ROHTASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                          [2012] 6 S.C.R. 62


A                             ROHTASH
                                   V.
                        STATE OF HARYANA
                  (Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2010)
                            MAY 22, 2012
B
          [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 498A - Dowry death -
    Prosecution case that the victim-deceased committed suicide
C   by taking pills/poison as she was harassed by appellant-
    h usband and in-laws - Trial court found material
    inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
    and acquitted all the accused of all the charges - High court
    upheld acquittal of in-laws, however, reversed order of
o   acquittal of husband - On appeal, held : The version given
    by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry by
    the appellant did not find.mention in the statement uls.161
    Cr.P. C. of either of the witnesses - FSL report did not support
    the case of the prosecution, rather leaned towards the defence
E   taken by the appellant - In such a fact-situation, defence taken
    by the appellant in his statement uls.313 Cr.P.C. plausible -
    Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the
    charges.

         Appeal: Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference
F   - Held: The appellate court can interfere with the order of the
    acquittal only in exceptional cases where there are
    compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is
    found to be perverse - The appellate court should bear in
    mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further
G   that acquittal by trial court bolsters the presumption of
    innocence - Interference in a routine manner where the other
    view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good
    reasons for interference.

H                                 62
         ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    63

    The prosecution case was that the daughter of PW.1 A
aged about 21 years committed suicide by taking poison
as she was harassed by her husband and accused in-
laws for bringing insufficient dowry. The case of defence
was that the deceased was suffering from fits as a result
of which she died. The trial court found material s
inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses and acquitted all the accused of all the
charges. The High Court held that there was no evidence
to show that the deceased died of fits or was suffering
from fits and there was sufficient evidence to show c
demand of dowry by the appellant from his father-in-law
and torture caused to the deceased on the ground of
inadequate dowry. The High Court convicted the
appellant under Section 304-8 IPC and imposed the
punishment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, further
                                                           0
under Section 498-A IPC imposed the punishment of six
months RI. In respect of other accused the order of
acquittal passed by the trial court was maintained. The
instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High
Court.
                                                             E
    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. PW.1-complainant deposed that her
daughter had complained against the ill-treatment given
to her by her husband, his parents and his elder brother; F
they even taunted her that she belonged to "Bhukha-
Nanga" family and that her father had not given adequate
dowry. The appellant also visited him and asked him to
give Rs. 10,000/- so that he could settle himself in some
business. Six months after the marriage, he gave G
Rs.10,000/- to the appellant after selling his house. Her in-
laws still continued to ill-treat her and raised a further
demand of Rs.5,000/- on the pretext that they wanted to
settle the elder brother of appellant in some business. On
the fateful day of incident, 'GC' and 'RK' of Village
                                                              H
    64      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A Mandora came to him and told that his daughter had
  consumed poisonous tablets and died. He was
  confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
  in respect of demand of Rs.10,000/- by appellant as no
  such fact was stated by him to the 1.0. Even .for the
B demand of Rs.5,000/- for the elder brother of the
  appellant, he was confronted with his statement under
  Section 161 Cr.P.C. as no such fact had been mentioned
  therein. He was also confronted with his statement under
  Section 161 Cr.P.C. as he had not stated before the 1.0.
c that he had been informed about the death of. his
  daughter by 'GC' and 'RK'. Regarding the sale of the
  house to PW.2 for fulfilling the demand of dowry, PW.1
  has admitted that land belonged to the Wakf Board and,
  therefore, he could not execute any registered sale-deed
  in respect of the same. PW.2 also deposed that he had
0
  p!Jrchase'd the house from PW.1, complainant, for Rs.
  12,000/-, however, no sale-deed could be executed in his
  favour as the land belonged to the Wakf Board. PW.3
  deposed that he had been told by PW.1 that he was
  under a great pressure to pay Rs.10,000/- to the appellant
E to buy peace for his daughter and he had given
  Rs.10,000/- to the appellant. He was confronted with his
  statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he did not tell
  the 1.0. about this transaction. PW.6, Investigating Officer,
  deposed that he went to the cremation ground and
F collected ashes and bones in presence of witnesses and
  sent it for chemical analysis. In his cross-examination, he
  has stated that no independent witness was ready to
  involve himself in the case becoming a prosecution
  witness as it was a family matter for the accused persons.
G So far as the statement of the appellant under Section 313
  Cr.P.C. was concerned, he replied that the facts and
  circumstances put to him were not correct. The said
  depositions would make it crystal clear that the version
  given by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of
H Rs.10,000/- by the appellant did not find mention in the
          ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                     65

