SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

                   [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1137


           SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.                        A
                              V.
                      STATE OF U.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2005)

                    OCTOBER 28, 2010
                                                                 B
 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

    PENAL CODE, 1860:

     ss. 304-B and 498-A /PC and s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition       c
Act - Dowry death - Circumstantial evidence - Bride died of
strangulation and burn injuries in her matrimonial home -
Husband and mother-in-law of deceased charged with the
offences - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court
- Held: Trial judge recorded acquittal adopting a superfluous    0
approach without in-depth analysis of the evidence and
circumstances established on record - He proceeded on
wrong premise and irrelevant considerations -The ingredients
of s. 304-B have been established - The presumption uls
113-B of Evidence Act is attracted and the accused could not     E
displace the same - The prosecution has established that the
accused committed the offences - Findings of High Court
upheld - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s. 4 - Evidence -
Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-B.

    s. 304-B - Ingredients - Explained - Expression 'soon.       F
before her death' - Connotation of - Proximity Test.

    Administration of criminatl justice - Framing of
appropriate charge -Dowry death - Bride strangulated and
burnt to death by her husband and mother-in-law as their         G
demand for dowry was not fulfilled - Held: It was a case u/s
302 but no charge under that section was framed - Such
cases of bride burning fall in the category of rarest of rare
cases and, therefore, deserve death sentence - However,
                            1137                                 H
    1138     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A conviction and sentence ulss 304-8 and 498-A upheld - Penal
  Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Code of Crim1nal
  Procedure, 1973 - Sentence/Sentencing.

        Words and Phrases:
B       Expressions 'soon before her death' as occurring in s.304-
    8 !PC; and 'rarest of rare cases' in the context of dowry deaths
    - Connotation of

        A bride, aged about 24 years, died of strangulation
c and burn injuries in her matrimonial home, within three
  years of her marriage. The father of the deceased stated
  in the FIR that dowry was being demanded from him and
  it was insisted that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. The
  trial court acquitted the accused, namely, the husband
0 and  the mother-in-law of the deceased, but the High Court
  convicted them u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC and s.4 of the
  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the accused filed
  the appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
       HELD: 1.1 As has been held by the Apex Court in the
  case of Kunhiabdulla*, in order to attract application of
  s.3048 IPC, the essential ingredients are : (1) The death
  of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury
F or otherwise than in normal circumstances; (2) such a
  death should have occurred within seven years of her
  marriage; (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
  harassment by her husband or any relative of her
  husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for
G or in connection with demand of dowry; (5) Such cruelty
  or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman
  soon before her death. [para 16] [1149-E-H; 1150-A]

        *l<.unhiabdul/a Versus State of Kera/a 2004 (2 ) SCR 853
    = 2004 (4) sec 13 - referred to.
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1139
                   U.P.
     1.2 As generally happens in a crime of dowry death,        A
this case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As
regards ingredients No. 1 and 2, it is an admitted fact that
the deceased, as indicated in the post mortem report, died
otherwise than in normal circumstances, and that the
death had occurred within seven years of her marriage           B
in her 'Sasural' in her bedroom. [para 17] [1150-8-C]

      1.3 As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant
testimony is contained in the statements of the deceasd's
father PW 1 and PW 2 (son-in law of PW-1 ). Their
testimony is quite credible regarding the illegal demand        C
of a Maruti Car in dowry by the two accused, namely, the
husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, since
after six months of the marriage and that they subjected
her to harassment, maltreatment and humiliation on non-
fulfilment of the said demand. It goes without saying that      D
cruelty or harassment may not only be physical but also
mental. [para 18 and 20] [1150-E; 1152-A-C]

     1.4 As has been held by this Court in Kunhiabdul/ah,
'soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon       E
the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket
formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a
period of 'soon before the occurrence'. It would be
hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in
the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of        F
an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
presumption u/s 113-8 of the Evidence Act. The instant
case fully answers the test of 'soon before'. There is the
testimony of demand of Maruti Car being pressed by the
two accused persons after about six months of the
marriage of the deceased (which took place about three          G
years before the incident) and of her being pestered,
nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of the
said demand which was conveyed by her to her parents
from time to time on her visits to her parental home and
                                                                H
    1140   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A on telephone. Things had reached to such a pass that on
  getting a message from her about three months before
  the incident, PW 1 accompanied by PW 2 had to go to her
  'Sasural' in an attempt to dissuade the two accused from
  pressing such demand, but they (the two accused)
8 humiliated and turned them out of the house with the
  command not to enter their house again without meeting
  the demand of a Maruti Car. PW-1 did not take any action
  on the consolation offered by the father-in-law of his
  daughter and also on the advice of his daughter which
C was quite natural. It, however, cannot be taken to mean
  that the demand made by the two accused persons had
  subsided or was given up by them. It can justifiably be
  inferred from what happened subsequently that they
  continued to torture the unfortunate lady because of non-
  fulfilment of the demand of Maruti Car. The test of 'soon
D before' is satisfied in the facts, evidence and
  circumstances of the instant case. [para 24 and 26] [1153-
  G-H; 1154-F-H; 1155-A-D]

        Kunhiabdulla Versus State of Kera/a 2004 (2 ) S_CR 853
E   = 2004 (4) SCC 13 - distinguished.
      1.5 Indeed, the prosecution could not be expected to
  bring forth any other evidence as to the persistent
  demand of dowry in the form of Maruti Car by the two
  accused after about six months of the marriage and
F maltreatment, harassment and torture heaped upon the
  deceased by the two accused on non-fulfilment of the
  said demand. The evidence on this aspect of the matter
  as contained in the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 has the
  natural aura of the truth. [para 22] [1153-8-C]
G
         1.6 Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5 for attraction of
    s. 3048 IPC, are also established by satisfactory evidence
    adduced by the prosecution in the form of the testimony
    of PW 1 corroborated by PW 2. [para 27] [1155-E]
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1141
                   U.P.

