took place within seven
  months of marriage. Admittedly, death of the deceased
  was due to burns i.e. not in normal circumstances. The
  statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 were specific as they
C were eye witnesses. In their statements they specifically
  stated about the harassment in connection with demand
  of dowry. Deceased died within seven months of
  marriage. She also telephonically complained about
  harassment. The prosecution thus proved that there was
  harassment in connection with dowry soon before death
D of the victim. The prosecution was successful to prove
  the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC; The trial court
  rightly presumed that the accused had caused the dowry
  death of the victim. [Para 12, 13, 14] [219-E-H; 220-A]

E                         Case Law Reference:
       2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1           relied on       Para 10
       2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734         relied on       Para 11

F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No.684 of 2011.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2009 in
    Criminal Appeal No. 471-SB/1999 of the High Court of Punjab
    and Haryana at Chandigarh.
G
          P. Vinay Kumar for the Appellant.

       Jayant K. Sud, AAG., Ujas Kumar, Chirag Khurana, Vishal
    Dabas, Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      211


      SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J 1. This appeal                    A
 is directed against judgment dated 9th December, 2009
 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
 in Criminal Appeal No. 471-SB of 1999 whereby the High
 Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1999
=r~ndered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in Sessions             B
-Case No.14of12th May, 1997. The Sessions Court by the said
 judgment convicted the appellant u/s 304-B IPC and sentenced
 him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years
 and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
 further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months.      C

     , 2. Apart from the appellant other family members, namely,
Kuldip Singh, Darshana Devi and Parveen kaur were also
accused before the Trial Court. They were acquitted of the
charges leveled against them against which no appeal was
filed by the State. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur were two         D
other accused who were juvenile therefore their cases were
separated.

     3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Amarjit Kaur
(deceased) was married to accused-Davinder Singh (appellant           E
herein) 6/7 months before the date of occurrence i.e. 3rd March,
1997. Teja Singh son of Bachittar Singh was the mediator in
arranging the marriage. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry
was given by the parents of Amarjit Kaur as per their status,
but after the marriage in-laws of Amarjit Kaur started torturing/
                                                                      F
coercing her to bring more dowry. Jaswinder Singh-
complainant-brother of Amarjit Kaur and Teja Singh-mediator
had requested the in-laws of Amarjit Kaur not to harass and
torture her for dowry but they continued to maltreat and harass
the deceased.
                                                                      G
     On 9.2.1997, marriage of Jaswinder Singh, complainant,
 was solemnized. Deceased and her husband Davinder Singh
 had attended the marriage. After marriage, Davinder Singh
 demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on the ground that
 Jaswinder Singh was given more dowry than him. To settle             H
    212      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   deceased in her in-laws' house, Jaswinder Singh borrowed a
    sum of Rs.20,000/- and gave the amount to the appellant. But
    in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied and they continued
    to demand more dowry.

        On 2.3.1997, deceased telephonically informed Jaswinder
B Singh that her in-laws were torturing and harassing her in
  ,connection with dowry. As per message, Jaswinder Singh and
   his maternal uncle Bhola Singh went to Budhlada to enquire
   about the welfare of deceased. The deceased informed them
   that she was being harassed for more dowry by her in-laws.
C They came back by saying that on the next day, they will come
   back with some respectable person to settle the dispute.

         On 3.3.1997 at about 5.30 PM, Jaswinder Singh, his
    maternal uncle Bhola Singh and Teja Singh went to the house
D   of accused-Davinder Singh. When they were near the gate of
    the house, then they heard shrieks and screams from the roof.
    After entering the house when they were going to the roof of
    the house, they found Darshana Devi saying that Amarjit Kaur
    should not be spared. She should be finished. All of them went
E   to the roof of the house and then noticed Kuldip Singh, accused-
    Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi, Parveen Kaur, Paramjit Kaur
    and Swaranjit Kaur coming to the ground through staircase. The
    dead body of Amarjit Kaur was found in the bathroom in a burnt
    condition. Plastic cane and match box were found near the
    dead body. It is alleged that in-laws of Amarjit Kaur has
F   murdered her by setting her on fire. Teja Singh was deputed to
    guard the dead body, when Jaswinder Singh and Bhola Singh
    went to lodge report. Rupinder Singh, Sub Inspector met the
    complainant near the crossing of Civil Hospital, Budhalda,
    where statement of Jaswinder Singh (Ex.P.D.) was recorded.
G   After making endorsement, statement was forwarded to the
    Police Station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was registered.

