RAKESH CHAND & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        (2010] 9 S.C.R. 894


A                    RAKESH CHAND & ANR.
                                  v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2008 )

                         AUGUST 11, 2010
B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                        PRASAD, JJ.]
        Penal Code, 1860:
         ss. 304-B and 201 - Dowry death - Conviction of
C   husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased by trial
    court affirmed by High Court - HELD: The mother-in-law and
    the father-in-law had no role in the demand made by the
    husband soon before the death - Nor is there any evidence
    making out a case against them uls 201 - They are, therefore,
D   acquitted.
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 282 of 2008.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2007 of the High
    Court Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
E   595 DB of 2005.
         Rajeev Dutta, Ajay Veer Singh, Anisha Jain, Nitin Jain,
    Uday Ram, Mohd. lrshad Hanif for the Appellant.
         Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.
         The following order of the Court was delivered
F                               ORDER
         The facts are as under:
         Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar were married on 4th
    December 1998 and as per the prosecution story sufficient
    dowry had been given to the accused at the time of the
G   marriage. They were however dissatisfied with what had been
    given to them and in July 2000, a demand was made for
    Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of buying a motor cycle or scooter.
    As this demand was not satisfied Neelam Kumari was turned
    out up her matrimonial home although she was in an advanced
H                                 894
      RAKESH CHAND & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  895

         I
    stage of pregnancy. A motor cycle was thereafter purchased A
    for Anil Kumar. It is further the prosecution story that on 22nd
    April, 2003 Neelam Kumari and Anil Kumar visited Rajni Bala
    (PW.16), sister of Neelam Kumari, also a resident of village
    Ladda Kothi, where Neelam Kumari told her sister that her
-
,   husband was now demanding Rs.50,000/- in order to construct B
    a room in the D house and was misbehaving with her as this
    amount was not being provided by her parents. As per the
    prosecution story Neelam Kumari's dead body was spotted on
    the embankment of a seepage drain .in the area of Barnala by
    one Komal Singh on 25th April, 2003. A FIR was duly registered c
    and after investigation a charge sheet was filed and a charge
     under Sections 302/34 and 201 and in the alternative 304-B/
     34 & 201 of the IPC was framed against Anil Kumar and his
     parents, the appellants herein.
          The Trial Court relying on the evidence of Chunni Lal D
     (PW.15), the father of the deceased, her mother Sudesh
     Kumari (PW.1) the complainant and Rajni Bala,. (PW.16)
     convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under
     Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC but acquitted them of the
     offence of murder and they were sentenced accordingly.            E
           An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High
     Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. A special leave
     petition was filed by the three a....:used but leave was granted
     qua the appellants only. We have accordingly heard this appeal
     today assisted by the learned counsel for the parties.            F
           Mr. Rajeev Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the
     appellants, has pointed out that one of the essential ingredients
     of the offence under Section 304-B was that the demand for
     dowry had to be made soon before the death of the deceased.
     He has referred us to the evidence of Chunni Lal, Rajni Bala
     and Sudesh Kumari and pointed out that there were two sets G
     of demands allegedly made by the accused; the first one in the
     year 2000 being a demand for Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of
     buying a motor cycle and there appeared no demand thereafter
     by the appellants as the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been
     made by Anil Kumar alone shortly before the death of Neelam H
    896     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 9 S.C.R.


A  Kumari and the appellants thus had no roll to play on this score.
   We find merit in this submission. In their examinations-in-chief,
   PW.1- Sudesh Kumari and PW.16-Rajni Bala have deposed
   that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had also been made by
   Rakesh Chand and Pushpa Devi. They were however
B confronted with their statements under Section 161 of the
   Cr.P.C. wherein no such details had been spelt out and the
   demand for Rs.50,000/- had been confined only to Anil Kumar.
   Likewise we have gone through the statement of Chunni Lal.
   Even in his examination-in-chief he very categorically stated
c  that the demand for Rs.50,000/- had been made only by Anil
   Kumar and not by the two appellants. In the light of the fact that
   the only demand that could be foisted on the two appellant was
   of the year 2000, it could not be said that the appellants had
    made any demand soon before the death of the deceased so
D as to be liable for conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC.
          Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the learned State counsel has however
    very vehemently argued that even if there was no evidence with
    respect to the offence under Section 304-8 there was ample
    evidence to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the
E offence under Sec.201 of the IPC. In this connection he has
    referred us to the statement of PW.6 Dildar Khan who deposed
    that sometime before the 10th May 2003 he had seen Anil
    Kumar carrying something in a gunny bag on his motor cycle.
    This story is, in the facts, unacceptable. The incident happened
    on 24th April 2003 and Dildar Khan's vague statement that he
F had seen something amiss before 10th of May, 2003, is an
    absurdity and cannot be accepted. We accordingly feel that the
    conviction of the appellants was not justified on the evidence.
     We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the
     Trial Court and the High Court vis.a-vis. the two appellants
 G herein and order their acquittal.
          In the meantime, we direct that the appellant- Rakesh
     Chand, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not
     required in connection with any other case. As regards Pushpa
     Devi, her bail bonds shall stand discharged.
 H R.P.                                              Appeal allowed.