Holding

The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, but it did establish dowry demand, partial payment, and cruelty, thereby constituting dowry death under Section 304B IPC.

Summary

The State of Karnataka prosecuted M.V. Manjunathegowda (A‑1) and others for the murder of his wife Kamalamma, alleging that she was killed within seven years of marriage after the accused demanded a dowry of Rs 10,000 and three sovereigns of gold, of which only Rs 8,000 was paid. The trial court convicted A‑1 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act; the Karnataka High Court acquitted him of the murder charge and held that the dowry demand was not proved, also acquitting him of the dowry‑death charge. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302, but the evidence established a demand for dowry, partial payment, and cruelty shortly before death, thereby satisfying the elements of dowry death under Section 304B IPC. Consequently, the Court affirmed the acquittal on the murder charge and upheld a conviction for dowry death, sentencing A‑1 to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized the need for deterrent punishment to curb the social evil of dowry. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order on the dowry‑death charge while confirming the acquittal on murder.

Issues considered

The prosecution failed to prove the murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the demand for dowry and partial payment thereof were proved.
Whether the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC was established.
The appropriate quantum of punishment for dowry death.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 20, s. 34
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4, s. 6
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 1138
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 304B

Subjects

dowry deathmurderSection 302 IPCSection 304B IPCDowry Prohibition Actpresumption under Evidence Actcircumstantial evidencequantum of punishmentappeal

Judgment

STATE OF KARNATAKA A
v.
M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA AND ANR.

JANUARY 7, 2003

(Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302, 201 and 3048-Dowry death-Death
within 7 years of marriage-Cruelty to deceased soon before the incident-
Prosecution witnesses contradictory-Evidence ofsole witness not corroborated C
by the circumstances of the case-Conviction by trial Court u!ss. 302 and
20/-Acqui//al by High Court-On appeal-Held, acquillal u!s 302 justified
since in the facts of the case prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable
. '· doubt-Demand and payment ofdowry proved-Accused liable to be punished
1i/s 304 B-In the facts and circumstances of the case deterrent punishment is
called for. D
Sentencing :

Quantum ofpunishment-Determination of-Held, it has to be determined
keeping in view the background and intendment of the legislature.

Appellant-accused alongwith accused 2 and 3 were tried for offences E
u/s 302 and 201 IPC and in the alternate u/s 304B IPC, and u/ss. 3,4 and
6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Prosecution case was that the bridegroom, with whom the marriage
of the deceased was fixed, did not turn up on the date of the marriage. F
Appellant-accused agreed to marry the deceased on the condition of getting
dowry of Rs. I 0,000 and 3 sovereigns of gold. The relatives gathered there
to attend marriage, collected Rs. 8,000 and the same was given to accused.
The balance dowry was promised to be given to him later. Accused, killed
the deceased within 7 years of the marriage since the balance dowry was
not paid to him. The sole witness of the incident was PW9. But her evidence G
was not corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Brother and father
of the deceased and other independent witnesses were examined to prove
the demand and part payment of the dowry. PWs I and 6 deposed that
the deceased was subjected to cruelty due to non-payment of the dowry
due. Defence case was that the death was suicidal. However, medical H
21
22 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A evidence proved tlun tht? ~~ \\-as homicidal.

Trial ~ourt'C'OftVitted the appellant-accused u/s 302 and 201 IPC and
under Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 2 and 3 were acquitted of all tile
charau. ln appeal iligh Court acquitted the appellant-accused holding that
demand and payment of the dowry was not proved· as there was
B discrepancy regarding the same in the statements t>f prosecution witnesses.
Hence the appeal against acquittal of appt!llant-accused.

Partly allowing the appt\l,, the Court

HELD: l. If th@ ~tatement of PW-9 is excluded from consideration,
C the entire pro~ution story with regard to the offence of murder under
Section 3()2 li>C, rests on the circumstantial evidence. In the case of
cirtutttsb\ntial evidence the chain must unerringly link to the guilt of the
actosed. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, with regard
to the offence under Section 302 IPC, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution had failed to establish complete and conclusive chain of r
D circumstances to bring the guilt of A-1 beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the High Court for the offence under
Section 302 IPC against the appellant-accused does not suffer from any
infirmities and it is confirmed. (30-H; 31-A-C, EJ

