MONJU ROY & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                  [2015] 6 S.C.R. 275


                  MONJU ROY & ORS.                        A
                           v.
                STATE OF WEST BENGAL
           (Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012)
                                                          B
                    APRIL 17, 2015
   [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3048, 498A and 306 - Dowry
death - Prosecution against husband, his mother and his c
siblings - Prosecution abated against mother due tn her
death - Conviction by courts below - Husband-accused
undergone the sentence awarded-Appeal by the accused-
siblings of husband- Held: Offence u/s 3048 can be said to
have been committed not only when 'demand of dowry' is D
made, but also when 'cruelty or harassment' for or in
connection with such demand, is made - There is no material
to show that the appellants-accused harassed the victim
resulting in her death - Moreover, the possibility of
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all the E
family members cannot be ruled out- Therefore, appellants-
accused acquitted uls 3048 giving them benefit of doubt -
Conviction under other offences is upheld.

      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court               F

        HELD: 1. Though, it is accepted that the deceased
was subjected to harassment on account of non-
fu lfillment of dowry demand, but possibility of
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all G ·
the family members cannot be ruled out. Moreover,
ingredient of offence under Section 3048 IPC is not mere
demand of dowry but "cruelty or harassment" for or in
connection with demand of dowry.[para 7-8 and 1O] [280-
B-D; 281-F-G]                                            H
                         275
276        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000 (3) SCR 662    =
      2000 (5) SCC 207; Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand
                         =
      2007 (6) SCR 105 2007 (15) SCC 415; Amar Singh vs.
      State of Rajasthan 2010 (9) SCR 526   =2010 (9) SCC 64
      - relied on.
B
             2. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and
  when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand
  of dowry or harassment which follows, cannot be
  weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus
C allegation against all family members particularly against
  brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on
  same footing as husband and parents. In such case,
  apart from general allegation of demand 'f dowry, court
  has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by
D all the named members. [para 11) [282-0-E]



             3. In the facts and circumstances of the present
E     case, even if it is accepted that the appellants who were
      the siblings of the accused-husband were involved in
      raising the demand for dowry, there is no material that
      the appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death.
      Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband
F     who may be benefitted by the dowry and may be in a
      position to harass and not all other relatives, though no
      hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is
      also true that till such an unfortunate event takes place,
      the family members may not disclose the demand of
G     dowry being a private matter and under the hope that
      the relationship of the couple may improve. However,
      having regard to the nature of their relationships, there
      being possibility of the appellants' having been named
      by way of exaggeration, the appellants deserve to be
H     given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the
   MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                    277


present case. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the A
appellants under Section 3048 IPC is set aside, without
interfering with conviction and sentence under other
heads. [para 12-13] [282-F-H; 283-A-B]

                   Case Law Reference                           B
  2000 (3) SCR 662         relied on           para 5
  2007 (6) SCR 105         relied on           para 9
  2010 (9) SCR 526         relied on           para 10

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal                C
Appeal No. 1797 of 2012

       From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2011 of
the High Court at Calcutta in C. R. A.. No. 86 of 2005
                                                                D
      Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for
the Appellants.

       Kabir S. Bose, Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by               E

        ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - 1. The appellants
 stand convicted under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the
 Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment ("RI") for 10 years and to pay fine of    F
Rs.5000/c. In default, to undergo further imprisonment for
two years. They also stand sentenced to suffer RI for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer
further imprisonment for three months under Sections 498A
a~3001PC.                                                      G

      2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar
Roy on 2Q1h February, 1994. According to the prosecution,
Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters and brother raised a
demand of Rs.5000/- and since the said demand was not H
278      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A fulfilled, Shanti Roy was harassed and even kept without
  food. On 31'1 July, 1995, she committed suicide by pouring
  kerosene and setting herself on fire. She was pregnant
  carrying eight months' old foetus. Chittaranjan Saha (PW1 ),
  brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report.
B After conducting investigation, appellants Monju Roy, Anju
  Roy, sisters of Sekhar Roy, Tulshi Roy, brother of Sekhar
  Roy, Sumitra Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy and Sekhar Roy,
  husband of the deceased were sent up for trial. Sumitra
  Roy died on 27th August, 2001 during pendency of the trial.
c
          3. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also
  produced documents in support of its case. The witnesses
  examined included brother of the deceased PW 5 and mother
  of the deceased PW 14 to prove that the deceased was
D harassed by demand of dowry. Accepting the evidence, the
  trial court convicted and sentenced the three appellants as
  mentioned above and also Sekhar Roy who has not preferred
  appeal and is said to have undergone the sentence awarded
  to him. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
E with the modification that instead of life imprisonment under
  Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for
  ten years was awarded.

         4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
F Shri Pijush K. Roy and Shri Kabir S. Bose for the State of
  West Bengal and with their assistance have gone through
  the record.

