G.V. SIDDARAMESHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                      [2010] 2 S.C.R. 380


A                      G.V. SIDDARAMESH
                                 v.
                     STATE OF KARNATAKA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2006)
                       FEBRUARY 05, 2010
8
             [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304-B and 498A - Dowry
    Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 and 4 - Dowry death - Wife
C   subjected to cruelty and harassment by husband on account
    of demand for dowry - Wife committed suicide by hanging
    herself - Conviction and sentence u/ss.304-B, 498A and
    ss.3,4 of 1961 Act -Conviction upheld by High Court and
    sentence partly modified - On appeal, held: Ingredients of
D   s.304-B satisfied - It pointed towards the guilt of husband -
    Husband failed to discharge presumption raised against him
    - Conviction uls 304-B upheld but sentence reduc~d from life
    imprisonment to R. I. for 10 years while other conviction and
    sentence upheld -Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113.
E
       The question which arose for consideration in this
  appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
  upholding the conviction for offences punishable u/s. 4
  of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss. 498-A and 304-8 IPC
  and sentence of imprisonment for life u/s. 304-8 IPC,
F sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 years with fine u/
  s. 498A IPC, sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years
  with fine u/s. 4 of the 1961 Act; and modifying the
  sentence for the offence punishable u/s. 3 of the 1961 Act
  from 5 years to 2 years and a fine from Rs. 2,50,000/- to
G Rs. 1,25,0001-.

        Partly dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. The essential ingredients which need to
H                               380
   GV. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA              381


be proved in order to attract the offence of dowry death     A
u/s. 304-8 IPC are: (i) death is caused in unnatural
circumstances; (ii) death must have occurred within
seven years of the marriage of the deceased; and (iii) it
needs to be shown that soon before her death, the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her       B
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry. [Para 10] [390-
E-F]

     1.2. The post mortem report suggests that the body      C
of the deceased was bearing the mark of hanging and
there is the indication of an injury mark 8 inches long
around the neck. The cause of death was shock and
asphyxia as a result of hanging. There are also
unexplained traces of scratches around the neck region.
This raises serious doubts about the possibility of          D
strangulation of the deceased, as opined by the doctor.
Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the death was an
unnatural death. The second ingredient is also proved as
the marriage between the deceased took place on
13.12.1997 and the death of the deceased took place on       E
17.1.998, which is within the 7 year timeframe. [Para 11]
[390-G-H; 391-A-B]                                     ·,

     1.3. The complainant PW-1 asserts that the appellant
and his family demanded 20 tolas of gold, Rs. 2 lakhs in     F
cash and a motorcycle as dowry. Ultimately as
negotiations progressed, the money was settled at Rs.
1,65,000 in cash, 18 tolas of gold and a motorcycle. These
demands were met by the complainant. Also against the
will of the family of the deceased, the deceased was taken   G
to her matrimonial home two days before the incident,
which coincided with Pushyamasa, which is considered
as an inauspicious time by the family of the deceased.
Appellant himself in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC stated
that there were negotiations taking place as to the
                                                             H
    382      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 2 $.C.R.


A amount of money and gold, which will change hands
  during the course of the marriage, but he is unclear as to
  the place where .the negotiations took place. The brother
  and sister of the deceased, PW-10-friend of the family of
  the deceased, PW-15 and PW-16 testified the said fact. PW-
B 6-goldsmith testified that 18 tolas of gold were given to
  him by the complainant to prepare various ornaments like
  bangles, mangalya chain, ear hangings, nose rings etc for
  the bride. Some of these ornaments were recovered
  during the investigation and some were found on the
c body of the deceased. The prosecution also established
  through PW-2 that he was instrumental in arranging a
  loan of Rs. 50,000/- from his friend S who in turn had
  withdrawn money from the Bank and in this regcird, the
  receipt has also been produced. PW-10, PW-16 and PW-
D 9 also stated being present at the medical store of the
  appellant, where the money to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-
  changed hands. Therefore, there is no doubt that there
  was a demand for dowry prior to the death of the
  deceased, which was met by the family of the deceased.
E [Para 12] [391-C-H; 392-A-B]

       1.4. Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is
  difficult to straightjacket the term cruelty by means of a .
  definition, because cruelty is a relative term. What
  constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute:
F cruelty for another person. [Para 13] [392-F]

          V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710, referred to.