     1.7 There is an important feature of the case. Only the   A
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been
accused of the offences in question. Besides them, there
were three other family members i.e., the father of
accused No. 1 and husband of accused No. 2 and two
daughters. PW 1 has described father-in-law of the             B
deceased as a gentleman. He has all the respect and
regard for him. Even when he had been humiliated by the
two accused about three months before the incident on
expressing his inability to meet their demand of Maruti
Car in dowry, he (PW1) had gone to him at his                  c
employment place in State Bank and had not taken any
action on the consolation offered by him. He mentioned
this fact in the FIR too. The circumstance that only the
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been
made accused of the offence, sparing the other three, is       0
an indication that father of the deceased has not acted
out of malice, anger or to wreak vengeance. [para 22]
[1152-F-H; 1153-A-C]

     1.8 The recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10 (with regard to
blood and blood stained bindia) and Ka-11 (regarding           E
broken bangles) were not challenged in the cross-
examination of PW 5, (the Tehsildar Magistrate) or PW 6
(the SI), who prepared them. These recoveries amply
indicate that the deceased had been subjected to violence
in her bedroom and she had succeeded in coming out             F
on the 'Chhajja' (balcony) to save herself. Not only this,
the presence of burnt cordless phone stuck in the arm
and the burnt wire of phone with the dead body indicates
that she had tried to contact ~omeone on phone, but in
vain. There is nothing to cast a doubt on the said             G
recoveries. [para 30] [1156-F-H; 1157-A-B]

    1.9 The theory of suicide put forth by the defence
completely falls through on careful analysis of the
evidence and the attending circumstances. Two different        H
    1142   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A types of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased,
  i.e., the ligature mark of large dimension and the body
  being badly burnt because of the ante mortem burns with
  smell of kerosene coming out of the body, completely
  rule out the theory of suicide. A half-burnt piece of cloth
B with a knot was also found tied around the neck. It is also
  to be taken note of that her body was found by the
  Investigating Officer in the lonely corner of the bedroom
  where she was rendered immobile and in a helpless state.
  [para 34] [1158-F-H; 1159-A-C]
c      1.10 This Court records with dismay that the trial
  judge has taken it to be a ground against the prosecution
  that the knot found around the neck of the deceased was
  not produced before the court. It is obvious that he
  completely misinterpreted the matter relating to the knot
D and took it as a circumstance against the prosecution.
  While conducting the post mortem, the knot found
  around the neck of the deceased was untied and
  removed so as to facilitate the post mortem. Therefore,
  there could be no question of the knot bring produced
E before the court. [para 37] [1160-8-E]

      1.11 On a close scrutiny and careful appreciation of
  the evidence, this Court is of the firm view that the trial
  judge wrongly accepted the plea of alibi put forth by the
F two accused persons to get away from the
  consequences of the serious crime committed by them.
  Their conduct also voluminously spoke against them. As
  a matter of fact, only these two accused had an
  opportunity to commit the offence. The father-in-law of
G the deceased having gone to the place of his
  employment and the two daughters, including DW 1,
  having gone to their educational institution, the two
  accused persons only (husband and mother-in-law of the
  deceased) had the opportunity to commit this crime
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1143
                   U.P.

inside the bedroom of the deceased. The manner in              A
which the deceased was done to death, i.e., by first
strangulating her and then setting her afire, needed at
least two persons, because she was also a young lady
aged about 24 years. A single person could not have
possibly overpowered her to strangulate her and to set         B
her afire. As a natural instinct, she was bound to offer
resistance and having regard to the two types of the
injuries found on her person at the time of post mortem,
it was the handiwork of at least two persons, who
undoubtedly were the husband and the mother-in-law.            c
The conduct of the mother-in-law of the deceased was
that she, in order to misguide the machinery of law
through false plea of alibi, lodged a false information at
the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. that her daughter-in-law had
committed suicide. She had taken a false excuse to             D
support her baseless plea of alibi of herself as also her
son, the husband of the deceased. [para 38) [1160-E-H;
1161-A-D-G]

      1.12 The interested testimony of OW 1 also cannot
be believed that her brother accused No. 1, the husband        E
of the deceased, had gone to his shop at about 8 P.M.
After committing the crime, the two accused vanished
from the scene, but before doing that, one of them, (the -
mother-in-law of the deceased) lodged a false report at
the police station that her daugther-in-law had committed      F
suicide. It is in the testimony of PW 7 (C.O/lnvestigating
Officer) that the accused-husband surrendered in court
on 7.11.2000 and the mother-in-law on 13.11.2000. Earlier
thereto, the attempts to find and arrest them turned to be
futile. None of the two accused is witness of the inquest      G
report or Fards. Absconding by both of them after the
incident cannot be termed to be normal conduct of
innocent persons. The report by the accused was given
at the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. on 3.11.2000. It was the
outcome of deliberation and consultation with legal            H
    1144    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A experts who had already gathered at the scene of
  occurrence along with Advocate-uncle of the accused,
  DW 2 - Advocate, and few other lawyers; whereas from
  the testimony of DW 2, it is evident that the news of the
  death of the victim was received in the District court at
B 11.30 A.M. itself, i.e., much before the lodging of the report
  by the accused. [para 39] [1161-H; 1162-A-F]