2.1. The finding or the High Court that. demand and payment of '
,~

E dowry was not proved is clearly perverse and against the weight of
evidence on record. High Court has failed to consider the evidence on
record in its proper perspective. All the witnesses were exandned after
more. than 2 years of the solemnization of the marriage. 1t is common
knowledge that ordinarily human memories are apt to blur with the
F passage of time. More so in the present case, when witnesses are rustic
villagers. In such a situation, there are bound to occlit certain
discrepancies which are in the form of omission and they cannilt be
considered as fatal to their evidentiary value, otherwise trustworthy. Their
testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground that it lacks spilntaneity.
[27-G; 28-A-CJ
G
2.2. In view the background and the circumstances in which the
marriage of the deceased with the accused was solemnized, it would be
utterly impossible to have a formal agreement to pay the dowry, which
could be proved by oral evidence. Similarly the anlount of dowry referred
to by one witness and not mentioned by the other, can be termed to be an
H omission due to passage of time which, in no case, amounts to major
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA 23
contradiction which would form the basis for impeaching the credibility A
' of witnesses. In the facts of the case there is over-whelming' evidence with
~
regard to the factum of demand of dowry and payment of part of dowry.
(28-D-E; 29-GJ

3.1. In order to establish the offence under Section 3048 IPC the
prosecution is obliged to prove that the death of a woman is caused by B
any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances and such death occurs within 7 years of her marriage and
it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. Such
harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand for dowry.
If the prosecution is able to prove the aforesaid circumstances then the
c
presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act will operate. It is
the rebutable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused.
. -<. (34-F-HJ

3.2. From the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6, it clearly appears that D
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in
connection with the demand for dowry by her husband. The deceased died
within 7 years or her marriage. Having regard to the entire faets and
circumstances and evidence on record, the offence under Section 3048 IPC
. j, is found to be well established against A-1. [36-8, DJ
E
4.1. While considering the quantum .of punishment, the Court must
keep in view the background and intendment of the legislature so as to
eradicate the evil practice of giving and taking dowry by prescribing
deterrent punishment. The Court cannot be oblivion to the intendment of
the legislature and the purpose for which the enactment of the law and
amendment has been effected. Every court must be sensitized to the F
r
,,,,.._ enactment of the law and the purpose for which it is made by the
legislature, keeping in view the evil practice of giving and taking dowry,
which is having a deleterious effect on the civili7.ed society. It must be given
a meaningful interpretation so as to advance the cause of interest of the
society as a whole. No leniency is warranted to the perpetrator of the crime G
against the society. [36-E; 37-C, D, El

-~ 4.2. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused is of vital
importance while considering the quantum of punishment. The main
consideration of the accused marrying with the deceased was love of dowry
and not love for the girl. So greed of the accused of the dowry, even for a H

•
24 SUPllEME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A paltry sum or Rs. 2000 and three sovereigns of gold, would cost the
I
precious life of a human being. Such conduct of the accused is not only
abhorrent to the concept of rule Uf law, but also against the conscience of
the entire society. K-eeping these overall accounts and circumstances in
t'he background, a deterrent punishment is called for. (36-G, 37-A, B, DJ

B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1530-31 ·of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.I992 of the Karnataka High
Court in Crl. A. Nos. 300 and 493 of I 990.

C Manish Mishra, S.R. Hegde and Satya Mitra· for the Appellant.

b.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand and Ms. Geeta Luthra for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D SEMA, J. When a woman enters into wedlock she has many salutary
expectations. She would expect happy conjugal life, she would then expect
to be a mother one-day, then she would exped to be mother-in-law and
)
grand-mother and so on. All these expectations are shattered by the cruel
hands of dowry related death.

E The deceased-Kamalamma got married with accused No. I on 17.5.1987.
On 14.11.1987, she was murdered and her body was found in a dry well.
There is no dispute that the death was unnatural. The death of the deceased
occurred within 7 years of her marriage with accused No. I.

