RAJINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                        [2013) 7 S.C.R. 370


A                        RAJINDER SINGH
                                  v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA
               (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2007 etc.)
                            JULY 3, 2013
B
             [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                     MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
         ss. 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with s.34 - Dowry death -
    Death of bride in matrimonial home - Cremation. hurried -
    Conviction of husband u/ss 304-B, 498-A and 201 and of other
    accused u/s 201134 - Held: Prosecution has proved that the
    death of the bride occurred otherwise than under normal
0
    circumstances - Statements of witnesses are trust-worthy and
    they stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment
    by her husband and other accused relatives in connection
    with demand for dowry just prior to her death - Further,
E   cremation was hurried without informing the parents of bride
    - Accused failed to explain about presence of pesticide in the
    vomiting of deceased -- Therefore, the trial court rightly drew
    an inference of the guilt of the accused-appellants - Evidence
    Act, 1872 - s.113-B read with s.106.

F      The appellants and two other persons were
  prosecuted for committing the offences punishable u/ss
  304-B; 498-A and 201 IPC with s/34 IPC. The prosecution
  case was that marriage of the appellant (in Crl. A. No: 14
  of 2007) with the daughter of PW-2 was solemnized on
G 22.4.1992; that on 11.12.1992, the appellant left his wife
  in her parents' house for one month, when she told that
  the accused persons had been harassing her for bringing
  less dowry and she was told to bring Rs.25,000/-; that on
  15.1.1993, when PW-3, the brother of the bride, was taking
H                                370
     RAJINOER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA              371


her to her in-laws house, PW-2 asked him to convey the A
accused persons that some money would be sent by
20.1.1993; that on 24.1.1993, PW-7 came to PW-2 and
informed him that his daughter had died on the previous
night and had been cremated in the morning of 24.1.1993.
PW-2 lodged a report with the police, who took B
possession of ashes and bones from crernation ground
and sent the same along with the clothes of the deceased
for chemical examination. As per the FSL report "Organ
Phosphorus Pesticide" was detected on the said clothes
and in the vomiting of the deceased. The trial court c
convicted the hm~band of the deceased u/s 304-8, 498-A
and 201 IPC and the other accused-appellants u/s 201/
34 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the
accused-appellants.
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court                      D

       HELD: 1.1 The ingredients necessary for application
  of s.304-B IPC and the applicability of s.113-B of the
  Evidence Act were culled out by this Court in Jaggu
  Ram's case. In the instant case, the prosecution proved E
  that the death of the bride occurred otherwise than under
  normal circumstances within a period of 9 months of her
  marriage i.e. much before seven years. The statements
  of PW-2 and PW-3 are trust-worthy and they stated that
  the deceased was subjected to harassment by her F
  husband and other accused relatives in connection with
  demand for dowry just prior to her death. The
· prosecution having established essential ingredients, it
  becomes the duty of the court to raise a presumption that
  the accused caused dowry death. [para 16-17] [379-D; G
  380-E-G]

     State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram (2008)12 SCC 51 -
relied on.

     1.2 Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve   H
    372      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2013] 7 S.C.R.


A   the burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused
    beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has
    succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable
    inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain
    other facts and the accused by virtue of special
B   knowledge regarding such facts fails to offer any
    explanation then the court can draw a different inference.
    [para 15] [379-B-C]

         1.3 In the instant case, the accused have failed to
    explain as to why they were in a hurry to cremate the
C   deceased in the early morning of 24.1.1993 while she died
    in the mid night of 23/24.1.1993 i.e. within few hours. The
    village of deceased's parents was not far from the village
    of the accused but the reason as to why they were not
    informed about the incident and why the accused did not
D   wait for them to come was not explained. The accused
    have also failed to explain the presence of the 'Organo
    Phosphorus Pesticide' in the vomiting of the deceased,
    as was noted in the F.S.L. Report. Therefore, the trial
    court rightly drew an inference of the guilt of the accused-
E   appellants. [para 18] [380-G-H; 381-A-B]
                         Case Law Reference:
          (2008) 12 sec 51        relied on           Para 16
F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISOICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 14 of 2007.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2005 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    No. 392-SB of 1995.
G
                                  WITH
    Crl. A. No. 15 of 2007.

          Kanwaljit Kochar, Kusum Chaudhary for the Appellant.
H
      RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    373


    Roopansh Purohit, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the                    A
Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These two
appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 9th         8
December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in two separate
Criminal Appeal Nos. 392-SB of 1995 and 151-SB of 1995,
whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeals
preferred by the accused and affirmed the conviction and           C
sentence awarded by the Additional Session Judge, Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri.