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of either of the            A
witnesses. The facts regarding the sale of house by PW.1
to PW.2 also did not inspire confidence as the land
belonged to Wakf Board. More so, the demand of
Rs.5,000/- for establishment of a business of the
appellant's brother was made by the in-laws of the              B
deceased and not by the appellant, who had been
acquitted by both the courts below. [Paras 6-11] [70-D-
H; 71-A-G; 72-C-E]

     Appasaheb v. State of Maharasthra (2007) 1 SCC 721;
Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 427: 2011      C
(2) SCR 627 - relied on.
     ~




     2. There was ample evidence on record and it was
spe,Cifically mentioned by the prosecution witnesses,
parlicularly, PW.1, PW.3 and 1.0., (PW.6), that some            D
broken pieces of bangles had been collected by the 1.0.
frOJTI the place of occurrence and broken bones and
articles were collected from the cremation site and sent
for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory.
Unfortunately, none of the courts below took note of the        E
FSL report. The said reports did not support the case of
the prosecution, rather leaned towards the defence taken
by the appellant. [Para 14] [73-D-F; 74-A]

     3. The High Court interfered with the order of
acquittal recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering   F
with the judgment of acquittal is well-settled. It is to the
effect that only in exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is
found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere
with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should     G
bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the
accused and further that the trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a
routine manner where the other view is possible should
be avoided, unless there are good reasons for                   H
    66       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A interference. In instant case, there were major
  improvements/embellishments in the prosecution case
  and demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant did not find
  mention in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P . C. More
  so, even if such demand was there, it may not necessarily
B be a demand of dowry. Further, the chemical analysis
  report falsified the theory of suicide by deceased taking
  any pills. In such a fact-situation, the defence taken by
  the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
  could be plausible. The appellant is given the benefit of
c doubt and the impugned judgment of the High Court is
  set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charge:;.
  [Paras 15, 16] [74-8-H]

       State of Rajasthan v. Ta/evar & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2271:
  2011 (6) SCR 1050; Govindaraju@ Govinda v. State by
D Srirampuram Police Station & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 722 - relied
  on.
                        Case Law Reference:
         (2001) 1 sec 121        relied on            Para 12
E
         2011 (2) SCR 627        relied on            Para 13
         2011 (6) SCR 1050       relied on            Para 15
         (2012) 4 sec 122        relied on            Para 15
F
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 878 of 2010.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2007 of the
  High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chadigarh in Criminal
G Appeal No. 146 DB of 1994.
         K.K. Koul, Daya Krishan Sharma for the Appellant.

         Sanjiv, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

H        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                      67


      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been         A
filed against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2007 passed
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 146-DB of 1994, wherein the High Court
has reversed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court in
Session Case No. 44 of 1989 dated 3.8.1993, by which the            B
appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections
304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred as "IPC').

