NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

•                 [2014] 11 S.C.R. 391


                    NARESH KUMAR                            A
                            v.
              STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2013)
                  NOVEMBER 14, 2014
                                                            B
     [T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
                R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860: s.304-8 - Dowry death - Death by
burn injuries - Held: There was consistent evidence to prove C
harassment for dowry by husband soon before death of the
victim-deceased - Acquittal of in-laws would not exonerate the
husband as he is not only primarily responsible for safely of
his wife, he is also expected to be conversant with her state
of mind more than any other relative - Failure to give an D
explanation or giving of false explanation can be taken as
additional circumstance against him - Suicide note to the
effect that no one should be held responsible is not enough
to exonerate the husband - If the wife commits suicide by
setting herself on fire, preceded by dissatisfaction of the E
husband and his family from the dowry, the inference of
harassment against the husband may be patent - Conviction
of husband by courts below upheld.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                            F
     Held: 1. There was consistent evidence on record to
prove harassment for dowry soon before the death of the
deceased. The deceased died within 10 months of the
marriage. According to PW3, father of the deceased, after
three months of the marriage, the deceased informed him     G
that the appellant and his family were harassing her for
dowry. He, along with PW-12, went to the house of the
appellant and requested them not to harass her. Again,

                           391                              H
   392     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R..

A three days before the occurrence, the deceased informed
  her father about the dowry harassment on which her
  uncle PW-12, along with his wife, went to the house of
  the accused and brought the 'deceased to her parental
  home. The appellant took her away on the threat of
B divorce and on the next day, she died of burn injuries.
  Similar version has been given by PW-10 and PW-12.
  There was live and proximate link between the demand
  of dowry and death. In these circumstances, it cannot be
  held that there was no evidence of demand of dowry
c "soon before the death". [Para 9] [395-F-G; 396-A-B]
          2. The tenor of the suicide note clearly showed that
   the deceased was in helpless condition and she found
    no other way to come out of the situation. The suicide
  . note cannot be taken to be encyclopedia of the entire
D situation in which the dece~sed was placed. Mere
    mentio111 that nobody may be held responsible, while also
   stating that all the doors were closed for her and she had
    no other way available (except to leave the world), is not
    enough to exonerate the appellant. As regards the claim
E for parity of the case of the appellant with his mother and
    brother who have been acquitted, the High Court rightly
    found his case to be distinguishable from the case of his
    mother and brother. The husband is not only primarily
    responsible for safety of his wife, he is expected to be
F conversant with her state of mind more than any other
    relative. If the wife commits suicide by setting herself on
    fire, preceded by dissatisfaction of the husband and his
    family from the dowry, the inference of harassment
   against the husband may be patent. [Paras 10, 12] [396-
G F, G; 397-E-G]
       Hira Lal and Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi 2003
   (1) Suppl. SCR 734: (2003) 8 SCC 80 - relied on.
                                    '
       Manohar Lal vs. State of Haryana AIR (2014) SC 2555
H - referred to.
•         NARESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA


                         Case Law Reference:
                                                              393


                                                                     A
        AIR (2014) SC 2555            referred to      Para 7
        2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734       relied on        Para 10
                          /
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal            B
    No. 1266 of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 12.03.2013 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    No. S-736-SB of 2003.
                                                                     c
        G.C. Shahpuri, Surinder Singh, Balbir Singh Gupta for the
    Appellant.

        Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   D

         ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1.This appeal has been
    preferred against Judgment and Order dated 12th March, 2013
    of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
    Criminal Appral No.S-736-SB of 2003 upholding the conviction     E
    of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
    ("IPC") and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment tot seven years.