     2. The appellants were tried for offences under Sections
498-A , 304-B and 201/34 IPC and after hearing the parties         D
the learned Additional Session Judge, Jagadhri by its judgment
dated 22nd February, 1995 conv.icted the appellant Rajinder
Singh for the offences under Sections 498-A , 304-B and 201
IPC whereas other appellants, namely, Surinder Singh, Pritam
Singh, Gurvinder Singh were convicted for offences under           E
Section 201/341PC. Accused-Appellant Rajinder Singh was
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 498-A IPC, in
default of payment of fine, he had to undergo further RI for six
months; for offence under Section 304-B IPC he was sentenced
                                                                   F
to undergo RI for a period of seven years and for the offence
under Section 201 IPC, he was sentence to undergo RI for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of
payment of fine, he was to undergo further RI for a period of
six months. The other accused, namely, Surinder Singh, Pritam
Singh arid Gurvinder Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for        G
a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the
offence under Section 201/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine
they were to undergo RI for a period of six months. Accused,
Madan Lal had been acquitted by that judgment.
                                                                   H
    374       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A       During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court,
    appellant-Pritam Singh died and his case got abated. Thus the
    case was,confined to rest of the accused.

       3. The case of ·the prosecution against the accused-
B appellant- Rajinder Singh is that Santosh Kaur, daughter of
  Nahar Singh was married with the accused-appellant on 22nd
  April, 1992. Sufficient dowry articles were given. On 11th
  December, 1992, accused-appellant left his wife Santosh Kaur
  in her parents house for one month when Santosh Kaur told her
  father- Nahar Singh that her father-in-law; Pritam Singh,
C husband-Rajinder Singh, brother-in-laws; Gurvinder Singh and
  Surinder Singh and Madan Lal, brother-in-law of her husband
  has been harassing her for bringing less dowry. She also told
  that they were demanding Rs.25,000/- and asked her to bring
  that amount when she came back to her in-law's house on
D Lohri. Nahar Singh was not in a position to pay the amount
  demanded and assured his daughter that he might arrange
  some money when she would go back to her-in-law's house.
  On 15th January, 1993, when Sukhbir Singh, brother of
  Santosh Kaur, was taking her to her-in-law's house, his father-
E Nahar Singh told him to make the accused understand that
  some money would be sent by 2oth January, 1993 and that they
  should not harass her. He also informed this fact to Sucha
  Singh, Sarpanch of the village. Finally, r:noney could not be
  arranged by 2oth January, 1993. On 24th January, 1993, one
F Pritam Singh came to the house of Nahar Singh and informed
  him that his daughter-Santosh Kaur had died during the
  intervening night of 23rd/24th January, 1993 and she had 'also
  been cremated in the morning of 24th January, 1993. CJn 25th
  January, 1993, Nahar Singh, Sucha Singh, Sukhbir Singh and
G some other f~mily members went to Mamliwala to the house
  of the accused and after verifying the facts, lodged a report
  before Police Station, Chhachhrauli. A case was registered and
  accused were sent for trial.

          4. After trial, case was found to be proved against Rajinder
H
      RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                     375
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Singh for the offence under Sections 498-A,304-B and 201 IPC        A
and against Surinder Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh
for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC; hence they were
convicted for the same whereas Madan Lal was acquitted.

      5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no        B
demand of dowry and threat was ever made to the deceased
or her family members. In fact no complaint in this regard was
ever made by the complainant or the deceased or by anybody
else to the police. No letter was written by the deceased about
the demand of dowry or cash. Therefore, the impugned order          C
is liable to be set aside.                               ·

    6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that
the Court below failed to consider the fact that the cremation
was never done secretly. Cremation ceremony was attended
by persons very much close to the complainant family. The           D
deceased- Santosh Kaur never complained to anybody at
neighborhood about her-in-laws or about torture or harassment
or demand of dowry or cash by them. Therefore, the present
case was a false and concocted story made by the prosecution.
Further, according to him PW-2, Nahar Singh, father of the          E
deceased in his deposition stated that his daughter after
marriage never complained about the accused-appellant.

     7. Learned counsel for the prosecution per contra relied
upon the evidence and submitted that the ingredients necessary
for the application of Section 304-B IPC were established           F
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act arises and hence it
is proved that the accused-appellant caused the dowry death.