       1.5. PW 3-elder sister of deceased stated in her
  evidence that when she went to the matrimonial house
G of the deceased on the day of incident, the deceased
  confided in her that there is further demand of Rs. 50,000/
  - by way of dowry by the appellant, and on account of the
  failure to meet th~ demand, she is being treated with
  cruelty and is harassed physically and mentally. She also
H
  G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                383


stated that the deceased also requested her elder sister       A
not to disclose these developments to their father as he
had health problems related to high blood pressure.
When PW-2- brother of deceased went to the house of
the deceased, he also came back with the same version.
The testimony of the two witnesses is consistent and           B
very clear that the deceased was indeed mentally
disturbed, the day she committed suicide by hanging
herself. [Para 13) [392-C-E]

      1.6. The circumstances surrounding the instant case,     C
where there was pressure on the deceased to arrange a
further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the consequent
misdemeanor on the part of appellant no doubt puts
serious apprehension on the mind of the deceased, that,
if she continues to stay with the appellant, she might be
assaulted physically and mentally. It is difficult how         D
different people react to different situations. The threats
by the husband of the deceased over the course of two
days, when the deceased was in her matrimonial home
might have been enough for the deceased who was in a
fragile state of mind to reach breaking point and end her      E
life. Therefore, all the ingredients of section 304-8 have
been satisfied, pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.
[Para 13] [392-G-H; 393-A-8]

     2. A reading of s. 113-8 of the Evidence Act shows F
that there must be material to show that soon before the
death of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty
or harassment for or in connection with demand of
dowry, then only a presumption can be drawn that a
person has committed the dowry death of a women. It is G
then up to the appellant to discharge this presumption.
The appellant has not brought on record anything
substantial to dispel the theory of the prosecution.
Appellant failed to prove that there were demands for

                                                               H
    384      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   dowry immediately before the marriage, there were
    negotiations which took place involving both the families
    and that there was a further demand of Rs. 50,000/- on
    his part. All these circumstances point to the fact that the
    appellant has not rebutted or discharged the
s   presumption. [Para 15] [393-F-H; 394-E-F]

        3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
  appellant was rightly convicted u/s. 304-8 IPC, for being
  responsible for the death of his wife. However, his
  sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts
C below appears to be excessive. The appellant is a young
  man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment
  after being convicted by the trial court and the High Court.
  In the facts and circumstances of the case, a sentence
  of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends
D of justice. While confirming the conviction of the
  appellant u/s. 304-8 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment
  for life is reduced to 1Oyears rigorous imprisonment. The
  other conviction and sentence passed against the
  appellant are confirmed. [Para 17] [395-C-E]
E
        Hemchand v. State of Haryana 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR
    295, referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:

F         AIR 1994 SC 710        Referred to.         Para 13
          1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 295 Referred to.        Para 16
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 160 of 2006.
G
         From the Judgment & Order dated 23.3.2005 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1755
    of 2003.


H
   G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      385


     Brijesh Kalappa, Gopal Singh, Divya Nair, N. Ganpathy for        A
the Appellant.

     Sanjay R. Hegde, Vikrant Yadav for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                      B
     H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Thi~ criminal appeal arises out of
common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2003 and Criminal
Appeal No. 665 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the court
has partly allowed the appeal, and in so far as the appellant is      C
concerned, while maintaining the conviction for offences
punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has
modified the sentence for the offence punishable under Section
3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 from 5 years and a fine          D
of Rs. 2,50,000/- to 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and,
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

     2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had sentenced
the appellant under the following heads : -
                                                                      E
      (i)    To undergo R.1 for 5 years and a fine of Rs.
             2,50,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I for two
             years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of
             the Dowry Prohibition Act.
                                                                      F
     (ii)    To undergo S.I for two years and to pay a fine of
             Rs. 10,000, in default, to undergo S.I for one month
             for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the
             Dowry Prohibition Act.