        2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are   C
that:

     A. On 4.7.1989 at 8.00 p.m., Jiwan (PW.1) made a
 statement (Ext.PC) before the police at Rohtak Chowk,
 Kharkohda to the effect that his daughter lndro, aged about 21
years, was married to appellant Rohtash about one year back         D
 and in the said marriage he had given sufficient dowry
according to his capacity. However, her husband and parents-
in-law were not satisfied with the dowry. They always made
taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry. His son-in-law made
various demands and the complainant had to give him a sum           E
of Rs.10,000/-. He had received information through Gopi
Chand and Ram Kishan that his daughter had died by
consuming poisonous tablets and her dead body had been
cremated in the morning. On the basis of the said statement,
FIR was recorded in P.S. Kharkhoda on 14.7.1989 at about            F
8.10 p.m. under Sections 304, 201 and 498-A of the IPC. S.I.
lnder Lal accompanied Jiwan, complainant (PW.1) to village
Mandora and went to the house of the accused persons. The
accused persons, namely, Smt. Brahmo Devi, Rajbir and
Dharampal were found present. He made the inquiries from            G
them and, thereafter, came back to the police station and added
the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The said accused as well
as the appellant were arrested. The 1.0. went to the cremation
ground and took into possession the ashes and bones in
presence of Jiwan (PW.1), complainant and other witnesses           H
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A and after putting them under sealed cover sent the same for
  FSL report. He lifted broken pieces of glass bangles and
  prepared a recovery memo in presence of the witnesses. He
  further recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161
  of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called
B Cr.P.C.). After completing the investigation, the 1.0. submitted
  the chargesheet and trial commenced for the offences under
  Section 304-8 and 498-A IPC.

       8. The prosecution in support of its case examined Jiwan
  (PW.1) complainant, Suresh (PW.2), Fateh Singh (PW.3), lnder
C Lal (PW.4) and other formal witnesses, however, gave up
  certain witnesses like Gopi Chand on the apprehension that he
  had been won over by the accused persons.

       C. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused made the
D statement that they had been falsely implicated in the case.
  Appellant was leading a happy married life and never ill-treated
  his wife for not bringing enough dowry. Deceased was suffering
  from fits, as a result of which she died. Accused persons had
  informed her parents through Rajbir accused and cremation
E was done after arrival of Jiwan (PW.1) complainant and his
  other relatives.

       D. After appreciating the evidence and considering the
  documents on record, the trial court reached the conclusion that
  there were material inconsistencies in the depositions of Jiwan
F (PW.1 ), complainant, Suresh (PW.2) and Fateh Singh (PW.3),
  particularly on the issue of demand of dowry as they could not
  exactly point out the amount of demand and payment. Suresh
  (PW.2), though deposed that he had purchased the house of
  the complainant for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, however, no document
G could be produced in respect of the same as land under the
  house belonged to Wakf Board. The prosecution case has
  been that the complainant has been forced to sell his house to
  meet the demand of dowry.

H        The trial court also drew adverse inference for withholding
          ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                        69
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

material witnesses, particularly, Gopi Chand who had informed      A
the complainant about the death of his daughter. The trial court
vide judgment and order dated 3.8.1993 acquitted all the
accused persons of all the charges.

      3. Aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 146-   B
DB of 1994 before the High Court. The High Court
reappreciated the entire evidence and came to conclusion that
there was nothing on record to show that Indra, deceased, died
of fits; no medical evidence had been produced to show that
she had been suffering from fits. There was sufficient evidence    C
on record to show demand of dowry by the appellant from his
father-in-law. The appellant had been making taunts and
caused torture to the deceased on the ground of inadequate
dowry. The demand by the appellant had been fully supported
by Suresh (PW.2) who purchased the house of the complainant
for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. Indra died within a period of one and    D
a half years of marriage. The High Court convicted the appellant
under Section 304-B IPC and imposed the punishment of 7
years rigorous imprisonment, further under Section 498-A IPC
imposed the punishment of six months RI. In respect of other
persons the order of acquittal passed by the trial court was       E
maintained.

     Hence, this appeal.

