PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHAversusSTATE OF A.P.

                        [2012] 7 S.C.R. 290


A                   PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA
                                  v.
                           STATE OF A.P.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1712 of 2009)

                         AUGUST 16, 2012
B
        [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304-8 and 498-A - Suicide by
C married woman - Short span of time between marriage and
  death of the deceased - Prosecution case that deceased was
  being harassed and ill-treated by her husband, father-in-law
  and mother-in-law for non-payment of balance dowry amount
  - Trial court convicted all the three accused and sentenced
o them to life imprisonment - High Court acquitted the accused-
  father-in-law but confirmed conviction and sentence of the
  accused-husband and mother-in-law (i.e. the appellants) - On
  appeal, held: The ingredients of s.3048 rlw s.498A /PC were
  completely satisfied in the instant case - By a deeming fiction
E in law, the onus was on the accused to prove as to how the
  deceased died - It was for the accused to show that the death
  of the deceased did not result from any cruelty or demand of
  dowry by the accused persons - Denial cannot be treated to
  be discharge of onus - Onus has to be discharged by leading
F proper and cogent evidence - Maintaining silence cannot be
  equated to discharge of onus by the accused - On facts, the
  prosecution established the guilt of the accused by reliable
  and cogent evidence - There being no rebuttal thereto, no
  occasion for interference by Supreme Court - Appellants were
  rightly held guilty by the courts below - However, keeping in
G view the attendant circumstances and in the interest of justice,
  punishment awarded to them reduced to ten years rigorous
  imprisonment.

        In a case of death of a married woman, her husband
H                              290
    PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.              291

and parents-in-law were charged with offences under           A
Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The prosecution case was
that at the time of marriage of the deceased, it was
promised that a dowry of Rs. 25,000/-, would be paid by
the side of the wife to the husband; that out of this
amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid at that time and       B
it was promised that the balance dowry of Rs. 10,000/-
wou Id be paid after four months, upon which the
marriage was performed; that the deceased's father could
not pay the balance amount within time as he lacked the
resources; that despite pressure from accused-husband         C
and parents-in-law, the deceased was not able to get the
balance amount of dowry from her family; that for non-
payment of dowry, the accused persons harassed the
deceased and subjected her to cruelty and even refused
to send her to her parental house; that deceased was
                                                              0
unable to bear such cruelty by the accused persons and
consequently committed suicide by hanging herself in
the house of the accused. The trial court convicted all the
three accused under ss.3048 and 498A IPC and
sentenced them to life imprisonment. In appeal, the High
Court acquitted the accused-father-in-law, but confirmed      E
the conviction of accused-husband and mother-in-law
(i.e. the appellants). Hence the present appeals.

    Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                              F
    HELD: 1. From the evidence, it is clear that the dowry
demands were being raised by the accused persons
persistently from the family of the deceased and for that
they even harassed the deceased, by beating and
abusing her. The deceased had informed her parents of
the ill-treatment and the cruelty inflicted on her for non-   G
giving of dowry. The period intervening between the
marriage and the death of the deceased was very small.
They were married in the year 2002 and she committed
suicide by hanging on 15th February, 2003. The
witnesses, including LW-1 (father of the deceased) stated     H
    292      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A that for the first few months they were happy, but
  thereafter, there were quarrels between the accused-
  husband and the deceased. Accused-husband when he
  had gone to the parental house of the deceased,
  demanded different items like fan, ring and Rs. 1,000/- in
B cash, and the balance of the agreed dowry amount. Since,
  these demands were not satisfied instantaneously, he
  even left the deceased at her parental house. [Paras 12,
  13] [298-C-F]

C      2. It is clear that the ingredients of Section 3048 read
   with Section 498A IPC are completely satisfied in the
   present case. By a deeming fiction in law, the onus shifts
   on to the accused to prove as to how the deceased died.
   It was for the accused to show that the death of the
   deceased did not result from any cruelty or demand of
D dowry by the accused persons. The accused-hsuband
   did not care to explain as to how the death of his wife
   occurred. Denial cannot be treated to be the discharge
   of onus. Onus has to be discharged by leading proper
   and cogent evidence. It was expected of the accused to
E explain as to how and why his wife died, as well as his
  conduct immediately prior and subsequent to the death
  of the deceased. Maintaining silence cannot be equated
  to discharge of onus by the accused. In the present case,
  the prosecution by reliable and cogent evidence
F established the guilt of the accused. There being no
  rebuttal thereto, there is no occasion to interfere in the
  judgments of the courts under appeal. [Para 15] [305-G-
  H; 306-A-C]

G       Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and Others v. State of
    W.B. (2008) 1 sec 202: 2001 (4) SCR 120 and Ashok
    Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350: 2010 (7) SCR
    1119 - relied on.