     (iii)   To undergo S.I for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.      G
             10,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I for one month for
             an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the
             Indian Penal Code.

                                                                      H
      386      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A ·         (iv)   To undergo imprisonment for life for an offence
                   punishable under section 304-B of IPC.

           3. On appeal, the High Court has allowed the appeal in
      part and has modified the sentence as stated earlier. The
      appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and
8
      sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 304-B of the
      Indian Penal Code.

           4. The facts of the case in brief are, that the complainant
       K.G Lingappa's daughter Usha (deceased) had been married
C     to Siddaramesh (appellant) on 13.12.1997. The deceased went
      to her matrimonial home on 15.1.1998. On 17.1.1998, the
      deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. In order to
      prove its case; the prosecution has examined as many as
      twenty eight witnesses. The case of the prosecution in brief is
D     that, at the time when there were talks of the marriage in
      November 1996, the appellant and his family demanded 20
      tolas of gold, Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and a motorcycle as dowry.
      Ultimately as ne,9otiations progressed, the money was settled
      at Rs. 1,65,000 in cash, 18 tolas of gold, and a motorcycle.
E     These demands were met with by the complainant and in
      furtherance the marriage took place on 13.12.1997. The case
      of the prosecution further is that, the deceased Usha was taken
      to her matrimonial home on 15.1.1998, despite protests by the
      family of the complainant that it was pushyamasa which was
F     inauspicious for the bride's entry into her matrimonial home. On
      17 .1.1998, the elder sister of the deceased, Karibasamma
      PW-3, went to the matrimonial home of the deceased along
      with sweets and other eatables. The deceased confided to her
      elder sister that she was being treated cruelly by the accused.
G     The deceased further confided that there were fresh demands
      on her to get Rs. 50,000/- more as dowry. On her reluctance,
      she was being beaten by her husband and the husband was
      not keen on maintaining a physical relationship with her.
      Karibasamma later returned home and confided to her father
      the torture and harassment meted out to her sister (deceased)
H
   G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     387
                [H.L. DATTU, J.]
 by the appellant on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand.      A
 The complainant sent his son Karibasappa, the brother of the
 deceased PW-2 to enquire into the matter. The brother of the
 deceased also found out from her sister that she was being ill-
 treated and was unhappy. On the same night, the complainant
 received the news that her daughter had committed suicide by        B
 hanging herself. After reaching the matrimonial home of their
!daughter and seeing that their daughter had committed suicide,
 they informed the police. A complaint was lodged by the
 complainant to the police alleging that it was the dowry
 harassment on the part of the family of the appellant that led to   c
 the suicide of her daughter. A case. was registered in Cr. No.
 18/1998, against the appellant and his father under Section
 498-A and 304 B of the IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the
 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as it involved         D
 offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. When the
 matter was pending before the Sessions Judge, the case was
 transferred to Fast Track Court, Devangere in accordance with
 a notification issued by the High Court.

      5. The case ofthe appellant is that giving money or taking E
money is not dowry· and further, money demanded after
marriage is not dowry. The appellant further submits that the
facts of the case do not disclose commission of an offence
punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. The
appellant contended that most of the witnesses examined by F
the prosecution were interested witnesses who were closely
related to the deceased. The appellant further contended that
the police officer had no power to charge-sheet as per the
provisions of Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Another
important contention of the appellant was that, it was he who G
first made a complaint to the police about the mishap after he ·
brought his father, and therefore he cannot be guilty of any
wrongdoing.