         1.13 The presumption of s.113-B of the Evidence Act
    is attracted in this case and the facts and circumstances
    of the case make it abundantly clear that the defence
C   could not displace the said presumption. The culpability
    of the two accused in committing the crime is established
    to the hilt by the facts and circumstances proved by the
    prosecution. They undoubtedly are the authors of this
    crime. The irresistible conclusion is the demand of Maruti
D   Car raised by the two accused after about six months of
    the marriage persisted as it was not settled by the father
    of the deceased by supplying the same. The prosecution
    has successfully proved the persistent demand of Maruti
    Car as a part of dowry by the two accused and
E   continuous cruelty and harassment heaped upon the
    deceased by them over this score. The accused are
    established to have committed the offences punishable
    u/ss. 498-A and 304 B IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition
    Ac~ and the findings of the High Court are correct. [para
F   41 and 43] [1163-C-F; 1164-E-F]

       2. Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes
  committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social
  crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they
G call for harsh punishment. In the instant case, as has
  been established from the medical evidence, the death of
  the victim was caused by strangulation and then by
  burning. In fact, it was a case u/s 302 IPC and death
  sentence should have been imposed in such a case, but

H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1145
                            U.P.

since no charge u/s 302 IPC was levelled, this Court               A
cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning fall
in the category of rarest of rare cases, and deserve death
sentence. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases
have become common in our· country, the expression
"rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh's case*            B
does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that
the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride killing is certainly
barbaric. [para 7-10 and 12] [1147-A-G; 1148-D]

     *Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 -           C
referred to.

                      Case Law Reference:
 AIR 1980 SC 898          referred to           para 8
 2004 (2) SCR 853         distinguished         para 16 and 24     D
   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1168 of 2005.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in State Appeal No. 5570. of      E
2003.

     lndu Malhotra, Rajesh and Vivek Jain for the Appellants.

    K.T.S. Tulsi, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K. Gupta, Pradeep
                                                                   F
Misra, Suraj Singh, Vandana Mishra, Anurag Dubey, Meenesh
Dube, Ravinder Singh and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.

    The following order of the Court was delivered

                            ORDER                                  G

    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    2. The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows
to women.
                                                                   H
    1146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A        3. Indian society has become a sick society. This is
    evident from the large number of cases coming up in this Court
    (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young
    women are being killed by their husbands or by their in-laws
    by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by
8   hanging/strangulating them. What is the level of civilsation of a
    society in which a large number of women are treated in this
    horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society
    become - this is illustrated by this case.

C       4. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
    judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated
    12.07.2005.

       5. The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was
  married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly
D on 9th December 1997. On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by
  the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that dowry
  was being demanded from him and the accused was insisting
  that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. He further stated that
  three months before the date of the incident the first informant
E along with his relative went to the house of the accused and
  explained his financial difficulty in giving the Maruti car to the
  accused but they were insulted by the accused and were told
  to get out.

       6. On 03.11.2000 at about 12 noon the first informant
F received information on telephone that his daughter had died.
  The FIR was lodged as stated above and after investigation a
  charge sheet was filed. The appellants - the husband and
  mother-in-law of the deceased - were acquitted by the trial court
  but the High Court convicted them under Sections 3048, 498-
G A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded
  life sentence under Section 3048 IPC, 3 years rigorous
  imprisonment under Section 498A, and six months rigorous
  imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The
  sentences were to run concurrently.
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1147
                           U.P.
     7. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and        A
order of the High Court and the judgment of the trial court and
other evidence on record. We see no reason to disagree with
the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the
appellants. In fact, it was really a case under Section 302 IPC
and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case,        B
but since no charge under Section 302 IPC was levelled, we
cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning, in our
opinion, fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence
deserve death sentence.

      8. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases have        C
become common in our country, in our opinion, the expression
"rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is
uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride
killing is certainly barbaric.                                     D

     9. Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes
committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social
crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call
for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our      E
society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding
dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill
the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder
of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total
commercialization of our society, and lust for money which         F
induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has
come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with
an iron hand.

    10. In the present case, there was a post mortem done by
a committee of three Doctors. We have perused the post             G
mortem report. In that report ante mortem injuries were
mentioned as under :-

          "1. Ligature mark around the neck, 31x7 ems. Base
    slightly grooved with dark red. On cut section-tissue          H
    1148    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A       ecchymosed a tracheal ring compresses. Clotted blood
        under soft tissue.

              2. Superficial to deep burn all over body. Blistered
        at places present. On cut section serus fluid present."

B        11. The cause of the death in that report was mentioned
    in the following terms :-

        "Opinion as to cause and manner of death : In my opinion
        cause of death is suffocation with shock as a result of
c       strangulation with simultaneous A/M burn."

       12. Thus, in this case the death of the deceased Geeta
  was caused by strangulation and then by burning. It is
  impossible for us to believe that this was a case of suicide. It
  was a clear case of murder and hence charge under Section
D 302 IPC should have been levelled against the appellants but
  surprisingly enough that has not been done in this case.

       13. On the evidence on record which we are repeating
  here again, we see no reason to disagree with the view taken
E by the High Court.

