INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                  [2013] 2 S.C.R. 931


        INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS.                           A
                               v.
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
             (Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2007)

                      MARCH 18, 2013
                                                                    8
         [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048, 498A and 306 - Suicide by
married woman -Conviction of appellants (husband and in-            C
laws) - Justification - Held: Not justified - Letter allegedly
written by victim to her brother (PW3) was the only evidence
produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants had
subjected the victim to harassment and cruelty in connection
with demand for dowry - But since there were grave doubts as        D
to the whether the said letter was actually written by the victim
or not, conviction of appellants only on the basis of the said
letter would be unsafe - Prosecution unable to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellants subjected the victim to
 cruelty or harassment - Further, letter written by PW3 to the      E
victim three weeks before the incident made it clear that PW3
 was satisfied that the victim was living happily and was not
being misbehaved with - No other material having come in
evidence to establish that the appellants instigated the victim
to commit suicide, it cannot be held that the appellants had        F
in any way abetted the suicide by the victim. ·

     The wife of appellant No.1 committed suicide by
pouring kerosene on her body .. She died out of burn ·
injuries. It was alleged by the prosecution that appellant
no.1 and his parents (appellant nos.2 and 3) had G
subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for
dowry and had instigated her to commit suicide. The trial
court convicted the appellants under Sections 3048,

                              931                                   H
   932      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A 498A and 306 IPC. The conviction was affirmed by the
  High Court and, therefore, the present appeal.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. The letter dated 16-02-2004 allegedly written
B by the deceased (Ext. 49) to her brother (PW-3) from her
  matrimonial home at Ahmedabad is the only evidence
  produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants
  had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty
  in connection with demand for dowry. But, this Court has
C grave doubts as to whether the said letter dated 16-02-
  2004 (Ext. 49) was at all written by the deceased to PW 3.
  The said letter dated 16·02-2004 is alleged to have been
  written by the deceased from Ahmedabad. However, PW3
  has not stated in his evidence specifically that on 16-02-
D 2004 the deceased was at Ahmedabad. Further, the
  evidence of DW1 supported by Ext. 44 makes it probable
  that the deceasetl was not at Ahmedabad but at
  Chaksiriya village In Blhar on 16-02-2004 when she is
  alleged to have written the letter (Ext. 49) alleging demand
E of dowry and ill-treatment by the appellants towards her.
  Moreover, from a reading of Ext. 49 which is in. Hindi, it
  is found that at many places the author of the letter has
  used words in 'puling' instead of 'strillng', which raises
  serious doubts as to Wht!ther the letter has been written
F by a woman or by a man. Since there are grave doubts
  as to whether the letter (Ext. 49) was actually written by
  the deceased or not, conviction of the appellants only on
  the basis of the said letter (Ext. 49) for the offences under
  Sections 3048, 498A and 306, IPC is unsafe. [Para 4] [935-
G H; 936-A-C, E-H]
       2.1. Ext. 31, a letter dated 25-04-2004 Is admitted by
  PW 3 to have been written by him from Chakslrla In Blhar
  to the deceased at Ahmedabad. From the contents of
  the letter dated 25-04-2004, it is clear that after talking to
H the deceased on telephone, PW3 was satisfied that the
INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. v. STATE 933
               OF GUJARAT
deceased was living happily and was not being                     A
misbehaved with. This letter is dated 25-04-2004 and was
most proximate to 18-05-2004 When the deceased
committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and
this letter is evidence of the fact that the deceased was
happy and was not being misbehaved with by anybody.               B
This being the evidence, there are reasonable doubts in
the story of the prosecution that the appellants had
subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon
before her death. [Para 5) (937-A, F-G]

    2.2. On a reading of Ext. 31, it is difficult for the Court
                                                                  c
to record a definite finding that there was a demand of
Rs.33,000/- or Rs.43,000/- towards dowry as alleged by
the State. In any case, even if there was such demand of
dowry of Rs.33,000/- or Rs.43,000/-, mere 'demand of
dowry' without proof of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' caused          D
to the deceased by the appellants cannot make the
appellants liable for the offences under Sections 3048,
498A or 306, IPC. [Para 6) [938-8-C]

     3. To establish the offence of dowry death under E
Section 3048, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has
subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in
connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
Similarly, to establish the offence under Section 498A, IPC F
the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim
to cruelty as defined in Clauses (a) and (b) of the
Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. In the present case, the
prosecution has not been able to prove beyond G
reasonable doubt that the appellants have subjected the
deceased to any cruelty or harassment. Further, It Is
noticed from Ext. 31 written by PW 3 to the deceased on
25-04-2004 that after talking to the deceased on telephone,
he was satisfied that she was living happily and was not H
     934      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


·A   being misbehaved with. No other material having come in
     evidence to establish that the appellants instigated the
     deceased to commit suicide, it is difficult to hold that the
     appellants had in any way abetted the suicide by the
     deceased on 18-05-2004. [Para 7] [938-0-G]
B
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No. 613 of 2007.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2006 of the High
  Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1822
C of 2006 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 11771 of 2006.