      3. The High Court acquitted the accused-father-in-
H law, as there was no direct evidence against him. His
    PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.               293


acquittal was not challenged by the State before this          A
Court, thus, this Court is not called upon to discuss this
aspect of the matter. The appellants (i.e. accused-
husband and mother-in-law) were rightly found guilty of
the offence by the courts. While there is no reason to
differ with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial      B
court and the High Court, there is some substance in the
argument raised on behalf of the appellants that keeping
in view the prosecution evidence, the attendant
circumstances, the age of the accused and the fact that
they have already been in jail for a considerable period,      c
the Court may take lenient view as far as the quantum of
sentence is concerned. The offences having been
proved against the accused and keeping in view the
attendant circumstances, ends of justice would be met,
if the punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced.
                                                               0
Consequently, ten years Rigorous Imprisonment is
awarded to the appellants. (Paras 16, 17, 18] (306-C-G]
                    Case Law Reference:
    2007 (4) SCR 120         relied on            Para 13      E
    2010 (7) SCR 1119        relied on            Para 14
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1712 of 2009 etc.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2006 of the High     F
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal No. 2368 of 2004.
                             WITH
Crl. Appeal No. 1706 of 2009.
                                                               G
    Param Kumar Mishra (for Kumud Lata Das) for the
Appellant
    D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                 H
    294      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A      SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Accused Pathan Hussain
  Basha, was married to Pathan Haseena Begum (now
  deceased) on 23rd June, 2002 at Guntur. It was an arranged
  marriage. At the time of marriage, it was promised that a dowry
  of Rs. 25,000/-, besides other formalities, would be paid by the
B side of the wife to the husband. Out of this amount, a sum of
  Rs. 15,000/- was paid at that time and it was promised that
  the balance dowry of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid in the month
  of October, 2002, upon which the marriage was performed.
       2. The father of the bride could not pay the balance amount
C within time, because he lacked the resources. The accused
  Pathan Hussain Basha, his father Pathan Khadar Basha, and
  mother Pathan Nazeer Abi forced her to get the balance amount
  of dowry. Despite such pressure, she was not able to get that
  money from her family. It is the case of the prosecution that for
D non-payment of dowry, the accused persons harassed the
  deceased and subjected her to cruelty. They even refused to
  send her to her parental house. This was informed by the
  deceased to various persons, including her relatives and elders.
  She was unable to bear the cruelty to which she was subjected,
E by the accused persons. On 15th February, 2003, at about 11
  a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the
  house of the accused.
       3. When Pathan Basheerunnisa, LW3 returned from her
  work, the accused ser:it her out giving her money to bring the
F soaps upon which she went out and when she came back, she
  found the accused absent and the bride hanging in the house.
  Subsequently, LW-3 Pathan Basheerunnisa sent her grandson
  Pathan lnayatullah Khan, LW-4 to the house of the parents of
  the deceased to inform them about the incident. When the
G parents of the deceased came to the house of the accused and
  found the deceased hanging from the beam with a saree, they
  untied her and took her to the Government General Hospital,
  Guntur hoping that the deceased may be alive. However, upon
  medical examination by the doctor, she was declared brought
H dead.
    PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                 295
           [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     4. The father of the deceased Pathan Yasin Khan, LW-1 A
and her mother Pathan Shamshad Begum, LW-2 were present
at that time. LW-1, lodged the report, which was registered by
Sri K. Srinivasarao, LW-16, the Sub-Inspector of Police. The
FIR was registered under Section 304B and Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC"). Thereafter, B
investigation was conducted by one Shri P. Devadass, LW-17.
He inspected the site from where he recovered and seized the
saree that had been used for hanging. This was done in the
presence of LW-10 and LW-11, Shaik Ibrahim and Mohd.
Ghouse, respectively. Thereupon, the body was sent for post- c
mortem examination through Constable P. Venkateswara
Reddy, LW-15. LW-17, P. Devdass, also took photographs of
the scene. LW-13, Dr. M. Madhusudana Reddy conducted
autopsy over the body of the deceased and prepared post-
mortem certificate giving the cause of death as asphyxia, as a D
result of hanging.
      5. On 16th February, 2003, at about 5 p.m., Investigating
Officer arrested all the three accused persons. They faced the
trial and were convicted by learned Sixth Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Guntur for committing an offence under Sections       E
498A and 3048 IPC.
     6. They were committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur
Division, Guntur for such an offence. They faced the trial and
the learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 4th
October, 2004 found them guilty of the said offences and          F
punished them as follows:-
    "Hence A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for
    THREE YEARS and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
    1,000/- each (total fine amount Rs. 3,000/-) offence G
    punishable u/s. 498-A IPC. l.D. of the fine amount of Rs.
    1000/- to undergo SI for 9 months. And further A.1 to A.3
    are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE for the
    offence u/s. 304-B IPC. Both the sentences shall run
    concurrently. The undergone remand period of A.1 to A.3 H
    296       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A         shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C. M.0.1 shall be destroyed
          after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any
          shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time."
         7. The judgment dated 4th October, 2004 passed by the
    learned Trial Court was challenged in appeal before the High
B   Court. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide its judgment
    dated 26th October, 2006, while allowing the appeal in part,
    convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforementioned
    offences, however, acquitted accused No. 3, namely, Pathan
    Khadar Basha. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court was
C   confirmed. This gave rise to filing of the present appeals.
       8. First and the foremost, we must consider what is the
  evidence led by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of
  accused. Accused were charged with offences under Sections
  498A and 304B of the IPC. The FIR in the present case was
0
  lodged by LW-1, who is the father of the deceased. According
  to this witness, on 23rd January, 2002, the marriage of his
  daughter was solemnised with accused Pathan Hussain Basha
  and he had accepted to give Rs. 25,000/- in marriage. He had
  given only Rs. 15,000/- and had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/-,
E after four months. This witness has further specifically stated
  that the said accused treated his daughter in a proper manner
  for about two months. In the marriage, he had also given a gold
  chain, a double bed, an iron safe and other items. He had called
  his son-in-law, accused No. 1, to his house, as per custom, at
F that point the accused demanded a ceiling fan. A ceiling fan
  was lying with the witness and he gave that to his son in law,
  however, he protested the same on the ground that the old fan
  is not acceptable to him and he would like to have a new fan,
  which was bought for Rs. 650/- by the witness and given to his
G son-in-law. When he again invited his son-in-law and the
  mother-in-law of his daughter, even then he had gifted some
  presents to them. The accused asked for Rs. 1,000/- with a ring
  for the deceased. The witness could pay only Rs. 500/- upon
  which tile accused refused to take the deceased to the
H matrimonial home and went away. Later on, the accused came
     PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                    297
            [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
to fetch deceased. Subsequently, the mother-in-law of the             A
deceased, again, demanded the balance dowry amount of Rs.
10,000/-, which he could not pay. His daughter, after the
Ramzan festival, had informed him that the accused persons
were harassing her and were even beating and abusing her.
All three accused used to beat her for the remaining amount           B
of dowry. On 15th February, 2003, a boy had come to him and
told him that his daughter had died by hanging herself,
whereupon he went to the house of the accused and found that
his daughter was hanged to a wooden beam with a saree and
she was dead. The saree was removed, she was taken to the             C
hospital where she was reported to have 'brought dead'. The
statement of this witness i.e. LW-1 is corroborated by LW-3 and
LW-7.
     9. It is stated by LW-3 that she knew all the' accused
persons as she was residing in the house of the accused and           D
the deceased. According to this witness also, in the beginning
they were happy, however after some time, she used to hear
some quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons.
Accused No. 2, Pathan Nazeer Abi had given her some amount
and asked her to go and bring the soaps. After bringing the           E
soaps, she went to the house of the accused persons and found
that the accused was absent and the deceased was hanging
on one side of the room. After seeing this, she raised cries and
people came to the scene. LW-4, Pathan lnayatullah Khan, the
grandson of LW-3, went to the house of the parents of the             F
deceased and informed them about the unfortunate incident.
      10. LW-7 stated on oath that he was present at the time
of giving of dowry to the accused by the family of the deceased.
He confirmed the fact that Rs. 15,000/- was given at the time
of marriage and Rs. 10,000/-was to be given within some time,         G
which the father of the deceased failed to provide. According
to him, the accused persons used to harass the deceased
primarily for non-payment of the amount of dowry, as a result
of which, she was forced to commit suicide.
     11. In fact, there is no dispute to the fact that the deceased   H
    298        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] Z S.C.R.


