RAJINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                    [2015] 1 S.C.R. 689

                    RAJINDER KUMAR                              A
                            v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA
            (Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2011)
                    JANUARY 14, 2015
                                                                B
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
               N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860: s. 304-B - Dowry death - Brothers of
the deceased-woman deposed that the deceased was                C
harassed on account of dowry - All the ingredients of s. 304-
B were proved - Conviction uls. 304-B, therefore, upheld.

     Crime against woman: Dowry demand - Demand of
dowry is made within the four corners of the house -            0
Statement of family members of the deceased-woman cannot
be discarded on the ground that they are relatives and are
interested witnesses, till a contradiction is shown in their
deposition or cross examination - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304-
B.
                                                                E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. In normal circumstances, in the Indian
Society demand for dowry or harassment for the same
takes place within four corners of the house. Even the          F
parents or relatives of the girl will not be aware of these,
unless they are informed either by the girl herself or
demand is made directly to them. The Police Officials or
others cannot depose anything about the harassment in
connection with demand of dowry in the absence of any           G
complaint or statement made by witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Seldom, the villagers-neighbours may come to know of
the same. In this background, statement of family
members of the deceased-lady cannot be discarded on
                            689                                 H
    690      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A the ground that they are relatives and are interested
  witnesses, till a contradiction is shown in their deposition
  or cross-examination. [Para 6] [694-D-F]

       2. PW-13 has corroborated the statement made by
  the complainant-PW-7. No inconsistency is found in their
8
  statements. Defence also could not make out anything to
  disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From
  the statements of the complainant-PW-7 and PW-13, the
  deceased had been harassed on account of demand of
C dowry soon before her death. [Para 8] [695-E-F]

      3. In the instant case, the death of the deceased
  occurred within seven years of her marriage. Her death
  was not under normal circumstances. Statements of the
  complainant-PW-7 and PW-13 were specific about the
D harassment of the deceased by the accused in
  connection with the demand of dowry. It was also evident
  from the evidence on record that she was meted out with
  such harassment soon before her death. The
  prosecution was successful in proving the ingredients of
E Section 304-8 IPC. The trial court rightly presumed that
  the accused has caused the dowry death of the victim
  and the High Court rightly upheld the conviction and
  sentence. [Paras 12 and 13] [699-D-G]

         Kaliaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 157:
F    2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of
    NCT}, Delhi (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 -
    relied on.
                        Case Law Reference:
G
          2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1   Relied on         Para 9
          2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 Relied on         Para 9
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 799 of 2011.
    RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                      691


    From the Judgment & Or~rdated 01.09.2010 of the High            A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
238-SB of 2002.

    D.P. Singh, Sonam Gupta, Rajkiran Vats, Vallari
Bhardwaj, Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.
                                                                    B
    Manjit Singh, AAG, Nupur Choudhary, Vevekta Singh,
Akshay Vasishtha, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal                 C
is directed against the judgment dated 1st September, 2010
passed by the High Court of Punjab & f.+aryana, Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No.238-SB of 2002 alongwith another case.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and affirmed the          D
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court u/s
304B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

     2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court
is as follows:                                                      E

      Raj Rani, youngest sister of complainant Ganpat Rai was
married with accused Rajinder Kumar on 10th May, 1996 as
per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the complainant had
given handsome dowry and spent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-.
When Raj Rani went to her in-laws second time, her husband-         F
Rajinder, mother-in-law Darshna Devi, sisters-in-law Murti and
Chirya and brother-in-law Binder started taunting and harassing
her. On getting information, complainant Ganpat Rai alongwith
his brothers Ghansham and Hari Chand came to village
Dharsul and advised the accused not to harass Raj Rani. On          G
this, accused persons stated that they will behave in this very
manner and if they want to take away Raj Rani, they should get
divorce. After that also, they continued to harass Raj Rani in
the same manner. Again complainant Ganpat Rai along with
                                                                    H
    692       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   Balak Ram went to the in-laws of Raj Rani and on 21st October,
    1996 on the festival of Dushera Raj Rani was brought to
    complainant's house. At that time, accused-Rajinder and his
    family members asked Raj Rani that she should bring
    Rs.20,000/- while coming back, otherwise it will not be good.
B   On 28th October, 1996 Chanan Ram uncle of Rajinder and
    Binder came to village Chatha Nanhera at the house of the
    complainant along with customary gifts on the festival of Karwa
    Chauth. He stayed there for two days. On 30th October, 1996
    i.e. one day before the occurrence, Raj Rani was brought back
C   to her matrimonial house at Dharsul. Hari Chand brother of the
    complainant and Gurmel Singh also came along with her. Raj
    Rani told Hari Chand that her husband and in-laws had
    demanded Rs.20,000/- and since the same has not been paid,
    they (accused) will kill her once Hari Chand and Gurme.I Singh
    leave the place On this Hari Chand assured her that they
D   will come back after 2/3 days and pay the money and returned
    to the village of the complainant alongwith Gurmel Singh. On
    31st October, 1996 at about 6.00 AM, Tek Chand son of
    Krishan, resident of village Kulan came to the house of the
    complainant and told that Raj Rani has been murdered on the
E   night intervening 30/31 st October, 1996 by Rajinder, Binder her
    mother-in-law Darshna and sisters-in-law Murti and Chirya on
    account of bringing less dowry. On this information,
    complainant, his brother Hari Chand and Sukhpal Bansal
    reached village Dharsul Kalan and saw the dead body of Raj
F   Rani was lying on a cot in Chubara.