         14. The deceased was aged about 24 years and about
    Yi day had passed since she died when post mortem was
    done. She was of average build. Eyes and mouth were partly
F   open. Tongue was between the teeth. The body had pugilistic
    appearance. Smell of kerosene was present. Rigor mortis was
    also present. There was a half burnt cloth around the neck with
    knot half burnt. Half burnt bed sheet and other clothes as also
    a half burnt wire mingled with burnt clothes were found. A burnt
    cordless phone was also found.
G
      15. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
  Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was the father of the deceased and
  maker of the F.l.R. who as well as his relative Jaideo Awasthi
  PW 2 gave evidence about the demand of Maruti Car by the
H accused respondents since after six months of marriage and
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1149
                           U.P.

about the demand of Maruti Car being repeated and pressed         A
by both the accused, when both of them had gone to the
Sasural of the deceased and had been turned out by the two
accused after being insulted on their expressing inability to
meet the demand of a Maruti Car. Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 stated
that he was included in the panel of doctors conducting the       B
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he proved the
post mortem report. Head Constable Mohar Pal Singh PW 4
had scribed the check report on the basis of the FIR lodged
by Surya Kant Dixit PW 1. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5, Tehsildar
of Tehsil Farrukhabad prepared the inquest report of the dead     c
body of the deceased and other related papers. S. I.
Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 had collected bloodstains etc., from
the spot at the instance of Shiv Bahadur Singh PW 5 and Circle
Officer D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 was Investigating Officer of the
case. The defence also examined three witnesses. Vidushi
                                                                  0
Tiwari OW 1 was the real sister of the husband of the deceased.
Devendra Misra OW 2 and Sushi! Kumar Misra OW 3 were
non-family members of the two accused.

     16. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Kunhiabdulla
Versus State of Kerala, 2004 (4) SCC 13, in order to attract      E
application of Section 3048 IPC, the essential ingredients are
as follows:

            1.    The death of a woman should be caused by
                  burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in     F
                  normal circumstances;

            2.    such a death should have occurred within
                  seven years of her marriage;

            3.    She must have been subjected to cruelty or      G
                  harassment by her husband or any relative
                  of her husband;

            4.    Such cruelty or harassment should be for or
                  in connection with demand of dowry;
                                                                  H
    1150    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A              5.    Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have
                     meted out to the woman soon before her
                     death.

       17. As generally happens in a crime of dowry death, this
B case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As regards
  ingredients No. 1 and 2 of a crime of dowry death detailed
  above, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Geeta died
  otherwise than in normal circumstances vide her post mortem
  report and that the death had occurred within seven years of
  her marriage in her Sasural in the bedroom. As per the
C prosecution case, she had been married to the accused
  respondent No. 1- Satya Narain Tewari alias Jolly about three
  years before this incident occurring on 3.11.2000. Even Vidushi
  Tiwari DW 1, sister of the husband of the deceased in
  paragraph 2 of her statement said that the deceased Geeta
D was married to her brother Satya Narain Tiwari alias Jolly on
  9.12.1997. Thus, her unnatural death in her Sasural occurred
  within three years of her marriage.

        18. As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant
E testimony is contained in the statement of the deceasd's father
  Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 (son-in law
  of Bua of Surya Kant). Both of them have deposed about the
  persistent demand of Maruti Car in dowry by the accused
  persons (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased) since
F after six months of the marriage and harassment/maltreatment
  of the deceased over the score of non-fulfilment of the said
  demand. The gist of the testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1
  was that he had performed a decent marriage spending Rs. 4
  Lacs giving household goods in dowry but after six months of
  the marriage, the two accused started torturing his daughter
G Geeta pressing for the demand of a Maruti Car. On her visits
  to her parental house, she (deceased) used to narrate to him
  (this witness) her torture and maltreatment. She had also
  informed him in this behalf on telephone. About three months
  before the incident, he and Jaideo Awasthi had gone to
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1151
                   U.P.

Geeta's Sasural at Farrukhabad on getting message from               A
Geeta about the atrocities of the two accused heaped upon her
rendering her life miserable because of non-fulfilment of the
      I
demand of Maruti Car. Both the accused were there at their
home at Farrukhabaa and repeated the demand of Maruti car.
On his expressing inability to meet this demand, he and Jaideo       B
Awasthi were insulted and humiliated and turned out of the
house. Both the accused told them not to visit their house again
without meeting their demand of a Maruti Car. Surya Kant Dixit
PW 1 then went to Geeeta's father-in-law at the place of his
employment-State Bank because he was a gentleman. He                 c
apprised him of the conduct of his wife and son (accused)
pressing the demand of Maruti Car. He, however, offered
consolation, Geeta, daughter of Surya Kant Dixit OW 1, also
advised him not to take any action and he went away. The
victim might have thought that making of FIR by her father at
                                                                     0
that juncture would ruin her matrimonial life and so she advised
him not to take any legal step at that time.

     19. Then heueceived a telephonic message from someone
at about 12 O'clock in the noon on the day of incident about
the death of his daughter Geeta in her Sasural at Farrukhabad,       E
he at once rushed from Mainpuri to Farrukhabad covering a
distance of about 80-85 km. Reaching the Sasural of his
daughter he found her dead in the bedroom of the first floor of
the house.
                                                                     F
     20. Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has corroborated the statement
of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 in all the essential particulars. He had
accompanied Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 about three months
before the incident to the Sasural of Geeta as related above
while giving the gist of testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and      G
thereafter on the day of the incident on the receipt of telephonic
message at about 12 O'clock at noon. It is pertinent to state
that this witness used to reside in Mainpuri in a separate
portion of the house of PW 1. He being a close relative of Surya
Kant Dixit PW 1, it is quite believable that he had acquired
                                                                     H
   1152     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A knowledge of the persistent demand of Maruti Car by the
  accused on Geeta's visits to her parental house and he had
  also accompanied PW 1 to her Sasural three months before
  the incident as also on the day of the incident. The testimony
  of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 is thus
B quite credible regarding the illegal demand of a Maruti Car as
  in dowry by the two accused since after six months of the
  marriage and that they subjected her to harassment,
  maltreatment and humiliation on non-fulfilment of the said
  demand. It goes without saying that cruelty or harassment may
C not only be physical but also mental.