A   died of hanging. Dr. M. Madhusudana Reddy, LW-13 who was
    the Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine at Guntur
    Medical College, performed the post-mortem over the body of
    the deceased. In the medical report, LW13, he noticed "Oblique
    ligature mark of 17 x 2.5 cm present over front and left sides
B   of neck" as well as noticed "Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm present over
    lower part of middle of chin." Injuries were found to be
    antemortem in nature, and the cause of death was stated to
    be asphyxia, as a result of hanging
         12. LW-14 is a witness to the seizure of the body and she
C noticed injuries on the body of the deceased. From the above
  evidence, it is clear that the dowry demands were being raised
  by the accused persons persistently from the family of the
  deceased and for that they even harassed the deceased, by
  beating and abusing her. She had informed her parents of the
D ill-treatment and the cruelty inflicted on her for non-giving of
  dowry.
        13. The period intervening between the marriage and the
  death of the deceased is very small. They were married in the
  year 2002 and she committed suicide by hanging on 15th
E February, 2003. The witnesses, including LW-1 have stated that
  for the first few months they were happy, but thereafter, there
  were quarrels between the accused and the deceased.
  Accused Pathan Hussain Basha, when he had gone to the
  parental house of the deceased, demanded different items like
F fan, ring and Rs. 1,000/- in cash, and the balance of the agreed
  dowry amount. Since, these demands were not satisfied
  instantaneously, he even left the deceased at her parental
  house. At this stage, it will be appropriate for us to examine
  as to what are the ingredients of an offence punishable under
G Section 3048 of the IPC. in· the case of Biswajit Halder alias
  Babu Halder and Others v. State of WB. [(2008) 1 SCC 202],
  the Court stated the ingredients of this provision as follows:-
          "10. The basic ingred.ients to attract the provisions of
          Section 304-B are as follows:
H
        PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                  299
               [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

              (1) the death of a woman should be caused by burns       A
        or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal
        circumstances;
              (2) such death should have occurred within seven
        years of her marriage;
                                                                       8
             (3) she must have been subjected to cruelty or
        harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
        and
             (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
        connection with demand for dowry.                              C
        11. Alongside insertion of Section 304-8 in IPC, the
        legislature also introduced Section 113-B of the Evidence
        Act, which lays down when the question as to whether a
        person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it         0
        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 demand for dowry, the court shall
        presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
        12. Explanation appended to Section 113-8 lays down            E
that:
               "For the purpose of this section, 'dowry death' shall
               have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of
               Indian Penal Code."
                                                                       F
        13. If Section 304-B IPC is read together with Section 113-
        8 of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges
        that if a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances
        at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage
        and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon        G
        such married woman for or in connection with demand of
        dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case
        would squarely come under "dowry death" and there shall
        be a presumption against the husband and the relatives."
        14. Besides examining the ingredients of the provision, it     H
    300        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 7 S.C.R.