       On the statement of complainant Ganpat Rai FIR (Ex.PAI
  1) was registered and investigation was started by Chander
  Singh, Sub Inspector. Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) conducted the
G post mortem. After receiving report of the Chemical Examiner
  the cause of death was shown to be poisoning due to
  consumption of aluminium phosphide.

        The appellant was charge-sheeted alongwith his mother
    and sisters for the offence u/s 498A and 304B IPC to which
H
     RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                      693
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution           A
produced 14 witnesses including Ganpat Rai (PW-7)
complainant and Harichand (PW-13). Other witnesses are
lshwar Singh-ASl(PW-1 ), Mahipal-Constable (PW-2), Girish
Kumar-Draftsman(PW-3), Wazir Singh-Sl(PW-4), Jai Prakash-
Constable(PW-5), Dr. P.L. Verma- Medical Officer(PW-6), PW-          B
8 to 9 and 11-Constables; Rajender Kumar-Photographer(PW-
10), Jai Chand Shastri who performed marriage ceremonies
of deceased with accused-appellant (PW-12) and Chander
Singh-Sl(PW-14). On behalf of the defence three witnesses i.e.
 Dr. Jasbeer Singh-(DW-1 ), Santosh-(DW-2) and Chajju Ram-           c
(DW-3) were produced.

     The Trial Court by its judgment dated 22nd January, 2002
convicted the appellant u/s 498A and 3048 IPC and acquitted
other accused. For the offence u/s 3048 IPC the appellant was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years           D
and for the offence u/s 498A he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-. Both the sentences awarded were ordered to run
concurrently.
                                                                     E
     3. On appeal the High Court by impugned judgment partly
allowed the same and the conviction and sentence of the
appellant u/s 498A IPC was set aside while upholding
conviction and sentence u/s 3048 IPC.
                                                                     F
     4. The main argument of the appellant is that the death of
deceased-Raj Rani is a natural death and that the entire
evidence on record believes the version of death by Aluminium
Phosphide (AIP) Poisoning. To support his case it was pointed
out that Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) who conducted post mortem
stated in his testimony that if the report of the Forensic Science   G
Laboratory regarding the presence of poison would have been
negative then the Board would have concluded it to be a case
of natural death. It was submitted that in normal circumstances
in a dead body there is always a possibility of presence of
poisonous substance like aluminium phosphide and therefore           H
    694      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   no definite conclusion can be derived at that the deceased-Raj
    Rani died as a result of poisoning due to consumption of
    aluminium phosphide.

       5. Further, according to the learned counsel for the
  appellant-accused, evidence of Gan pat Rai (PW- 7),
8
  complainant and Harichand (PW-13) who were the brothers of
  the deceased are unreliable as they are interested witnesses.
  All other independent witnesses from village have deposed in
  favour of the appellant, stating that the deceased was never
  treated in cruel manner nor any demand of dowry was made.
C An application had also been written and signed by more than
  20 villagers stating about the innocence of the appellant and
  his family.

        6. In normal circumstances, in the Indian Society demand
D for dowry or harassment for the same takes place within four
  corners of the house. Even the parents or relatives of the girl
  will not be aware of these, unless they are informed either by
  the girl herself or demand is made directly to them. The Police
  Officials or others cannot depose anything about the
E harassment in connection with demand of dowry in the absence
  of any complaint or statement made by witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
  Seldom, the villagers-neighbours may come to know of the
  same. In this background, statement of family members of the
  deceased-lady cannot be discarded on the ground that they are
F relatives and are interested witnesses, till a contradiction is
  shown in their deposition or cross-examination.