        21. There is an important feature of the case. In the present
  case, Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 has described Ghanshyam Tiwari
  (father-in-law of his daughter) as a gentleman. He has all the
  respect and regard for him. Even when he was humiliated by
D the two accused about three months before the incident on his
  expressing inability to meet their demand of Maruti Car in dowry,
  he (PW1) had gone to him at his employment place in State
  Bank and had not taken any action on the consolation offered
  by him. He mentioned this fact in the FIR too. It appears that
E Ghanshyam could not control the disposition of his wife and son
  (the two accused) and they continued to pursue their greed by
  tormenting and maltreating the young lady (deceased) to get a
  Maruti Car in dowry from her parents. She (Geeta) had to pay
  the price of non-fulfilment of this demand of theirs, losing her
F life at their hands.

       22. Only the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased
  have been accused of the offences in question. Besides them,
  there were three other family members i.e., Ghanshyam Tiwari
  (father of accused No. 1 and husband of accused No. 2), Km.
G Vidushi OW 1 (sister of the accused No. 1) and Km. Shalini,
  another unmarried sister of accused No. 2. Such composition
  of the family has been related by Vidushi DW1. The
  circumstance that only the husband and mother-in-law of the
  deceased have been made accused of the offence, sparing the
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1153
                            U.P.

other three, is an indication that Surya Kant Dixit (father of the   A
deceased) has not acted out of malice, anger or to wreak
vengeance, as otherwise he would have implicated the entire
family including the father-in-law of the deceased and two
unmarried sisters of the husband of the deceased as is often
done by the parental side of the bride in a dowry death case.        B
Indeed, the prosecution could not be expected to bring forth any
other evidence as to the persistent demand of dowry in the form
of Maruti Car by the two accused after about six months of the
marriage and maltreatment, harassment and torture heaped
upon her (deceased) by the two accused on non-fulfilment of          c
the said demand. The evidence on this aspect of the matter
as contained in the statements of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and
Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has the natural aura of the truth.

     23. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
alleged demand of Maruti Car made after about six months of D
marriage does not answer the test of 'soon before' the death
of the deceased. She reasoned that as per the own case of
the prosecution, there was no interaction between the two sides
since before three mnonths of the death of the deceased when
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 had allegdly E
been humiliated and turned out by the two accused from their
house with the direction not to come there again without a Maruti
Car and that there was no evidence that any such demand was
made during the period of three months intervening between
the alleged incident of turning them out of the house by the F
accused and the death of the deceased. The counsel for
accused made reference to the case of Ba/want and another
Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2005 SC 1504 to stress the point that
proximity test has to be applied. The argument; in our opinion,
cannot be accepted.                                               G

      24. As held by this Court in Kunhiabdullah and another
Vs. State of Kera/a, 2004 (4) SCC 13, 'soon before' is a
relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of
                                                                     H
    1154     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.'


A    each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to
    what would constitute a period of 'soon before the occurrence'.
     It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that
    brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof
    of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
B   presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The
    determination of the period which can come within the term
    'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending
    upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however,
    to indicate that the expression, 'soon before' would normally
c   imply that the interval should not be much between the
    concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.
    There must be existence of a proximate and live link between
    the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned
    death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
    has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium
0
    of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

         25. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the
    proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts and
    circumstances of each case. Regarding the aforesaid decision,
E   the facts were somewhat different in that the deceased was not
    shown to have been subjected to cruelty by her husband for at
    least 15 months prior to her death. On the fact of that case, it
    was held that Section 3048 IPC was not attracted.

F        26. On the other hand, the present case fully answers the
    test of 'soon' before'. There is the testimony of demand of
    Maruti Car being pressed by the two accused persons after
    about six months of the marriage of the deceased (which took
    place about three years before the incident) and of her being
G   pestered, nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of
    the said demand which was conveyed by her to her parents
    from time to time on her visits to her parental home and on
    telephone. Things had reached to such a pass that on getting
    a message from her about three months before the incident,
H   Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 accompanied by Jaideo Awasthi PW
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1155
                            U.P.