         2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
    married to the deceased Rekha Rani on 7th July, 2000. After F
    the marriage, she was harassed for having brought insufficient
    dowry and the appellant raised a demand for motor cycle apart
    from the demands by his mother and younger brother. After
    about three months of marriage, the deceased gave a
    telephonic call to her father about the demand for dowry. Her G
    father, Kashmiri Lal (PW-3), along with his younger brother
    Raghubir Lal (PW-12), met the husband of the deceased and
    his other relatives and pleaded that she may not be harassed
    as he was not in a position to give more dowry. The accused,
    however, continued to harass her. On 29th April, 2001, the H
    394      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R.      •


A   deceased again telephoned her father about the harassment
    on which Raghubir Lal (PW-12) went to the house of the
    accused and brought back the deceased to her parental home.
    However, on the next day, the appellant came to the place of
    his in-laws and insisted that the deceased be sent with him,
B   threatening that otherwise he will divorce her. On this, the
    deceased was sent with the appellant. Next day, on 1st May,
    2001, at about 12 O'clock, information was received by the
    family of the deceased that she had received burn injuries and
    was taken to the hospital. Father of the deceased Kashmiri Lal
c   (PW-3) along with his younger brother Raghubir Lal (PW-12)
    and brother in-law Guddar Mal (PW-10) reached the hospital
    at 2.00 P.M. where the deceased told them that she was given
    beatings and set on fire by the appellant and his family
    members. Thereafter, the deceased died on account of
o   extensive burn injuries.

       3. Kashmiri Lal (PW-3) lodged the First Information Report
  (Exhibit PA/1). SI Rakham Singh (PW-13) conducted the
  investigation and sent up the accused for trial. The prosecution
E led evidence in support of its case comprising of relatives to
  prove demand of dowry, apart from medical evidence and
  evidence of investigation. The accused denied the prosecution
  allegations and stated that the deceased committed suicid~ on
  account of harassment by her uncle Raghubir Lal (PW-12) who
F wanted her to relinquish her rights in the parental property. The
  accused examined Vined Kumar (DW-1) who had taken the
  deceased to the hospital and stated that
                      ~                   .
                                              her relations with the
  accused were cordial. Raj Kumar (DW-2) employer of the
  appellant was also examined who stated that at the time of
G alleged incident, the appellant was on duty.

         4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,
    held that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable
    doubt and convicted the appellant and the co-accused.

H         5. On further appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction
•          NARESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                       395
                [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)
    of the appellant but acquitted the co-accused Champa Devi            A
    (mother of the appellant) and Lalit Kumar (brother of the
    appellant).

        6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
    perused the evidence on record.                                      B

         7. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel
    Shri G.C. Shahpuri submitted that the prosecution failed to
    prove the demand of dowry "soon before the death" which was
    the necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 304 B,
    IPC. He relied upon Judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal            C
    vs. State of Haryana'. It was also sllb(llitted that the deceased
    had left a suicide note (Exhibit P-4) to the effect that nobody
    be held responsible if something happened to her and in the
    said note there is no allegation of demand of dowry. He lastly
    submitted that since the High Court had acquitted mother and         D
    brother of the appellant on the same evidence, the case of the
    appellant being at par, there was no justification to convict him.

        8. We have given due consideration to the submissions
    advanced on behalf of the appellant but we do not find any merit.    E

         9. There is consistent evidence on record to prove
    harassment for dowry soon before the death of the deceased.
    The deceased died within 10 months of the marriage.
    According to PW3, father of the deceased, after three months
                                                                      F
    of the marriage, the deceased informed him that the appellant
    and his family were harassing her for dowry. He, along with PW- .
    12, went to the house of the appellant and requested them not
    to harass her. Again, three days before the occurrence, on 28th
    April, 2001, the deceased informed her father about the dowry G
    harassment on which her uncle PW-12, along with his wife, went
    to the house of the accused and brought the deceased to her
    parental home. The appellant took her away on the threat of
    divorce and on the next day, she died of burn injuries. Similar
    1.   AIR (2014) SC 2555.                                             H
A
    396      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 11 S.C.R.