         Haresh Raichura, Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura, Ranvir
     Singh, Rajat Vats for the Appellants.

D    .    Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behara, Shubhade Deshpande for
     the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the
E judgment dated 04-12-2006 of the Gujarat High Court in
  Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 2006.

       2. The facts very briefly are that Anitha @ Rinkudevi got
  married to the appellant No. 1 in the year 2002. Appellant Nos.
  2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of appellant No.
F 1. On 18-05-2004, Rinkudevi poured kerosene over her body
  and died out of burns. Her brother Munnakumar lodged a
  complaint on 21-05-2004 before the Assistant Police
  Commissioner, 'J' Division, Ahmedabad City in which he
  alleged that Rinkudevi had written to him that the appellants
G were harassing her since two years after the marriage for not
  bringing dowry such as table, chair, sofa set, bed, scooter,
  colour T.V. and along with the complaint he produced xerox
  copy of a letter dated 16-02-2004 said to have been written
  by Rinkudevi. In the complaint, Munnakumar further alleged that
H the appellants were using slangs against Rinkudevi and used
INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. v. STATE 935
         OF GUJARAT [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
to beat her and were giving physical and mental harassment            A
to her for not bringing dowry and instigated her to commit
suicide by sprinkling kerosene on her body. The complaint was
registered as FIR and after investigation, a charge sheet was
filed against the appellants under Sections 3048, 498A and 306
read with Section 114, IPC.                                           B

      3. At the trial, amongst other witnesses, Munnakumar was
examined as PW3 and he proved not only his complaint (Ext.
25) but also the letter dated 16-02-2004 (Ext. 49) said to have
been written by the deceased to him from Ahmedabad. The ·
appellants led defence evidence through DW 1 who is said to C
have written a letter dated 23-02-2004 (Ext. 44) and the
defence of the appellants was that the deceased was in
Chaksiriya village with her brother's family in Bihar and was not
at Ahmedabad on 16-02-2004 from where the letter (Ext. 49)
is said to have been written by her to PW 3. The further case D
of the appellants in defence was that the deceased was a
minor when she got married to the appellant No. 1 and she
committed suicide because she wanted to remain with her
parents in Chaksiriya village and did not want to live with the
appellants at Ahmedabad. The Trial Court disbelieved the E
defence evidence and convicted the appellants under Sections
3048, 498A and 306, IPC on the basis of the evidence of PW
3 and Ext. 49 written by the deceased to PW 3 and Ext. 31
written by PW 3 to the deceased. The appellants challenged
the findings of the Trial Court in the High Court in the Criminal F
Appeal, but the High Court maintained conviction of the
appellants.
                                                              c   '
     4. After hearing Mr. Haresh Raichura, learned counsel for
the appellants, and Ms.· Pinky Behara, learned counsel for the
State, at length, we find that besides Ext. 49, there is no other     G
evidence of a prosecution witness to establish that the
appellants had, in any way, subjected the deceased to cruelty
or harassment. In other words, the letter dated 16-02-2004
alleged to have been written by the deceased (Ext. 49) to PW
                                                                      H
    936       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 2 S,C.R.