2 had to go to her Sasural in Farrukhabad in an attempt to           A
dissuade the two accused from pressing such demand, but they
(the two accused) humiliated them and turned them out of the
house with the command not to enter their house again without
meeting the demand of a Maruti Car. He did not take any action
on the consolation offered by the father-in-law of his daughter      B
and also on the advice of his daughter. It was natural that the
victim also did not want her father to take any extreme step
against the two accused. She might have thought that things
would improve with the passage of timebut it seems that that
did not happen. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was in a helpless state        C
after suffering humiliation at the hands of the accused persons
about three months before the actual incident. He could simply
wait and watch in the hope of things to improve, but the situation
did not improve at all. It, however, \cannot be taken to mean that
the demand made by the two accused persons had subsided
                                                                     0
or was given up by them. It can justifiably be inferred from what
happened subsequently that they continued to torture the
unfortunate lady because of non-fulfilment of the demand of
Maruti Car. In our opinion, the test of 'soon before' is satisfied
in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the present case.
                                                                     E
    27. Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5 for attraction of Section
3048 IPC, are also established by satisfactory evidence
adduced by the prosecution in the form of the testimony of Surya
Kant Dixit PW 1 corroborated by Jaideo Awasthi PW 2.
                                                                     F
      28. As regards the important question whether the death
of Geeta was homicidal as alleged by the prosecution or
suicidal as claimed by the defence, there is a popular adage
that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances will not. In the
present case, certain recoveries made from the spot strongly
indicate that the death of Geeta was homicidal. There are two        G
important recovery memoes Ex. Ka-1 O and Ka-11. The recovery
memo Ex.Ka-10 relates to the recovery of blood and
bloodstained Bindia from the Chhajja (balcony) situated outside
the room in which the dead body of the deceased was found
                                                                     H
    1156    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   lying. The said recovery is a pointer that the deceased had
    been subjected to violence there and there was struggle
    btween her and her captors. Such recovery leads to the
    justifiable inference that she had received injuries, and blood
    had oozed in drops found at the Chhajja. She was a young lady
8   of about 24 years of age. The instinct of self preservation is
    strongest in all human beings. Seemingly, violence had first
    been applied to her inside the bedroom by the accused and
    offering resistance she had somehow run out to the Chajja
    (balcony) adjoining the room and the blood dropped there.
C   Another recovery memo Ex.Ka-11 related to the findings inside
    the room in which the dead body was found. Amongst them,
    there were broken pieces of bangles also. With the application
    of force and violence, she was brought back from the Chajja
    (balcony) to the bedroom where she was done to death. It is
    noted from the Panchnama Ex.Ka-6 that the receiver of the
D   telephone was stuck under the left arm of the deceased and
    burnt telephone wire was found stuck with the dead body.

        29. The post mortem report also makes mention of the
    burnt wire and burnt cordless phone being found stuck with the
E   dead body along with a half burnt scarf around the neck.

         30. The recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11 had been
    prepared by S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 at the dictationof
    ShirBahadur singh PW 5. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5 (Tehsildar
    Magistrate) is a witness to the recovery memoes. Inquest report
F
    (Panchayatnama) was prepared by himself. One of the
    witnesses of the recovery memoes and Panchnama is Keshav
    Tiwari, advocate uncle of accused No. 1. These recoveries
    were not challenged in the cross-examination of Shiv Bahadur
    Singh (Tehsildar Magisttrate) PW 5 or SI Ghanshyam Gaur PW
G   6. These recoveries amply indicate that the deceased had been
    subjected to violence in the bedroom and she had succeeded
    in coming out on the Chhajja (balcony) to save herself. The signs
    of struggle and application of violence in the form of broken
    bangles inside the room and the blood and bloodstained Bindia
H
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1157
                   U.P.

on the Chhajja were found. Not only this, it appears that the      A
deceased had even tried to make use of the phone to inform
someone about what was happening with her but she could not
succeed. The presence of burnt cordless phone stuck in the arm
and the burnt wire of phone with the dead body indicates that
she had tried to contact someone on phone, but in vain. There      B
is nothing to cast doubt on the said recoveries.

     31. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused,
however, ignores other important aspects of the matter. We
have dealt with the above that there was struggle and
application of violence on the deceased on the Chhajja             C
(balcony) and in the bed room where she was forcibly taken
for being done to death. To incapacitate her of any meaningful
resistance, the accused persons interfered with her breqthing
process with the compression of the windpipe of her neck
before burning her. Respiration had not completely stopped. In     D
other words, the air passage was not completely blocked by
the ligature pressed by the accused around the neck of the
deceased. She was strangulated, but not to death.
Strangulating her half way to overpower her and to render her
incapable of offering any meaningful resistance, the two           E
accused then poured kerosene over her and burnt her. This
explains the presence of sooty particles in her larynx, trachea
and bronchi. A half burnt cloth around her neck with a knot had
been found by the panel of doctors conducting post mortem on
her dead body. Her tongue was between the teeth. Ligature          F
mark of large dimension measuring 31 x 7 cm all around the
neck had been found by the doctors. As stated above, the
doctors found a half burnt piece of cloth around her neck with
a knot half burnt. It was the constricting material used by the
accused for compressing the neck of the deceased.                  G
     32. Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 explained that strangulation would
mean pressing the neck with force. He also emphatically stated
that strangulation was made by the cloth found around the neck
of the deceased which was bearing a knot. As a matter of fact,
ligature mark was the impression left by the constricting object   H
    1158     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [201 O] 12 S.C.R.

A   around the neck. The sign of "tissue ecchymosed and tracheal
    ring found compressed" was explained by the Doctor that it
    occurred on account of tying the cloth around the neck with
    toughness. These were the signs of violence and force applied
    by the assailants on the neck of the deceased strangulating her
s   to render her immobile and to overpower her, but half way. They
    sprinkled kerosene on her and burnt her to accomplish their
    objective of causing her death. Nothing could be brought out
    of the cross-examination of Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 to displace
    the facts emerging from the post mortem report.
c      33. So far as the alleged manipulation in the post mortem
  report is concerned, the contention for the accused is wholly
  unfounded. It was a panel of three doctors formed by the District
  Magistrate to conduct post mortem of the dead body of the
  deceased. The complainant was an outsider from another city.
D It would be preposterous to assume that he had such
  monstrous influence that he could win over the three doctors to
  produce a port mortem report of his choice, falsely showing the
  signs of strangulation on the dead body of the deceased.
  Keshav Tiwari (uncle of accused No. 1) was an Advocate,
E practising at Farrukhabad who was even present at the time
  of preparation of the inquest report. He was also a witness of
  Fard of recovery Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11. Naturally, he would have
  been watching the interest of the accused persons. It was
  practically impossible for PW 1 (father of the deceased) to
F maneuver any manipulation in the post mortem report. We also
  cannot accept the argument that the doctors were incompetent.