     4. Shri K.K. Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that there has been no demand of          F
dowry by the appellant. The High Court did not appreciate the
evidence in correct perspective. There had been material
contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
Suresh (PW.2) could not purchase the house of the complainant
as admittedly the land belonged to the Wakf Board and no           G
document had ever been produced in the court to show the
sale. Fateh Singh (PW.3) has no direct relationship with the
family. He has supported the prosecution case merely because
he belonged to the village of the complainant. Appellant had
furnished a satisfactory explanation while making his statement    H
    70       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus, the appeal deserves to be
    allowed.

       5. Per contra, Shri Sanjiv, learned counsel appearing for
  Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the State, has
  vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that the lndro,
8
  deceased, died within a short span of one and a half years of
  her marriage. No evidence has been produced by the appellant
  to show that she had been suffering from fits. There has been
  persistent demand of dowry as stood proved from the
  depositions of Jiwan (PW.1), Suresh (PW.2) and Fateh Singh
C (PW.3), thus, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

         6. We have considered the rival submission made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

0       It may be pertinent to make reference to the relevant part
  of the deposition of witnesses. Jiwan (PW.1 ), complainant,
  deposed that her daughter had complained against the ill-
  treatment given to her by her husband, his parents and his elder
  brother Rajbir; they even taunted her that she be!onged to
E "Bhukha-Nanga" family and that her father had not given
  adequate dowry. Rohtash accused also visited him and asked
  him to give Rs. 10,000/- so that he could settle himself in some
  business. Six months after the marriage, he gave Rs.10,000/-
  to Rohtash accused after selling his house. Her in-laws still
  continued to ill-treat her and raised a further demand of
F Rs.5,000/- on the pretext that they wanted to settle Rajbir, elder
  brother of Rohtash, in some business. On the fateful day of
  incident, Gopi Chand and Ram Kishan of Village Mandora
  came to him and told that his daughter lndro had consumed
  poisonous tablets and died.
G
        He was confronted with his statement under Section 161
  Cr.P.C. in respect of demand of Rs.10,000/- by appellant
  Rohtash as no such fact had been stated by him to the 1.0. Even
  for the demand of Rs.5,000/- for Rajbir, he was confronted with
H his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as no such fact had
          ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                           71
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
been mentioned therein.                                               A

     He was also confronted with his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. as he had not stated before the 1.0. that he had
been informed about the death of his daughter by Gopi Chand
and Ram Kishan. Regarding the sale of the house to Suresh
                                                                      B
(PW.2), he has admitted that land belonged to the Wakf Board
and, therefore, he could not execute any registered sale-deed
in respect of the same.

     7. Suresh (PW.2) deposed that he had purchased the
house from Jiwan (PW.1 ), complainant, for Rs. 12,000/-,              C
however, no sale-deed could be executed in his favour as the
land belonged to the Wakf Board.

      8. Fateh Singh (PW.3) deposed that he had been told by
Jiwan (PW.1) that he was under a great pressure to pay                0
Rs.10,000/- to the appellant to buy peace for his daughter and
he had given Rs.10,000/- to the appellant. He was confronted
with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has not
told the 1.0. about this transaction.

     9. S.I., lnder Lal (PW.6), Investigating Officer, deposed that   E
he went to the cremation ground and collected ashes and
bones in presence of witnesses and sent it for chemical
analysis. In his cross-examination he has stated that no
independent witness was ready to involve himself in the case
becoming a prosecution witness as it was a family matter for          F
the accused persons.

     10. So far as the statement of the appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, he replied that the facts and
circumstances put to him were not correct. In reply to Question       G
No. 10, he stated that his wife lndro did not commit suicide and
the allegation of suicide was concocted version. In reply to para
21, he stated as under:

     "The deceased Smt. lndro was leading a happy married
                                                                      H
    72       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A        life with me and we never ill-treated her, much less on
         account of any dowry. The deceased was suffering from
         fits as a result of which she had died. We had informed
         the parents of the deceased through Rajbir accused and
         after Jiwan P.W. and his other relations had come to our
B        village, we had cremated the dead body of the deceased
         in their presence in our village. There was no question of
         our demanding any dowry, much less ill-treating the
         deceased on that account because our financial position
         is very sound."
c       11. The aforesaid depositions make it crystal clear that the
  version given by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand
  of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant did not find mention in the
  statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of either of the witnesses.
  The facts regarding the sale of house by Jiwan (PW.1) to Suresh
D (PW.2) does not also inspire confidence as the land belonged
  to Wakf Board. More so, the demand of Rs.5,000/- for
  establishment of a business of Rajbir was made by the in-laws
  of the deceased lndro, and not by the appellant, who had been
  acquitted by both the courts below, therefore, that issue cannot
E be considered by us.

         Only question remains for our consideration is as to
    whether there was a dowry demand by the appellant and for
    that purpose the deceased lndro had been ill-treated to the
F   extent that she had to take a drastic step of committing suicide.

         12. This Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharasthra,
    (2007) 1 sec 721, while dealing with the similar issue and
    definition of the word 'dowry' held as under:

G        "A demand for money on account of some financial
         stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses
         or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand
         for dowry as the said word is normally understood."

         13. The aforesaid judgment was reconsidered by this
H
          . ROHTASH v. STATE OF HARYANA                       73
                [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Court in Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC          A
427, wherein this Court held that the aforesaid judgment does
not lay down a law of universal application. Each case has to
be decided on its own facts and merit. If a demand for property
or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has nexus with
marriage, such demand would constitute demand for dowry.            B
The cause of raising of such demand rema·ins immaterial.

     14. In view of above, we have to examine as to whether
the demand by the appellant for establishment of his tailoring
business could be held to be a demand for dowry and further
whether for that demand, the ill-treatment given by the appellant   C
to his wife was so grave that she had been driven to the extent
that she has to commit suicide.

     The prosecution case has been that lndro, deceased,
committed suicide by taking pills/poison. There is ample            D
evidence on record and it has specifically been mentioned by
the prosecution witnesses, particularly, Jiwan (PW.1 ), Fateh
Singh (PW.3) and S.I., lnder Lal, 1.0., (PW.6), that some broken
pieces of bangles had been collected by the 1.0. from the place
of occurrence and broken bones and articles were collected          E
from the cremation site and sent for chemical analysis to
Forensic Science Laboratory. Unfortunately, none of the courts
below has taken note of the FSL report though the documents
had been marked as Ext.PH and Ext. PH1. The first document
is report No. FSL(H) dated 29.5.1990 by the Forensic Science        F
Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Kamal, wherein the result of
examination of bones and ashes is as under:

    Ext.1 - some burnt bones alongwith ash (Approximately 1
    Kg.)
                                                                    G
    Result of the examination - no common metallic poison
    could be detected in Ext. 1.

    Ext. PH1dated16.8.1989 revealed that the fragments of
    bones in Ext. PH1 were identified that they belonged to         H
    74       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A        human individual.

         The aforesaid reports do not support the case of the
         prosecution, rather leans towards the defence taken by the
         appellant.
B      15. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal
  recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the
  judgment of acquittal is well-settled. It is to the effect that only
  in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances
  and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the
C appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The
  appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of
  innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's
  acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in
  a routine manner where the other view is possible should be
D avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide:
  State of Rajasthan v. Talevar & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2271; and
  Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police
  Station & Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 722).

E      16. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that
  in the instant case there had been major improvements/
  embellishments in the prosecution case and demand of
  Rs.10,000/- by the appellant does not find mention in the
  statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. More so, even if such
  demand was there, it may not necessarily be a demand of
F dowry. Further, the chemical analysis report falsifies the theory
  of suicide by deceased taking any pills. In such a fact-situation,
  the defence taken by the appellant in his statement under
  Section 313 Cr.P.C. could be plausible.

G       Thus, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is
    given the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of the
    High Court dated 11.1.2007 is set aside. The appellant is
    acquitted of all the charges.

H D.G.                                              Appeal allowed.