        On 7.3.1997, accused were arrested. After completion of
    investigation, challans was presented. Accused were charged
       DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    21.3
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
 u/s 304-B/149 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and      A
 claimed trial.
     4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined four
 witnesses. Documentary evidence~ were also exhibited.
 Defence also examined seven witnesses. After closure of the        B
 prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recoded u/
 s 313 Cr.PC. Accused denied all the prosecution allegations
 and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused-
 appellant was that he is impotent and on account of this reason,
 Amarjit Kaur was under depression. Amarjit Kaur was also           C
 harassed by her step mother. Bec<1use of these reasons, she
 has committed suicide. Similar plea' has been taken by the
 counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment.
       5. PW-2 - Jaswinder Singh brother of the deceased
  stated .that Amarjit Kaur got married with appellant-Davinder D
  Singh in July, 1996. Kuldeep Singh, Darshana Devi and
  Parveen are respectively father, mother and sister of the
  appellant. Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur are also sisters
  of the appellant. Teja Singh was mediator of marriage of Amarjit
  Kaur with Davinder Singh. They had spent on marriage of E
  deceased more than their capacity. The relations of deceased
  with her husband and in laws remained cordial for about two
  months. Thereafter her in-laws started ill-treating her on one
  pretext or the other that her parents had not given scooter and
  cloths given were not upto mark. The accused were demanding
                                                                   F
  more dowry. He along with his maternal uncle PW-3 Bhola
  Singh had gone once or twice to house of her in-laws and
  requested them that since they are poor people and they cannot
  afford more dowry. But appellant and his family did not agree.
  PW-2's marriage took place on 9.2.1997 Davinder Singh and
  Amarjit Kaur attended his marriage. After his marriage G
  accused-Davinder Singh stated that complainant had been
  given more dowry than him and demanded money from
  complainant. The complainant took Rs.20,000/- from his uncle
"-and gave it to accused-Davinder Singh. However, the appellant
  was not satisfied and again started demanding more dowry. H
    214       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 9 S.C.R..


A   On 2.3.1997, he received telephone call from his sister that she
    is being maltreated by her in~laws on account of dowry. Then
    PW-2 took his maternal uncle from Goniana and came to
    Budhlada in the house of the accused. The accused demanded
    more money from the complainant. Then PW-2 told the
  8 accused that he will meet them the next day. On 3.3.1997, PW-
    2 along with his maternal uncle Bhola Singh and mediator Teja
    Singh reached the house of the accused. When they reached
    at the gate of the house, they heard shrieks upstairs. When-they
    were just entering the gate, mother-in-law of the deceased
c   shouted that deceased should be finished today. Then they
    went upstairs.-When they went on roof Kuldeep Singh,
    Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi, Parveen Kaur, Swaranjit Kaur
    and Paramjit Kaur came down running. They found Amarjit
    Kaur lying dead with burns in bathroom. One plastic cane and ,
  D match box were lying near to her dead body. Teja Singh was
    left to guard dead body he and his uncle went to ~he Police
    Station. Police met them near the Hospital where his statement
    Ex.PD was recorded. Thereafter the Police came to the house
    of accused and took into possession plastic cane Ex.P3, match
    box Ex.P4, and ash wrapped in cloth Ex.PS vide memo P.E.
· E which was attested by him. During the cross examination, PW-
    2 denied the suggestion that after his marriage he did not visit
     Budhlada. He stated that visited there twice or thrice. However,
     he could not give the exact date o'f telephone call but stated
    that she had given call on 10-11 AM and on the same day of
  F receiving the telephone he and his uncle went to Budhlada. He
    denied the suggestion that the accused had not demanded
    dowry prior to bhog ceremony of his father.

        6. PW-3 Bhola Singh maternal uncle of Amarjit Kaur stated·
 G that Amarjit Kaur was married with accused-Davinder Singh
   about seven months prior to her death. Accused-Davinder
   Singh used to demand motor cycle as dowry. The in-li!WS of
   deceased used to maltreat her. On 2.3.1997 he and his sister's
   son (PW-2- complainant) came to the house of the accused at
 H Budhlada to see Amarjit Kaur, She told them that her in-laws
        DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       215
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
 are maltreating her. They left the house telling that they will come   A
 again with some wise person. They again went on 3.3.1997
 along with Teja Singh to the house of the accused at Budhlada.
_At the gate, they heard shrieks from the roof of the house. Then
 they went running upstairs. When they went upwards, they saw
 Amarjit Kaur lying dead in bathroom with burns all over the            B
 body. Plastic cane and match box_w.ere found lying near the
 dead-body. The matter was reported to the Police Station: The
 Police met them in front of Hospital. During the cross-
 examination PW-3 was not in a position to given the exact
 details of the neighbours of the Devinder Singh. However, for          c
 not giving such details of the neighbours, the statement of PW-
 3 cannot be held to be untrustworthy.