        34. The theory of suicide put forth by the defence
  completely falls through on careful analysis of the evidence and
G the attending circumstances. Two different types of injuries
  found on the dead body of the deceased, i.e., the ligature mark
  of large dimension and the body being badly burnt because of
  the ante mortem burns with smell of kerosene coming out of
  the body completely rule out the theory of suicide. A half burnt
  piece of cloth with a knot was also found tied around the neck.
H If a cloth is suddenly tightened around the neck, it is likely to
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1159
                             U.P.

cause loss of consciousness, rendering it impossible for the           A
victim to perform any action because of the interference with
her breathing process. Owing to constricting of neck by a
ligature, it could not at all be possible for the victim to catch
hold of the container of the kerosene and pour it upon her with
the lighting of match stick setting her ablaze. Her mental faculty     B
would not have been in such a position to have undertaken such
an activity. It is also to be taken note of that her body was found
by the Investigating Officer at point "A" was depicted in the site
plan in the lonely corner of the bedroom where she was
rendered immobile and in a helpless state.                             c
     35. Vidushi OW 1 sister of accused No. 1 tried to support
the theory of suicide by her statement that her sister-in-law
(deceased) used to bear Tabiz in her neck. She stated that she
allegedly enquired from Geeta about the same and she had
replied that she was being haunted by evil spirits having bad          D
dreams in the night and further that a month before her marriage,
her father had taken her to a Tantrik who had given Tabiz of her
marriage. According to her, the deceased remained in mental
tension because she had not been able to give birth to any
child.                                                                 E

     36. We have not the slightest doubt that the theory of
suicide put forth by the defence is a crude concoction. Ours is
a superstitious society. A number of males and females wear
Tabiz over their persons on the advice of hermits, astrologers,        F
fortunetellers, palmists, tantriks, etc., for general well being. It
is preposterous that even before her marriage, the deceased
was taken by her father to some tantrik for such treatment of
sorcery so as to ensure the birth of a child to her within three
years of marriage. It also cannot be accepted that she was living      G
under gloom or depression for having not given birth to a child.
She was only 24 years of age when she died. She was
educated upto B.Sc. Standard. She had not passed child
bearing age. She had been married about three years back.
No evidence could be led by the defence that she was suffering
                                                                       H
    1160    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A from some gynaecological problem running counter to her child
  bearing capacity. Had there been any such problem, there
  would have been some history of her consultation with medical
  experts and related treatment. The accused being her husband
  and the mother-in-law would have definitely been in a position
B to put forth documentary evidence in this behalf. A bald
  assertion from the mouth of the sister of the accused No. 1
  could not be believed that the deceased was suffering from
  some mental depression for having not conceived.

C      37. We record with dismay that the trial judge has taken it
  to be a ground against the prosecution that the knot found
  around the neck of the deceased was not produced before the
  Court. It is beyond comprehension as to how the knot of cloth
  found wrapped around the neck of the deceased could be
  produced before him. It is obvious that he completely
D misinterpreted the matter relating to the knot and took it as a
  circumstance against the prosecution. While conducting post
  mortem, the knot found around the neck of the deceased was
  untied and removed. In other words, the body was freed from
  the knot so as to facilitate the post mortem. Therefore, there
E could be no question of the knot bring produced before the
  court.

       38. On close scrutiny and careful appreciation of the
  evidence, we are of the firm view that the trial judge wrongly
F accepted the plea of alibi put forth by the two accused persons
  to get away from the consequences of the serious crime
  committed by them. Their conduct also voluminously spoke
  against them. As a matter of fact, only these two accused had
  an opportunity to commit this offence. The father-in-law of the
G deceased having gone to State Bank, Farrukhabad (the place
  of his employment) and his two daughhters including DW 1
  Vidushi having gone to their educational institution, the two
  accused persons only (husband and mother-in-law of the
  deceased) had the opportunity to commit this crime inside the
  bedroom of one of the them, i.e., accused Satya Narayan
H Tiwari alias Jolly. No one else could have access there. The
 SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1161
                   U.P.

manner in which the deceased was done to death. i.e., by first A
strangulating her and then setting her afire, needed at least two
persons, because she (deceased) was also a young lady aged
about 24 years. As is well known, the instinct of self preservation
is natural in all living beings. A single person could not have
possibly overpowered the victim to strangulate her and to set B
her afire. As a natural instinct, she was bound to offer resistance
and having regard to the two types of the injuries found on her
person at the time of post mortem, it was the handiwork of at
least two persons, who undoubtedly were the husband and
mother-in-law of the deceased. The conduct of the mother-in-       c
law of the deceased was that she lodged a false information at
the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. that her daughter-in-law had
committed suicide. In this report, she stated that she had gone
to supervise the construction work at her other house and
noticing smoke emitting from the first floor of t.he bedroom of
                                                                    0
the house of the incident and on the shouts of the residents of
the locality, she came rushing to the scene. In our opinion, this
statement is false as per the own showing of her daughter OW
 1 Vidushi. She stated that the house to which her mother had
gone, was situated in another locality. She also stated that it
was not visible from the house of the incident. It also emerges E
from her statement that the distance of that house under
construction from the old house of the incident was 1 or 2
furlongs. This being so, there could be no question of her
(accused appellant No. 2) noticing emission of smoke from the
bedroom of first floor of the house where the incident took place. F
She (accused appellant No. 2) falsely stated in the report
lodged at the ·Police Station to misguide the machinery of law
through false plea of alibi. The story of seeing smoke coming
out of the home and hearing the alarm of the respondents of
the locality mentioned in the report of Bhuvaneshwari Devi was G
a stark lie. She had taken a false excuse to support her
baseless plea of alibi of herself as also her son-husband of the
deceased.