Accused No.I (respondent No. I herein) was tried along with accused
F Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, for the offence
under Section 302 IPC and in the alternate under Section 304B IPC. They
were also charged under Section 20 I read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos.
I and 2 were also charg~d under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused
G belong to Manimakki village. They are related to each other. A-2 is the
mother of A-I and A-3. A-3 is the younger brother of A-I. A-I has also got
another younger brother who is married to PW-9 Smt.Girijamma. All of them
were residing together in the same house. It is in the evidence on record that
the deceased was also residing in the same house along with the accused and
other. inmates of the house on the intervening night of 13. l l.1987 and
H 14.11.1987.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, !.] 25
The learned Sessions Judge, after concluding the trial, found that A-1 A
was the sole perpetrator of the crime nnd convicted A· I under Sections 302
-t
and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and two years'
RI respectively. The learned Sessions Judge also found him guilty under
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years' RI and
a fine of Rs. 15,000 six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 3000 and six months
RI and a fine of Rs. 5000 on each count under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act
B
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months. All the
·~ sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, A-2 and A-3 were
acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 20 I read with Section 34
!PC. They were also acquitted of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the Act and were set at liberty. Two appeals have been filed against the said c
judgment before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1990 had been
filed by the State against the acquittal of A-2 and A-3. Criminal Appeal No.
-< 300 of 1990 had been filed by accused No. I • M. V. Manjunathegowda
against his conviction, as aforesaid. By the impugned judgment, the High
• Court had dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1990 filed by the State and
allowed Criminal Appeal No 300 of 1990 preferred by the accused (respondent D
No. I herein) by setting aside the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions
Judge. It is against the order of the High Court setting aside the sentence and
~
conviction of the respondent-accused, the State has preferred the present
-~ appeals. No separate appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in respect of E
accused Nos. 2 and 3.

The peculiar facts and circumstances under which A-1 got married with
the deceased - Kamalamma on 17.5.1987 may be summarily recited. The
marriage of the deceased-Kamalamma was fixed for 17.5.1987 with one
f
Nagesh Gowda • PW-16, son of Bhyregowda of Byragadde. The marriage F
....... was to be performed at J0.30 a.m. The elders and relatives of both the sides
had gathered to attend the marriage. However, PW-16 Nagesh Gowda with
whom the deceased was supposed to marry did not tum up. The elders and
relatives who had come to attend the marriage raised serious concern as the
•
father of the bride PW-6 and other relatives were visibly humiliated. At this
stage, it appears that to save the family from humiliation, the elders and
G
relatives of PW-6, who had come to attend the marriage, decided that the
marriage of the deceased-Kamalamma should take place. According to the
prosecution story, it is at that stage that A· I had come forward to get married
with the deceased on the condition that dowry of Rs. I0000 and three
sovereigns of gold be paid to him. It is the further case of the prosecution that H
-;...._
t

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) I S.C.R.

A A-I also put a condition that once the payment was made he was prepared _
to get married with the deceased on the same day. As PW-6 father of the
deceased was helpless in arranging the amount of dowry and three sovereigns
of gold, the elders and relatives who had come to attend the marriage, .
contributed their mite and collected Rs. 8000 and the same was paid to the
accused. It was also agreed upon that the remaining sum of Rs; 2000 and
B three sovereigns of gold would be given after harvesting the crop by PW-6.
Having resolved the demand of dowry, as aforesaid, ultimately the marriage ~
took place on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. To establish the demand and
payment of part dowry, the prosecution examined PW-I brother of the
deceased, PW-6 father of the deceased, PW-7 an independent witness who
c participated in collecting the amount of dowry before paying to A-I, PW-12
who is also an independent witness in witnessing the demand of dowry and
payment of dowry to A-I and PW-15 who solemnized the marriage. Their
_}._
testimony is relevant with regard to the factum of demand of dowry and
payment of dowry. We shall be discussing their testimony at an appropriate
time.
i D
The case set up by the accused before the Trial Court was that the death
of the deceased was a suicidal death. It was pleaded that the deceased slipped
.....
into the well while going to fetch water from the well. The plea of suicidal
death was completely ruled out both by the Trial Court and the High Court. ~-

Both the Courts held that the eeath of the deceased was homicidal. Since this
E
controversy had been set at rest by two courts, this point need not detain us
any longer. Even otherwise, the plea of suicidal death is completely belied by
the medical evidence. PW-22 Dr. Jagannath conducted the post-mortem on
15.11.1987 on being requested by the police on 14.ll.1987 at about 5.00
p.m. The post-mortem was conducted on 15.I L1987 from 1.00 p.m. to 3.00
F p.m. and the doctor found the following external injuries:-
J_
I. "An incised wound over the skull, i.e. on bregms, anteriorly 15
ems., to posterior aspect of the right parietal region, scalp incised,
wound deep to brain matter.
2. An incised wound from middle of the right parietal bone towards
G the right temporal bone 12 ems. in length deep to brain matter.
3. Right side of the accipital one fractured into five fragments." . -J.--

The doctor was of the opinion that death was due to shock and hemorrhage
as a result of head injury. The doctor was also of the opinion that the injuries
H found on the dead body were ante-mortem. He was further of the opinion that
~-'