A   would also be necessary for us to examine the meaning and
    connotation of the expressions 'dowry death', 'soon before her
    death' and 'in connection with, any demand for dowry' as
    appearing in the said section. Amongst others, lapse of time
    between the date of marriage and the date of death is also a
B   relevant consideration for the Court while examining whether
    the essential ingredients of the provision are satisfied or not in
    a given case. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
    [(2010) 12 SCC 350], this Court explained these terms in some
    elucidation and the effect of the deeming fiction appearing in
c   the section, as follows:-
          "11. The appellant was charged with an offence under
          Section 304-8 of the Code. This penal section clearly
          spells out the basic ingredients as well as the matters
          which are required to be construed strictly and with
D         significance to the cases where death is caused by burns,
          bodily injury or the death occurring otherwise than under
          normal circumstances, in any manner, within seven years
          of a marriage. It is the first criteria which the prosecution
          must prove. Secondly, that "soon before her death" she
E         had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the
          husband or any of the relatives of the husband for, or in
          connection with, any demand for dowry then such a death
          shall be called "dowry death" and the husband or the
          relative, as the case may be, will be deemed to have
F         caused such a death. The Explanation to this section
          requires that the expression "dowry" shall have the same
          meaning as in Section 2 of the Act.
                12. The definition of "dowry" under Section 2 of the
          Act reads as under:
G
                 "2. Definition of dowry.-ln this Act, 'dowry' means
                 any property or valuable security given or agreed
                 to be given either directly or indirectly-
                 (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to
H
PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                  301
       [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
       the marriage; or                                        A
       (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or
       by any other person, to either party to the marriage
       or to any other person,
       at or before or any time after the marriage in          B
       connection with the marriage of the said parties, but
       does not include dower or mahr in the case of
       persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law
       (Shariat) applies.
            *             *               *                    c
       Explanation 11.-The expression 'valuable security'
       has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the
       Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
13. From the above definition it is clear that, "dowry" D
means any property or valuable security given or agreed
to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to
another, by parents of either party to each other or any
other person at, before, or at any time after the marriage
and in connection with the marriage of the said parties but    E
does not include dower or mahr under the Muslim Personal
Law. All the expressions used under this section are of a
very wide magnitude.
14. The expressions "or any time after marriage" and "in
connection with the marriage of the said parties" were         F
introduced by the amending Act 63 of 1984 and Act 43 of
1986 with effect from 2-10-1985 and 19-11-1986
respectively. These amendments appear to have been
made with the intention to cover all demands at the time,
before and even after the marriage so far they were in         G
connection with the marriage of the said parties. This
clearly shows the intent of the legislature that these
expressions are of wide meaning and scope. The
expression "in connection with the marriage" cannot be
given a restricted or a narrower meaning. The expression       H
    302        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         "in connection with the marriage" even in common parlance
          and on its plain language has to be understood generally.
          The object being that everything, which is offending at any
          time i.e. at, before or after the marriage, would be covered
          under this definition, but the demand of dowry has to be
B         "in connection with the marriage" and not so customary that
          it would not attract, on the face of it, the provisions of this
          section.
          15. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to certain
          examples showing what has and has not been treated l:)y
c         the courts as "dowry". This Court, in Ran Singh v. State
          of Haryana, (2008) 4 SCC 700 held that the payments
          which are customary payments, for example, given at the
          time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent
          in the society or families to the marriage, would not be
D         covered under the expression "dowry".
          16. Again, in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001 )8
          SCC 633 this Court held that the word "dowry" should be
          any property or valuable given or agreed to be given in
          connection with the marriage. The customary payments in
E         connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are not
          covered within the ambit of the word "dowry".
          17. This Court, in Madhu Sudan Malhotra v. Kishore
          Chand Bhandari, 1988 Supp. SCC 424 held that furnishing
F         of a list of ornaments and other household articles such
          as refrigerator, furniture and electrical appliances, etc. to
          the parents or guardians of the bride, at the time of
          settlement of the marriage, prima facie amounts to
          demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the
          Act. The definition of "dowry" is not restricted to agreement
G
          or demand for payment of dowry before and at the time of
          marriage but even include subsequent demands, was the
          dictum of this Court in State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa,
          (2004)4 sec 470.
H         18. The courts have also taken the view that where the
PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                   303
       [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
husband had demanded a specific sum from his father-           A
in-law and upon not being given, harassed and tortured the
wife and after some days she died, such cases would
clearly fall within the definition of "dowry" under the Act.
Section 4 of the Act is the penal section and demanding
a "dowry", as defined under Section 2 of the Act, is           B
punishable under this section. As already noticed, we need
not deliberate on this aspect, as the accused before us
has neither been charged nor punished for that offence.
We have examined the provisions of Section 2 of the Act
in a very limited sphere to deal with the contentions raised   C
in regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section
304-B of the Code.
19. We have already referred to the provisions of Section
304-B of the Code and the most significant expression
used in the section is "soon before her death". In our view,   D
the expression "soon before her death" cannot be given
a restricted or a narrower meaning. They must be
understood in their plain language and with reference to
their meaning in common parlance. These are the
provisions relating to human behaviour and, therefore,         E
cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would
defeat the very purpose of the provisions of the Act. Of
course, these are penal provisions and must receive strict
construction. But, even the rule of strict construction
requires that the provisions have to be read in conjunction    F
with other relevant provisions and scheme of the Act.
Further, the interpretation given should be one which would
avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the
object and cause of the law so enacted on the other.
20. We are of the considered view that the concept of          G
reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for
appreciation and examination of such cases. This Court
in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155
held that the legislative object in providing such a radius
of time by employing the words "soon before her death"         H
    304        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A         is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all
          probabilities, has been the aftermath of such cruelty or
          harassment. In other words, there should be a reasonable,
          if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry-
          related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her.
B         21. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Yashoda
          v. State of M.P, (2004)3 SCC 98 where this Court stated
          that determination of the period would depend on the facts
          and circumstances of a given case. However, the
          expression would normally imply that there has to be
c         reasonable time gap between t he cruelty inflicted and the
          death in question. If this is so, the legislature in its wisdom
          would have specified any period which would attract the
          provisions of this section. However, there must be
          existence of proximate link between the acts of cruelty
D         along with the demand of dowry and the death of the victim.
          For want of any specific period, the concept of reasonable
          period would be applicable. Thus, the cruelty, harassment
          and demand of dowry should not be so ancient, whereafter,
          the couple and the family members have lived happily and
E         that it would result in abuse of the said protection. Such
          demand or harassment may not strictly and squarely fall
          within the scope of these provisions unless definite
          evidence was led to show to the contrary. These matters,
          of course, will have to be examined on the facts and
F         circumstances of a given case.
          22. The cruelty and harassment by the husband or any
          relative could be directly relatable to or in connection with,
          any demand for dowry. The expression "demand for dowry"
          will have to be construed ejusdem generis to the word
G         immediately preceding this expression. Similarly, "in
          connection with the marriage" is an expression which has
          to be given a wider connotation. It is of some significance
          that these expressions should be given appropriate
          meaning to avoid undue harassment or advantage to
H         either of the parties. These are penal provisions but
     PATHAN HUSSAIN BASHA v. STATE OF A.P.                     305
            [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    ultimately these are the social legislations, intended to         A
    control offences relating to the society as a whole. Dowry
    is something which existed in our country for a
    considerable time and the legislature in its wisdom
    considered it appropriate to enact the law relating to dowry
    prohibition so as to ensure that any party to the marriage        B
    is not harassed or treated with cruelty for satisfaction of
    demands in consideration and for subsistence of the
    marriage.
    23. The Court cannot ignore one of the cardinal principles
    of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law        C
    is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution
    of India as well as has a presumption of innocence in his
    favour. In other words, the rule of law requires a person to
    be innocent till proved guilty. The concept of deeming
    fiction is hardly applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In    D
    contradistinction to this aspect, the legislature has applied
    the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section
    304-B. Where other ingredients of Section 304-B are
    satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives shall be
    deemed to have caused her death. In other words, the              E
    offence shall be deemed to have been committed by fiction
    of law. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard
    to the basic ingredients of Section 304-B, the Court will
    presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the
    relatives complained of, has caused her death. Such a             F
    presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view
    the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the
    substantive charge under Section 304-B of the Code.
     15. Applying these principles to the facts of the present
case, it is clear that the ingredients of Section 304B read with      G
Section 498A IPC are completely satisfied in the present case.
By a deeming fiction in law, the onus shifts on to the accused
to prove as to how the deceased died. It is for the accused to
show that the death of the deceased did not result from any
cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons. The                H
    306      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A accused did not care to explain as to how the death of his wife
  occurred. Denial cannot be treated to be the discharge of onus.
  Onus has to be discharged by leading proper and cogent
  evidence. It was expected of the accused to explain as to how
  and why his wife died, as well as his conduct immediately prior
B and subsequent to the death of the deceased. Maintaining
  silence cannot be equated to discharg~of onus by the accused.
  In the present case, the prosecution by reliable and cogent
  evidence has established the guilt of the accused. There being
  no rebuttal thereto, there is no occasion to interfere in the
C judgments of the courts under appeal.
       16. The High Court acquitted Pathan Khadar Basha, the
  father-in-law of the deceased, as there was no direct evidence
  against him. His acquittal has not been challenged by the State
  oefore us, thus, we are not called upon to discuss this aspect
D of the matter.
         17. Accused Pathan Hussain Basha and Pathan Nazeer
    Abi have rightly been found guilty of the offence by the courts.
    While we see no reason to differ with the concurrent findings
    recorded by the trial court and the High Court, we do see some
E   substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellants
    that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, the attendant
    circumstances, the age of the accused and the fact that they
    have already being in jail for a considerable period, the Court
    may take lenient view as far as the quantum of sentence is
F   concerned. The offences having been proved against the
    accused and keeping in view the attendant circumstances, we
    are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if
    the punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced.

G       18. Consequently, we award ten years Rigorous
    Imprisonment to the appellants. The appeals are partially
    accepted to the extent afore-indicated.

    8.8.8.                                 Appeals partly allowed.