     6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken into
                                                                     H
      38~   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A consideration the testimony of the complainant PW-1 and that
    of Karibasappa and Ka.ribasamma (PW-2 and PW-3
    respectively), the brother and the sister of the deceased. It has
    also relied upon the testimony of other witnesses to conclude
   that there was a demand for dowry and there was acceptance
B of dowry on the part of the appellant and his father. The trial
   court also took into consideration, the suspicious conduct of the
   appellant. The app•ellant had alleged that the deceased had
   committed suicide because she was in love with another
   person before marriage and was frustrated when she could not
c marry him. Again in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC,
   the appellant stated that since coming to her matrimonial home,
   she compared the house of the appellant to that of a "railway
   bogie", which, according to her, did not satisfactorily compare
   to her ~ather's house and her sister's house. The trial court
   hqwever observed that the appellant produced nothi'ng on ·
0
   record to prove that the deceased had an affair before the
   marriage with another person. Further the trial court refused to
   believe the version of the appellant contained in Ex. D-3. The
   time of writing this letter, which was addressed to the Sub-
   Inspector of the Devangere Police Station, was shown as 12.30
E- in,the midnight of 17.1.98. However, by his own admission, he
   had left_ his shop.at 10.30 PM. He had stated that after reaching
   hgme, he noticed that his wife has committed suicide by
   hanging, and thereafter went and informed the sister of the
   deceased and then went· to Kogganooru to inform his father
F and after his return went to the police station. The trial court has
   inferred that it was not possible for the .appellant to reach the
   Police Station before 1 AM or 2 AM. Also according to the trial·
   court,.. the natural reaction of anyone s~eing a dead body would
   be that.of shock or disbelief. This according to the trial court
G was indicative of the suspicious conduct of the appellant who
   wanted to hush up the matter. Further this document was never·
   called for from lhe Police Station and only a photocopy of the .
   same was produced. The trial court also relied upon the post.·
   mortem report which revealed that death was caused due to
H asphyxiation due to hanging and there were also some
 '·
   G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                    389
                [H.L. DATTU, J.]

unexplained scratches in the body which, according to the trial      A
court was evidence of the harassment of the deceased by the
appellant and, hence, concluded that the cruel treatment and
harassment of the deceased by the appellant led her to commit
suicide. Section 1138 of the Evidence Act raises a
presumption against the accused. The onus lies on the accused        B
against whom the presumption lies to discharge it. The
appellant has failed to discharge the burden satisfactorily.
Based on these findings, the trial court has convicted and
sentenced the accused to undergo R.I for 5 years and a fine of
Rs. 2,50,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I for two years for      C
the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act; to undergo S.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/
-, in default, to undergo S.I for one month for an offence·
punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to
undergo S.I for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in        D
default, to undergo S.I for one month for an offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo
imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section
304-8 of IPC. The trial court however went on to acquit the
accused no.2 (father of the appellant) of all the charges. · ·       E

     7. The appellant (accused No. 1) preferred appeal before
the High Court of Karnataka challenging his conviction and
sentence and the State has preferred appeal challenging the
acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused No. 2             F
(father of the appellant) for all the offences. As stated earlier,
the High Court has partly allowed the appeals.                   ·

     8. This court while entertaining the special leave petition
has issued notice confining to the offence under Section 304-        G
B of I PC. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
regarding the same .

   . 9. Section 304-8 of the IPC reads:-

      (1)   Where the death of a woman is caused by any              H
    390         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A                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 was subjected to cruelty or harassment
                 by her husband or any relative of her husband for,
8                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.

                 Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-section,
c                "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
D                than seven years but which may extend t6
                 imprisonment for life.

        10. The essential ingredients which need to be proved in·
    order to attract the offence of dowry death is as follows:-
E                (i) Death is caused in unnatural circumstances.

                 (ii) Death must have occurred within seven years
                 of the marriage of the deceased.

                 (iii) It needs to be shown that soon before her death,
F
                 the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
                 harassment by her husband or any relative of her
                 husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
                 dowry.