    39. The interested testimony of DW 1 Vidushi also cannot       H
    1162     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A be believed that her brother accused No. 1 - husband of the
  deceased had gone to his shop at about 8 P .M. After
  committing this crime, the two accused vanished from the
  scene, but before doing that, one of them (Bhuvaneshwari-
  mother-in-law of the deceased) lodged a false report at the
B police station that ner daugther-in-law had committed suicide.
  It is in the testimony of D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 (C.O/lnvestigating
  Officer) that the accused Satya Narayan surrendered in Court
  on 7 .11.2000 and the other accused Rani alias Bhuvaneshwari
  on 13.11.2000. Earlier thereto, the attempts to find and arrest
c them turned to be futile. It is in his testimony that both of them
  were absconding and for this reason, on 6.11.2000 a report
  had been submitted for issuing process against them under
  Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. None of the two accused is witness of
  the inquest report or Fards. Absconding by both of them after
  the incident cannot be termed to be normal conduct of innocent
0
  persons. The report by the accused Bhuvaneshwari Devi, as
  we said, was given at the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. On
  3.11.2000. In our opinion, it was the outcome of deliberation
  and consultation with legal experts who had already gathered
  at the scene of occurrence along with Keshav Tiwari ,
E Advocate-uncle of the accused Satya Narayan Tiwari, OW 2
  Devendra Misra, Advocate, and few other lawyers. We note
  from the testimony of OW 2 Devendra Misra that the news of
  the death of daughter-in-law of Ghanshyam Tiwari was received
  in the District court at 11.30 A.M., itself i.e., much before the
F lodging of the report by Bhuvaneshwari. This witness stated that
  when he arrived at the scene of occurrence, a group of lawyers
  was already there. The false report made by the accused
  Bhuvaneshwari Devi was obviously the outcome of the legal
  advice to save the culprits from the consequences oLtl'le·
G criminal act committed by them.
         40. Learned counsel for the accused also argued that it
    was the accused Bhuvaneshwari who had passed on the
    information of the deathof the deceased to her parents on
H   telephone. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 (father of the deceased)
  SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1163
                    U.P.
 denied that the telephone qaceived by him was from                 A
 Bhuvaneshwari Devi. Accordiri~ to him, he had received the
                                  1


 telephone call from some stf~nger. Even if it is taken for the
 sake of argument that she had telephoned to him, in our opinion,
 it is of no consequence and the defence does not score any
1
 point /on this premise. The reason is that the crime was           8
 committed by the two accused with preplanning, so much so
 that Bhuvaneshwari Devi even lodged a false report at the police
 station to misguide the machinery of law and to create a false
 defence. Telephoning to the father of the deceased could only
 be a part of the scheme to project it as a case of suicide.
                                                                    c
     41. We are of the view that the presumption of Section
113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted in this case and the
discussion that we have made hereinabove makes it abundantly
clear that the defence could not displace the said presumption.
The culpability of the two accused in committing this crime is      D
established to the hilt by the facts and circumstances proved
by the prosecution. They undoubtedly are the authors of this
crime. The irresistible conclusion is the the demand of Maruti
Car raised by the two accused after about six months of the
marriage persisted as it was not settled by the father of the       E
deceased by supplying the same. The prosecution has
successfully proved the persistent demand of Maruti Car as a
part of dowry by the two accused and continuous cruelty and
harassment heaped upon the deceased by them over this
score.                                                              F
     42. To sum up, the prosecution has been able to prove the
following:
             (1)   the death of the deceased was caused by
                   strangulation and burning within seven years     G
                   of her marriage;
             (2)   the deceased had been subjected to cruelty
                   by her husband and mother-in-law (the two
                   accused appellants) over the demand of
                                                                    H
    1164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A                       Maruti Car in dowry raised and persistently
                        pressed by them after about six months of
                        the marriage and continued till her death.

                  (3)   The cruelty and harassment was in
                        ~onnection with the demand of dowry i.e.
B                       Maruti Car.

                  (4)   The cruelty and harassment is established to
                        have been meted out soon before her death.

                  (5)   The Two accused were the authors of this
c                       crime who caused her death by strangulation
                        and burning on the given date, time and
                        place.

           43. In our opinion, the trial Judge recorded an acquittal
o adopting a superfluous approach without indepth analysis of the
    evidence and circumstances established on record. On
    thoroughly cross-checking the evidence on record and
    circumstances established by the prosecution with the findings
    recorded by the trial court, we find that its conclusion are quite
E   inapt, unjustified. unreasonable and perverse. Proceeding on
    wrong premise and irrelevant considerations, the trial court has
    acquitted the accused. The accused are established to have
    committed the offences under Sections 498-A and 304 B IPC
    and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the findings
F   of the High Court are correct.
        44. As a result of the above discussion, this Appeal is
    dismissed accordingly.
         45. On 27.10.2005 this Court had granted bail to the
G   appellants. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken
    into custody forthwith to serve out remaining period of
    sentence.
           46. Application for impleadment is allowed.

H   R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.