A   3 is the only evidence produced by the prosecution to prove
    that the appellants had subjected the deceased to harassment
    and cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. But, we h'ave
    grave doubts as to whether the said letter dated 16-02-2004
    (Ext. 49) was at all written by the deceased to PW 3 for various
s   reasons. The said letter dated 16-02-2004 is alleged to have
    been written by the deceased from Ahmedabad. PW 3 has not
    stated in his evidence specifically that on 16-02-2004 the
    deceased was at Ahmedabad. On the other hand, OW 1 has
    stated in his evidence that on 15-02-2004, his wife and he had
c   gone to Chaksiriya village which was the home of his wife and
    they stayed at Chaksiriya up to 21-02-2004 and everyday they
    used to meet Munnakumar (PW 3) and the deceased and PW
    3 wanted to send the deceased to Ahmedabad but the
    deceased was not willing to go to Ahmedabad and she used
    to say that if she is sent to Ahmedabad, she will commit suicide.
0
    OW 1 has further stated in his evidence that he had written an
    inland letter dated 23-02-2004 (Ext. 44) to appellant No. 2 and
    he has also stated that the handwritings and signature in the
    letter marked as Ext. 44 were his. We find that Ext. 44 is an
    inland letter and bears the postal stamp of not only the post
E   office of 'dispatch' in Bihar but also the post office of 'receipt'
    in Ahmedabad. The evidence of OW 1 supported by Ext. 44
    thus makes it probable that the deceased was not at
    Ahmadabad but at Chaksiriya village in Bihar on 16-02-2004
    when she is alleged to have written the letter (Ext. 49) alleging
F   demand of dowry and ill-treatment by the appellants towards
    her. Moreover, from a reading of Ext. 49 which is in Hindi, we
    find that at many places the author of the letter has used words
    in 'puling' instead of 'striling', which raises serious doubts as
    to whether the letter has been written by a woman or by a man.
G   Since there are grave doubts as to whether the letter (Ext. 49)
    was actually written by the deceased or not, conviction of the
    appellants only on the basis of the said fetter (Ext. 49) for the
    offences under Sections 3048, 498A and 306, IPC is unsafe,
          5. Coming now to Ext.31, we find that the letter (Ext. 31)
H
INDRAJIT SURESHPRASAD BIND & ORS. v. STATE 937
         OF GUJARAT [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
is dated 25-04-2004 and is admitted by PW 3 to have been              A
written by him from Chaksiria in Bihar to the deceased at
Ahmedabad. Relevant portions from this letter (Ext. 31) are
extracted hereinbelow:
           "
                                                                      B
          The main reason for writing this letter is that since
    when you have gone (sic) I have been waiting for your letter.
    But unfortunately, I have not received even a single letter.
    But after talking to you on telephone, I am satisfied that this
    time you are living happily and not being misbehaved.             c

           Further, I have to say that you have not to think
    anything about Rs.33,000/- as to from where your Bhaiya
    will manage the amount. Regarding it, I want to convey you
                                                                      0
    that I have so much self confidence and high thinking that
    not to talk of Rs.33,000/-, I would have paid even
    Rs.43,000/- provided that you are alright. You should not
    face further problems. What more should I write. It is better
    to write less and understand more."
                                                                      E
From the aforesaid contents of the letter dated 25-04-2004 of
PW 3 to the deceased, it is clear that after talking to the
deceased on telephone, PW 3 was satisfied that the deceased
was living happily and was not being misbehaved with. This
letter is dated 25-04-2004 and was most proximate to 18-05- F
2004 when the deceased committed suicide by pouring
kerosene on her body and this letter is evidence of the fact that
the deceased was happy and was not'being misbehaved with
by anybody. This being the evidence, there are reasonable
doubts in the story of the prosecution that the appellants had · G
subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment soon before
her death.
   · 6. Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Pinky Behara,
vehemently submitted that in Ext.31, there is also a mention that
PW 3 will provide not just Rs.33,000/- but even Rs.43,000/-           H
    938      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   provided the deceased was alright so that the deceased did
    not face any problems. She submitted that this would show that
    there was some demand of dowry on PW 3 in connection with
    the marriage of the deceased. On a reading of Ext. 31, it is
    difficult for the Court to record a definite finding that there was
8   a demand of Rs.33,000/- or ~s.43,000/- towards dowry. In any
    case, even if there was such demand of dowry of Rs.33,000/-
    or Rs.43,000/-, mere 'demand of dowry' without proof of 'cruelty'
    or 'harassment' caused to the deceased by the appellants
    cannot make the appellants liable for the offences under
c   Sections 3048, 498A or 306, IPC. ·                                  ·
        7. To establish the offence of dowry death under Section
  3048, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
  doubt ·that the husband or his relative has subjected the
  deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand
D of dowry soon before her death. Similarly, to establish the
  offence under Section 498A, IPC the prosecution has to prove
  beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has
  subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in Clauses (a) and
  (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. In the present case,
E the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable
  doubt that the appellants have subjected the deceased to any
  cruelty or harassment. Further, we have noticed from Ext. 31
  written by PW 3 to the deceased on 25-04-2004 that after
  talking to the deceased on telephone, he was satisfied that she
F was living happily and was not being misbehaved with. No other
  material having come in evidence to establish that the
  appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide, it is
  difficult for the Court to hold that the appellants had in any way
  abetted the suicide by the deceased on 18-05-2004.
G        8. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned
    judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Trial
    Court and allow the appeal. The appellants are on bail and their
    bail bonds are discharged.

H 8.8.8.                                             Appeal allowed.