       7. The complainant-Ganpat Rai(PW-7) brother of the
  deceased-Raj Rani stated that the accused harassed the
  deceased since her marriage and he always taunted her for
G bring less number of sarees and inadequate money. The
  accused also had demanded Rs.20,000/- from the deceased.
  On knowing this, complainant (PW-7) along with his brother
  went to the house of the appellant-accused and tried to
  persuade the appellant to stop harassing their sister. However,
H
     RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                  695
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
the appellant and his family members asked them to take away A
their sister with them. On 21st October, 1996, complainant (PW-
7) took Raj Rani to his house at Chattha Nanhera. On 28th
October, 1996, Chanan Ram, the elder brother of the father of
appellant-Rajinder came to the complainant's house with the
customary gifts of Karwa Choth for Raj Rani and stayed there B
for two days. On 30th October, 1996, Hari Chand (PW-13)
younger brother of the complainant (PW-7) and Gurmel Singh
 left Raj Rani in her matrimonial home. While Hari Chand(PW-
 13) and Gurmel Singh were leaving the house they were told
by Raj Rani that since they had not paid Rs.20,000/- to the     c
 accused, he would kill her. Hari Chand told Raj Rani that they
would make the payment within two or three days. On 31st
 October, 1996, the complainant (PW-7) received information
 ttiat his sister had died on previous night. When the complainant
 (PW-7) went to the house of the appellant, he found his sister D
 dead lying on the Chobara. There was froth coming out of the
 mouth of the deceased and a piece of brick was lying there.
 The police found some broken bangles lying near the death
 body. After leaving Hari Chand and Sukhpal Bansal near the
 dead body he reported the matter to the Police.
                                                                E
     8. Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement
made by the complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in
their statements. Defence also could not make out anything to
disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From the
statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-        F
13), we find that the deceased-Raj Rani had been harassed
on account of demand of dowry soon before her death.

     9. Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-6) has conducted the post mortem
on the dead body of deceased Raj Rani. He deposed that the G
eyes and mouth of the deceased were semi open. After
receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner, he stated that
the cause of death of deceased Raj Rani was a result of
poisoning due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. Dr. PL
Verma(PW-6) and the Chemical Examiner who are experts in
                                                              H
    696             SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   the field have not stated that the death was in the normal course
    or aluminium phosphide can be automatically generated in the
    dead body.
          I
        10. Section 304-B of IPC relates to dowry death. For the
B   purpose of the said Section, a presumption as to dowry death
    can be raised only on proof of the following essentials.

              (a)    the death of woman has been caused by burns or
                     bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than under
                     normal circumstances.
c
              (b}    The said death has occurred within seven years of
                     her marriage

              (c)        The woman was subjected to cruelty or
                     harassment by her husband or his relatives.
D
              (d)        Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in .
                     connection with, any demand for dowry and

              (e)    She was meted out with such cruelty or harassment
E                    soon before her death.

         In this connection, we may-refer to this Court decision in
    Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 157.

        11. In the case of Hira Lal & Others Vs. State (Govt. of
F   NCT}, Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court analyzed Section
    3048 IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and
    made the following observations:

          "8. Section 304-B /PC which deals with dowry death,
          reads as follows:
G
                "304-B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a
          woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
          otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
          years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
H         her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                 697
 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in A
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.

     Exp/anation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, 8
'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 than seven years but which may extend to C
imprisonment for life."

The provision has application when death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of o
her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in
connection with any demand for dowry. In order to attract
application of Section 304-B /PC, the essential E
ingredients are as follows:

      (i) The death of a woman should be caused by
burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance.
                                                           F
     (ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven
years of her marriage.

     (iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her G
husband.

     (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry.

      (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have      H
    698       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A         been meted out to the woman soon before hei death.

          Section 113-8 of the Evidence Act is also relevant fortpe
          case at hand. Both Section 304-8 /PC and Section 113- ·
          B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by ·
          Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a
B
          view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths.
          Section 113-B reads as follows:

                "113-8. Presumption as to dowry death. -When the
          question is whether a person has committed the dowry
c         death of a woman 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
          demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
          person had caused the dowry death.
D
               Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,
          'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section
          304-8 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
          The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been
E         amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its
          21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law
          Reform". Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-
          existing Jaw in securing evidence to prove dowry-related
          deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision
F         relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain
          essentials. It is in this background that presumptive
          Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As
          per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304-8 !PC
          and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-8 of the
G         Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst
          others, in both the provisions is that the woman
          concerned must have been "soon before her death"
          subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in connection
          with the demand of dowry". Presumption under Section
          113-8 is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials
H
     RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                    699
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to       A
    raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry
    death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of
    the following essentials:
       (1) The question before the court must be whether the
     accused has committed the dowry death of the woman.           B
     (This means that the presumption can be raised only if
     the accused is being tried for the offence under Section
     304-B /PC.)
       (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment        C
     by her husband or his relatives.
       (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection
     with any demand for dowry.
       (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
     death."                                                       D
     12. In the present case the death of Raj Rani occurred
within seven years of her marriage. It is not disputed that her
death is not under normal circumstances. Statements of the
compla.inant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13) are specific
                                                                   E
about the harassment of the deceased-Raj Rani by the accused
in connection with the demand of dowry. It is also evident from
the evidence on record that she was meted out with such
harassment socln before her death.
     13. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above,    F
we hold that the prosecution was successful in proving the
ingredients of Section 304-8 IPC. The Trial Court rightly
presumed that the accused has caused the dowry death of the
victim and the High Court rightly upheld the conviction and
sentence.                                                          G
     14. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken
into custody forthwith to serve remainder period of sentence.
Devika Gujral                                  Appeal dismissed.
                                                                   H