     8. The admitted position in the present case is that the       G
deceased was married with the accused-appellant on 22nd
April, 1992. She died in the night intervening by 23rd/24th
January, 1993. )"he cremation of the dead body was done in
the morning of 24th January, 1993 without waiting for the parents
of the deceased. Pritam Singh(PW-7) stated in his deposition        H
    376     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A that about about 12.00 noon, he was standing on the bus stand
    of Khizrabad and was talking with some people. Then he came
  . to know that Santosh Kaur, daughter-in-law of Pritam Singh
    had died and was cremated. Then he told this fact to Nahar
    Singh(PW-2), father of the deceased who stayed in the Village
B Kotian. On the next day, PW-2 alongwith Sucha Singh and other
    persons went to Village Mamliwala and verified the fact that
    Santosh Kaur had died and has also been cremated. The
    distance between the villages Mamliwala and Kotian was not
    so much and it was only about 17-18 ~ms. It was winter season;
c month of January but it has not been made clear why the
    accused~appellant cremated the body of the deceased in the
    early morning of 24th January, 1993 without even calling the
    parents of the deceased which shows that there was something
    which the accused-appellant wanted to conceal.

D         9. As per statement of Nahar Singh(PW-2), Sukhbir
    Singh(PW-3) who were the father and the brother of the
    deceased, accused-appellant Rajinder Singh left deceased in
    her parents' house for about one month in December, 1992.
    PW-2 stated that her daughter-Santosh Kaur told him that her
E   father-in-law; Pritam singh, husband, Rajinder Singh, brother-
    in-laws; Gurvinder Singh and Surinder Singh and Madan Lal,
    brother-in-law of her husband were harassing her for bringing
    less dowry. She also told that they were demanding Rs.
    25,000/- and told her to bring that amount when she came back
F   on Lohri. Nahar Singh(PW-2) was not in a position to meet the
    said demand at that stage. He assured his daughter that he
    would arrange some money and give her by the time she leaves
    back to her matrimonial house. On 15th January, 1993, his son
    Sukhbir Singh took Santosh Kaur to her-in-laws house. He told
G   him to make the accused understand that they would pay some
    money by 20th January, 1993 and they should not harass her.
    This fact was also informed to Sucha Singh, Sarpanch of the
    village. But the money could not be arranged by 20th January,
    1993 and after about 3-4 days, i.e. on 24th January, 1993,
H   Pritam Singh (PW-7) came to PW-2 and told about the death
      RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    377
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
of Santosh Kaur whose death took place during the intervening       A
night of 23rd/24th January, 1993.

     10. Sukhbir Singh (PW-3). brother of the deceased also
corroborated the statements made by his father Nahar
Singh(PW-2). He stated that the deceased told them that her
                                                                    8
husband Rajinder Singh, brother-in-laws; Gurvinder Singh and
Surinder Singh, father-in-law; Pritam Singh· and Madan Lal,
brother-in-law of her husband were harassing her for not
bringing sufficient dowry. He further told that they were
demanding Rs.25,000/-. PW-3 then told her sister that they
would pay the amount by 20th January, 1993. Then on 15th            C
January, 1993 he took her sister to the house of her-in-laws and
came back next day after telling his sister that the amount of
25,000 will be paid by 20th January, 1993. PW-3 further stated
that the accused were harassing his sister even prior to 11th
December, 1992. He also stated that on hearing about her            D
death, he alongwith his father, Pritam Singh (PW-7), Sucha
Singh, Sarpanch of the village, went to the village Mamliwala.
They found the accused weeping and it was found that the
dead body of his sister had already been cremated before they
reached there. Then his father reported the matter to the police.   E

      11. Pritam Singh(PW-7) stated that on 24th January, 1993
he came to Khizrabad to see his brother-in-law. At 12.00 noon
while standing on the bus stand of Khizrabad, he heard some
people talking that Pritam's Singh dauther-in-law Santosh Kaur      F
died and had been cremated. Therefore, he told this fact to
Nahar Sing(PW-2) at Kotian. Then on next day he came to the
village Mamliwala alongwith 1Ootl'ler persons where they came
to know that Santosh Kaur had been cremated. Then all of them
went to Police Station and lodged the report.
                                                                    G
     12. Nar Singh (PW-9). SHO, Police station Parakhpur,
stated that on 25th January, 1993 he was posted as Sl/SHO
of Police Station, Chhachhrauli. On that day, complainant (PW-
2) came to police station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P.B.). He
recorded statement, inspected ti1e spot and the place of            H
    378     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A occurrence and took into possession the clothes of the
  deceased vide memo(Ex.P.E.) which was stained with
  "vomiting and latrine". Clothes were sealed into a parcel with
  the seal of the 6-B.R., which was handed over to Sucha
  Singh(PW-4). Ex.P.E. was attested by Sucha Singh(PW-4) and
8 Sukhbir Singh(PW-3). Thereafter he went to the place of
  cremation and prepared the rough site plan of the cremation
  ground (Ex.P.M.). The ash and bones were taken into
  possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P.E.) which was also
  attested by PW-4 and PW-3. Statements of PW-3 and PVV-4
C were recorded (Ex.P.N.). He arrested the accused. The parcel
  of clothes and ash & bones were sent to forensic laboratory.