      7. PW-1 Dr. Kashmir Singh, had conducted the post
 mortem examination. He reported that death was due to
 asphyxia as a result of 95% to 100% burns which were ante              D
 mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the
 ordinary course of nature. The probable duration of time that
 elapsed between the injuries and death was immediate and
 between death and the postmortem was within 24 hours. The
 Ex. P.A. is the copy of the Post Mortem Report.                        E

     8. PW-4 Rupinder Kumar, Sub Inspector is the
 investigating officer. He also deposed about recovery of plastic
 cane and match box from the house of the accused.

      9. Section 3048 IPC relates to dowry death and reads a's          F
 follows:

      "3048. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman
      is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
      than under normal circumstances within seven years of her G_
      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
      demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry-
                                                                        H
     216           SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A          death'', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
           have caused her death.

           Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry"
           shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
           Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of .1961 ).
B
           (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
           imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
           years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

.c       10. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption
     can be raised only on proof of the following essentials:

            (a)     Death of woman has been caused by burns _9r
                    bodily injury or not under normal circumstances.

 D          (b)     The said death have occurred within seven years
                    of her marriage

            (c)     The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
                    by her husband or his relatives.
 E         . (d)    Such cruelty, or harassment was for, or in
                    connection with, any demand for dowry and

            (e)     She-was meted out with such cruelty or harassment
                    was soon before her death.
 F
                    In this connection, we may refer this Court decision
                    in Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003
                    SC 3828.

       11. In the case of Hira Lal & Others Vs. State (Govt. of
 G NCT), Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court considered the
   expression "before death" used in the Section 3048 IPC and
   Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as
   under:

 H         "8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads
 DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     217
 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
as follows:                                                    A
     '
"304-8. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she        8
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry
death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death.
                        \
                                                               c
Explanation.-For the purpose 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         D
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

The provision has application when death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her      E
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any
demand for dowry. In order to attract application of Section
304-B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:           F

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance.

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years      G
of her marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband.
                                                               H
    218       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A         (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
          connection with demand of dowry.

          (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
          meted out to the woman soon before her death.
B         Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the
          case at hand. Both Section 304-8 IPC and Section 113-
          8 of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by
          Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
          view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.
c         Section 113-B reads as follows:

          "113-8. Presumption as to dowry death .-When the
          question is whether a person has committed the dowry
          death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
D         death such woman had been subjected by such person to
          cruelty -0r harassment for, or in connection with, any
          demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
          person had caused the dowry death.

          Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'dowry
E         death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B
          of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

          The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been
          amply analysed-by the Law Commission of India in its 21st
F         Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law
          Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-
          existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related
          deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision
          relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain
G         essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section
          113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the
          definition of "dowry death" in Section 304-8 IPC and the
          wording in the presumptive Section 113-~f the Evidence
          Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in_
          both the provisions is that the woman concerned must
H
      DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    219
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or A
    harassment "for or in connection with the demand of
    dowry". Presumption under Section 113-B is a ·
    presumption of law. On proof.of the essentials mentioned
    therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a
    presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The B
    presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following
    essentials:·

    (1) The question before the court must be whether the
    accused has committed the dowry death of the woman.
    (This· means that the presumption can be raised only if the    C
    accused is being tried'for the offence under Section 304-
    B IPC.)

    (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
    her husband or his relatives.                                  D

    (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for-Qr in connection with
    any demand for dowry.

    (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."
                                                                   E
    12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and.
PW-3 it is clear thatthe death took place within seven months
of marriage. Admittedly, death o( the deceased was due to
burn i.e. not in normal circumstances: We have to see now
whether the remaining ingredients are satisfied looking into the   F
evidence on record.

      13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3.are specific
as they were eye witnesses. In their statements they
specifically stated about the harassment in connection with        G
demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven months of
marriage. She also telephonically complained about
harassment. The Prosecution thus proved that there was
harassment in connection with dowry soon before death of the
victim.
                                                                   H
    220        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A         14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above,
    we hold that the prosecution was successful to prove the
    ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. The Trial Court rightly
    presumed that the accused had caysed the dowry death of the
    victim.
B
         15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is
    accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken
    into custody forthwith to serve remainder period of sentence.
    His bail bonds stand cancelled.
C   Devika Gujral                                   Appeal dismissed.