G      11. Coming to the first ingredient, the post mortem report
  suggests that the body of the deceased was bearing the mark
  of hanging and there is the indication of an injury mark 8 inches
  long around the neck. The cause of death was shock and
  asphyxia as a result of hanging. There are also unexplained
H traces of scratches around the neck region. This raises serious
   G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                   391
                [H.L. DATIU, J.]

 doubts about the possibility of strangulation of the deceased,    A
 as opined by Dr. T. Parashuramappa PW-24. Therefore, it is
 beyond doubt that the death was an unnatural death. The
 second ingredient is also proved as the marriage between the
'deceased took place on 13.12.1997 and the death of the
 deceased took place on 17.1.998, which is within the 7 year       B
 timeframe.

     12. To prove the third ingredient, we need to peruse the
testimony of the witnesses. The complainant PW-1 asserts that
the appellant and his family demanded 20 tolas of gold, Rs. 2      c
lakhs in cash and a motorcycle as dowry. Ultimately as
negotiations progressed, the money was settled at Rs. 1,65,000
in cash, 18 tolas of gold and a motorcycle. These demands
were met by the complainant. Also against the will of the family
of the deceased, the deceased was taken to her matrimonial         0
home on 15.1.1998, which coincided with Pushyamasa, which
is considered as an inauspicious time by the family of the
deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of
the complainant, as the appellant himself in his statement under
Secti9n 313 of Cr.PC has stated, that, there were negotiations     E
taking place as to the amount of money and gold, which will
change hands during ·the course of the marriage, but he is
unclear as to the place where the negotiations took place. The
brother and sister of the deceased also testify this fact. In
addition to this, Umapathy, a friend of the family of the
deceased PW-10, M.G Shankarappa PW-15, Maheshwaraiah               F
PW-16 also testified that there were indeed serious
negotiations which took place as to the amount of dowry prior
to the marriage. The prosecution also brought on record the
testimony of Narayan PW-6, the goldsmith who testified that 18
tolas of gold were given to him by the complainant to prepare      G
various ornaments like bangles, mangalya chain, ear hangings,
nose rings etc for the bride. Some of these ornaments were
recovered during the investigation and some were found on the
body of the deceased. The prosecution has also established
                                                                   H
                                                       .   "
    392      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A through Karibasappa PW-2 that he was instrumental in
  arranging a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from his friend Shivakumar who
  in turn had withdrawn money from Andhra Bank and in this
  regard, .the receipt has also· been produced. Umapathy PW-
  10, Maheshwariah PW-16 and Shivakumar PW-9 have also
s stated being present at the medical store of the appellant,
  where the money to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- changed hands.
  Therefore, there is no doubt that there was a demand for dowry
  prior to .the death of the deceased, which was met by the family
  of the deceased.
c         13. Karibasamma PW-3, the elder sister of the deceased
    has also stated in her evidence that when she went to the
    matrimonial house of the deceased on 17.1.1998, the
    deceased confided in her that there is further demand of Rs.
    50,000/- by way of dowry by the appellant, and on account of
D   the failure to meet the demand, she is being treated with cruelty
    and is harassed physically and mentally. She has also stated
    that the deceased also requested her elder sister not to
    disclose these developments to their father as he had health
    problems related to high blood pressure. When the brother of
E   the deceased Karibasappa PW-2, went to the house of the
    deceased, he also came back with the same version. The
    testimony of these two witnesses is consistent and very clear
    that the deceased was indeed mentally disturbed, the day she
    committed suicide by hanging herself. Cruelty can either be
F   mental or physical. It is difficult to straightjacket the term cruelty
    by means of a definition, because cruelty is a relative term.
    What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute
    cruelty for another person. This court h the case of V. Bhagat
    v. D. Bhagat, (AIR 1994 SC 710), has observed that mental
G   cruelty is such that if the wronged party continues to stay with
    his/her spouse there is reasonable apprehension of injury to the
    wronged party. The circumstances surrounding the present
    case, where there was pressure on the deceased to arrange
    a further sum of Rs~ 50,000/- and the consequent misdemeanor
H   on the part of the appellant no doubt puts serious apprehension
    G.V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     393
                 [H.L. DATTU, J.]

 on the mind of the deceased, that, if she continues to stay with A
 the appellant, she might be assaulted physically and mentally.
 It is difficult how diffen?nt people react to different situations .
.The threats by the husband of the deceased over the course
 of two days, when the deceased was in her matrimonial home
 might have. been enough for the deceased who was in a fragile 8
 state of mind to reach breaking point and end her life. Therefore
 all the ingredients of Section 304-8 have been satisfied,
 pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.