        No contradiction could be found during the cross
    examination of prosecution witnesses.

D      13. The accused in their examination under Section 313
  Cr.P.C. admitted the factum of marriage but denied the
  allegation relating to demand of dowry. In reply to question no.
  14, accused-Rajinder Singh stated that his wife Santosh Kaur
  died a natural death on account of heavy vomiting and loose
E motions. He also stated that they neither demanded any dowry
  nor pressurized her to bring Rs.25,000/- from her father and that
  they were falsely implicated in the case.

       14. Admittedly, Santosh Kaur died in the intervening night
  of 23rd/24th January, 1993 and she was cremated in the early
F morning of 24th January, 1993. The distance between Village
  Mamliwala and Kotian was not much and it was just 17-18kms.
  It was the month of January and winter sea$on, the necessity
  of the accused-appellant to cremate the dead body within few
  hours of'death in the early morning of 24th January, 1993
G without informing the parents of the Santosh Kaur has not been
  explained. The Police took into possession the ash and bones
  from the cremation ground and clothes of the deceased and
  sent the same to the Deputy Director-cum-Assistant Chemical
  Examiner to the Government of Haryana, F.S. L. Madhuban. As
H per report an "Organo Phosphorus Pesticide" was detected on
      RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                   379
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
the salwar stained with dirty brown material, one printed lady's   A
shirt stained with dirty brown material and one green coloured
woolen shawl of the deceased. As per report of F.S.L. (Ex
P.L.1 ), the bones .were found of the human being. Therefore, it
is clear that Santosh Kaur died other than under normal
circumstances. The accused-appellants have also failed to          B
explain the presence of an "Organo Phosphorus Pesticide" in
the vomiting of the deceased.

     15. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the
burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond C
reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to
prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused
by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts fail to offer
any explanation then the Court can draw a different inference.
                                                                   D
     16. The ingredients necessary for application of Section
304-B I PC and the applicability of Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act was discussed by this Court in State of Rajasthan
v. Jaggu Ram, (2008)12 SCC 51. In the said case, this Court
held as follows:                                                   E

     "11.The ingredients necessary for the application of
     Section 304-B IPC are:

    1. that the death of a woman has been caused by burns
    or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal         F
    circumstances;

    2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within
    seven years of her marriage; and
                                                                   G
    3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected
    to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
    her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.

    12. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if
    soon before her death a woman is subjected to cruelty or       H
    380      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         harassment for, or in connection with any demand for
          dowry by the person who is accused of causing her death
          then the court shall presume that such person has caused
          the dowry death. The presumption under Section 113-8 is
          a presumption of law and once the prosecution establishes
B         the essential ingredients mentioned therein it becomes the
          duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused
          caused the dowry death.

          13. A conjoint reading of Section 304-8 IPC and Section
          113-B, Evidence Act shows that in order to prove the
c         charge of dowry death, prosecution has to establish that
          the victim died within 7 years of marriage and she was
          subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death
          and such cruelty or harassment was for dowry. The
          expression "soon before her death" has not been defined
D         in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case the court
          has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the
          death of the victim and decide whether there is any
          proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the
          act of cruelty or harassment and the death."
E
         17. In the present case, the prosecution proved that the
    death of Santosh Kaur has occurred otherwise than under
    normal circumstances. Such death has occurred within a period
    of 9 months of her marriage i.e. much before seven years. The
F   statements of PW-2 and PW-3 are trust-worthy and thP.y stated
    that Santosh Kaur was subjected to harassment by her
    husband and other accused relatives in connection with
    demand for dowry just prior to death. The prosecution having
    established essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the
G   Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused dowry
    death.

         18. In the present case, the accused has failed to explain
    as to why he was in a hurry to cremate the deceased in the
    early morning of 24th January, 1993 while she died in the mid
H   night of 23rd/24th January, 1993 i.e. within few hours. The
       RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                  381
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
village of deceased's parents was just 17-1 Skms far from the      A
village of the accused but the reason as to why they were not
informed about the incident on the same day and why the
accused had not waited for them to come is not explained. The
accused has also failed to explain as to why according to the
F.S.L. Report, an Organo Phosphorus Pesticide was found in         B
the vomiting of the deceased. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly
drew an inference that the accused-appellants were guilty of the
offence for which they were charge.

     19. Hence, we find no merit in these appeals. These are
accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are           C
cancelled. They shall surrender within a period of two weeks
to undergo the remaining sentence.

R.P.                                      Appeals dismissed.
                                                                   D