  version has been given by Guddar Mal ~PW-10) and Raghubir
                                                                     •
  Lal (PW-12). The version is supported by her death by burning.
  There is no other cogent reason to explain the cause of her
  death except the harassment for dowry. There is live and
  proximate link between the demand of dowry and death. In
B these circumstances, it cannot be held that there is no evidence
  of demand of dowry "soon before the death". In Manohar Lal
  (supra) relied upon on behalf of the appellant, this Court noted
  that there was neither any specific instance suggesting cruelty
  or harassment nor any of the witnesses had stated that the
c deceased was harassed "soon before the death" in connection
  with the demand of dowry. Contrary to the fact situation noticed
  in the said case, in the present case, all the three witnesses
  mentioned above - Kashmiri Lal, Guddar Mal and Rag1hubir Lal
  have specifically and categorically deposed about deimand of
o dowry soon before her death.
         10. We may now refer to the suicide note. It, inter alia,
    states:

          "Alf the doors are closed for me. Besides this, no other
E         way is available to me and I adopted the way which I
          liked."

       The tenor of the suicide note clearly shows that the
  deceased was in helpless condition and she found no other way
F to come out of the situation. The suicide note cannot be taken
  to be encyclopaedia of the entire situation in which the
  deceased was placed. It is not possible to infer from the said
  note that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial home.
  Mere mention that nobody may be held responsible, while also
G stating that all the doors were closed for her and she had no
  other way available (except to leave the world), is not enough
  to exonerate the appellant. When a young married girl finds
  herself in helpless situation and decides to end her life, in
  absence of any other circumstance, it is natural to infer that she
H was unhappy in her matrimonial home. A suicide note cannot
•       NARESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
be treated as conclusive of there being no one responsible for A
the situation when evidence on record categorically points to
                                                                397




harassment for dowry. One cannot lose sight of the fact that
unfortunately the menace dowry deaths still exists in our society
and has been subject of expert studies. The Law Commission,
in its 91 st Report dated 1Oth August, 1983, recommended B
reform of the law to deal with the situation which led to ·
incorporation of Sections 304 B in IPC, making 'dowry death'
an offence and Section 113B in the Evidence Act which
provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case
of an unnatural death within seven ye~rs of marriage when it is C
shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry
soon before her death. These aspects have been considered
by this Court in Hira Lal and Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT)
Dethi2 and other judgments.             '
                                                                  D
      11. The circumstances have thus to be appreciated in the
light of the above social and legislative background. As already
noted, in the present case, there is plethora of evidence to
prove the demand of dowry "soon before the death" giving rise
to the presumption against the appellant.
                                                                        E
      12. As regards the claim for parity of the case of the
appellant with his mother and brother who have been acquitted,
the High Court has rightly found his case to be distinguishable
from the case of his mother and brother. The husband is not
only primarily responsible for safety of his wife, he is expected       F
to be conversant with her state of mind more than any other
relative. If the wife commits suicide by setting herself on fire,
preceded by dissatisfaction of the hui;band and his family from
the dowry, the inference of harassment against the ·husband
may be patent. Responsibility of the husband towards his wife           G
is qualitatively different and higher as against his other relatives.

      13. On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned in

2.   c2003J s sec so.                                                   H
    398       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2014] 11 S.C . •


A Section 113 B, if the statutory presumption arises against the
  accused which shifts the burden on the accused, the accused
  must give cogent explanation. Failure to give an explanation or
  giving of false explanation can be taken as an additional
  circumstance against him. The requirement of allegations of
B demand of dowry against the relatives of the husband may have
  to be more specific and the Court may be more cautious in
  dealing with such allegations, if there is any doubt about over
  implication, but responsibility of the husband may be obvious
  from the circumstances. In these circumstances, the case of the
c appellant cannot stand at par with his mother and brother who
  have been acquitted by the High Court, by way of caution
  against over implication, as well as for want of cogent evidence
  against them. Case of the husband stands on different footing.

         14. Thus, we have no hesitation in upholding the conviction
0
    and sentence of the appellant as we do not find any reason to
    interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below in
    convicting and sentencing the appellant.

          15. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The appellant
E   is directed to surrender to undergo the remaining s13ntence
    failing which he may be arrested and committed to custody to
    complete the sentence awarded to him.

    Devika Gujral                                   Appeal dismissed.