    14. Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act raises a C
presumption against the accused and reads :-

      "When the question is whether a person has committed the
      dowry death of a women and it is shown that soon before
      her death such woman had been subjected by such person
      to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any        D
     ·demand for dowry; the court shall presume that such
      person had caused the dowry death.

     Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "dowry
     death" shall have the same meaning as in section 3048            E
     of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

       15. A reading of Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act shows
 that there must be material to show that soon before the death
 of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
 for or in connection with demand of dowry, then only a F
 presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the
 dowry death of a women. It is then up to the appellant to
 discharge this presumption. The appellant however has not
 brought on record anything substantial to dispel the theory of
 the prosecution. In fact, while filing application for grant of bail, G
.the appellant had stated that the deceased was having an affair
 with another person before her marriage and since she,ppul<;i '.
 not marry him, she was in distress and, therefore, committed
 suicide. However there was no evidence brought on record to
prove this theory. Further in his statement under Section 313 H
     394      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A    of Cr.P.C. he has stated that the deceased was not happy with
     the house of the appellant and stated that the house of her
     sister and father were bigger and better. Further his theory of
     intimating the police and lodging a complaint before the Sub-
     Inspector of the Police Station at 12.30 AM fails as he had .
B    closed his shop at around 10.30 PM. After that by his own
     admission, he went and informed the sister of the deceased
     and then went outside the town to bring his father before lodging
     the complaint. Therefore, it is very much likely that the accused
     after witnessing the dead body of the deceased tried to hush
.C   up the matter and went to the Police Station much later. If this
     theory is to be true, this.brings the suspicious behaviour of the
     appellant more to light, as the natural reaction to seeing the
     dead body of a wife who had come to her matrimonial home
     only 2 days earlier would be that of disbelief or shock. Instead
     by his own admission, he went and informed the/sister of the
0
     deceased. The prosecution witnesses have also testified that
     the appellant came to the paternal house of the deceased and
     made a statement to the effect that it would be detrimental to
     both the families if a complaint was to be lodged and to bury
     the 1pa$t. The appellant has also not produced anything on
E    record to dispel the theory of the prosecution that there was a
     further demand of Rs. 50,000/- on his part. He has also failed
     to prove that there were demands for dowry immediately before
     the marriage and there were negotiations which took place
     involving both the families. All these circumstances point to the
F    fact that the appellant has not rebutted or discharged the
     presumption. Therefore we have no doubt in holding that the
     appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-
     B of the IPC, for being responsible for the death of his wife.

G           16. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the
     appellant pointed out that the appellant is in jail for more than
     si)_( years. The appellant was young at the time of incident and
     therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed
     by the High Court may be modified. In so far as sentencing
H    under the section is concerned, a three Judge Bench of this
   G V. SIDDARAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                    395
                [H.L. DATIU, J.]

court in the case of Hemchand v. State of Haryana, has               A
observed that "Section 304-B merely raises a presumption of
dowry death and lays down that the minimum sentence should
be 7 years, but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore,
awarding the extreme punishment of imprisonment for life
should be used in rare cases and not in every case." Keeping         B-
in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this court
reduced the sentence from life imprisonment awarded by the
High Court to 10 years R.1 on the above principle.

     17. In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and       c
circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted
under Section 304-B IPC. However, his sentence of life
imprisonment imposed by the courts below appears to us to
be excessive. The appellant is a young man and has already
undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by           0
the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are of
the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a
sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the
ends of justice. We, accordingly while confirming the conviction
of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence
of imprisonment for life to 10years rigorous imprisonment. The       E
other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are
confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the
above modifica~on of sentence.

N.J.                                  Appeal partly dismissed.       F