          5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
G omnibus allegation against all the family members could not
  be taken at the face value, having regard to the well known
  tendency of naming all the family members by the family of
  an unfortunate victim. In such circumstances, the court may
  be cautious in accepting such omnibus allegations against
H all the family members unless there is an independent
  MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                         279
          [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)

corroboration of such allegation. He submitted that in the          A
present case, the allegation is that all the five family members
raised a demand of Rs.5000/- and beyond stating that all
the family members harassed her, no individual role in
harassment has been specified. The benefit of dowry could
go either to the husband or at best his mother and not to the       B
siblings who are alleged to have joined in such demand.
There is no independent corroboration of the allegation as
such allegation has been made for the first time in the FIR.
The allegation is based on the version given to the witnesses
three months after the marriage or thereafter, though it is         C
stated that the witness continued to receive information about
such demand even thereafter upto 15-20 days prior to the
occurrence. He submitted that mother-in-law of the
deceased has already died and husband of the deceased
                                                                    0
has undergone the sentence. The appellants who are two
sisters and one brother of the husband of the deceased have
been in custody for more than four years and two months.
The possibility of exaggeration about the number of family
members who raised demand of dowry was not ruled out.               E
Even if demand was jointly made, the appellants have not
been assigned any role in harassment in absence of which,
presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act could
not be raised against them. Reliance has been placed on
observations of this Court in Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab          F
& Ors.1.

          6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the above
submission and pointed out that the deceased was pregnant
for eight months and would not have committed suicide within G
two years of marriage unless the harassment for dowry had
been caused. He submitted that there is no reason to
disbelieve the version of close relatives of the deceased that
dowry was demanded by all the family members and the
demand continued till her death. All the members have been H
' 2000 (5) sec 207
280         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     specifically named. The death having taken place within
      seven years of marriage in circumstances other than normal,
      statutory presumption under Section 3048 clearly arises and
      the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing
      the appellants.
B
             7. We have given serious thought to the question
      raised about the possibility of exaggeration in prosecution
      version in implicating all the family members.

c        8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with
  the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was
  subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of
  dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that
  possibility of naming all the family members by way of
D exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court
  observed:

           "5 ........ .A tendency has, however, developed for
           roping in all relations of the in-laws of the
E          deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths
           which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the
           case of the prosecution even against the real
           culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to
           seek conviction for maximum people, the parents
F          of the deceased have been found to be making
           efforts for involving other relations which ultimately
           weaken the caso of the prosecution even against
           the real accused as appears to have happer:<:J
           in the instant case."
G
        The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant
        relatives without there being specific material. Only
        the husband, his parents or at best close family
        members may be expected to demand dowry or to
H       harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there
    MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                   281
            [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    is tangible material to support a/legations made against    A
    such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations
    is not enough to summon them .in absence of any
    specific role and material to support such role.

      9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of JharkhancP, it was      B
observed:

    "14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5
    Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased
    Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the         c
    deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told
    them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal
    Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his
    wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is
    possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana         o
    Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide
    as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A
    and 394 /PC, as has been observed in several
    decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State
    of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc, Hence, we allow the       E
    appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside
    the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial
    court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that
    they be released forthwith unless required in connection
    with some other case."                                      F

      10. Moreover, ingredient of offence under Section
3048 is not mere demand of dowry but "cruelty or
harassment" for or in connection with demand of dowry. In
Amar Singh vs. State ofRajasthan~. it was observed :      G
                                 '·
    "29. ........... What is punishable under Section 498-A
    or Section 304-B /PC is the act of cruelty or harassment
    by the husband or the relative of the husband on the
2 (2007) 15 sec 415                                             H
3 (201 O)   s sec 64
282       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A      woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the
       Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before
       her death a woman has been subjected by any person
       to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
       demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such
B      person had caused the dowry death within the meaning
       of Section 304-B /PC. The act of subjecting .a woman
       to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
       demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be
       established by the prosecution for the court to presume
c      that the accused has caused the dowry death."

           11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when
  a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry
  or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden
D scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all
  family members particularly against brothers and sisters and
  other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband
  and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of
  demand of dowry court has to be satisfied that harassment
E was also caused by all the named members.

          12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
  even if it is accepted that the appellants were involved in
  raising the demand for dowry there is no material that the
F appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death.
  Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who
  may be benefitted by the dowry and may be in a position to
  harass and not all other relatives, though no hard and fast
  rule can be laid down in that regard. It is also true that till
G such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members
  may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter
  and under the hope that the relationship of the couple may
  improve. However, having regard to the nature of their
H relationships, there being possibility of the appellants' having
  been named byway of exaggeration, we are of the view that
   MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                       283
           [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt in that A
regard in the facts of the present case.

        13. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the
conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section
3048 IPC without interfering with conviction and sentence          B
under other heads. Since the appellants are said to have
already undergone the sentence awarded for other charges
which may be verified, they may be released from custody
forthwith unless required in any other case.
                                                                   c
Kalpana K. Tripathy                      Appeal partly allowed.




                                                                   D