STATE P.f !>ARNATAKA v. M.V. MAN!UNAlttffiOWDA (HK SEMA, !.] 27
injuries 1-3 were fatal and they wer~ ~.u.fficient to cause the death of a person A
-I in the ordinary course of natur~. ;\llQOfdi~ to the doctor, the deceased met
with a homicidal death .
• While agreeinjl with the flndings of the Sessions Judge, the High Court
has observ@ll ll!i !!!Ider:·
"'fllQNfore, the deceased going to the well to fetch water and
B
~lipping down accidentally, was out of question as rightly observed
by the Sessions Court. Similarly, if at all the deceased were to commit
suicide, there must be objects pitched to the wall of the well in such
a manner as 10 cause these injuries at one time. The doctor has stated
that these. 3 injuries could be caused by separate blows. In our view c
therefore though a medical witness can give certain probabilities as
the cause to sustain certain injuries, these probabilities cannot be
--~ isolated from existing facts in a given situation. Jn our view it is not
shown in the evidence, at least of the prosecution witnesses including
y
the mahazar witnesses that thls well had any sharp objects of the like
nature suggest('q (Q PW.3 to cause these injuries at one time. If such D
a probability can11ot ut least bo remotely visualised, then the evidence
.., of PW.3 that this wl\li ~homicidal death becomes clear and acceptable
and we llave 110 lwsltati1m !11 ~eing with the Sessions Court in this
-~ behalf."
Considering the ocular and medical evidence both the trial court and E
the High Court ruled Clut the possibility of death by suicide.
The High Court did Dill ~ccopt the demand of dowry and the payment
of dowry, as according to the High Court, there were discrepancies in the
statements of PW-I brother of the deceased and PW-6 father of the deceased.
• It may be noted that PW· I had stated that Rs. 7000 was paid as against the F
A
testimony of PW-6 that Rs. 8000 had been paid. The High Court had
considered this discrepancy to be fatal in nature. The High Court was also of
the view that as the prosecution had failed to prove that there was an agreement
. as a consideration for the marriage to pay Rs. I 0000 and three sovereigns of
gold and that Rs. 8000 were paid out of it, the demand of dowry and payment G
of dowry was not proved. We are of the view that this finding of the High
Court is clearly perverse and against the weight of <:>'idence on record. The
High Court, in our opinion, has failed to consider the evidence on record in
its proper perspective. It must be noticed that the marriage had taken place
on 17.5.1987. PW-I K.P. Manjegowda (brother of the deceased) was examined
on 11.9.1989. PW-6 Puttegowda (father of the deceased) was examined on H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A 12.9.1989. PW-7 K.M. Eregowda (an independent witness) was examined on
12.9.1989. PW-12 Bariban was examined on 14.9.1989. PW-15 Sudhama
(Priest) who had solemnized the marriage was examined on 15.9.1989. All
these witnesses were examined after more than 2 years of the solemnization
of the marriage, which had taken place on 17.5.1987. One should not fail to
..
B take note that the witnesses are rustic villagers. It is difficult to expect them
to remember the events with mathematical precision after a lapse of more
than two years. It is a common knowledge that ordinarily human memories
are apt to blur with the passage of time. More so in the present case, when
witnesses are rustic villagers. In such a situation, they are bound to occur
certain discrepancies, which are in the form of omission and they cannot be
C considered as fatal to their evidentiary value, otherwise trustworthy. At the
same time, they are unexposed to the technicalities of urban life and they
speak plainly what they saw and did. They are straightforward looking people,
truthful and trustworthy. Their testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground
that it lacks spontaneity. Similarly, the High Court disbelieved the testimony
D of PWs on the ground that they failed to establish that there was an agreement
to pay the dowry. In such a melee and keeping in view the background and
the circumstances in which the marriage of the deceased with the ac;cused
was solemnized on 17.5 .1987, as noticed above, it would be utterly impossible
to have a formal agreement, which could be proved by oral evidence. Sim~larly
the amount of dowry referred to by one witness and not mentioned by the
E other, can be termed to be an omission due to passage of time which, in no
case, amounts to major contradiction which would form the basis for
impeaching the credibility of witnesses.

Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel for the respondents, invited our
attention to the testimony of PWs I, 6, 7, 12, and 15 and strenuously contended
F that there are lot of discrepancies in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses
and no reliance can be placed on their testimony with regard to the demand
and payment of part of dowry. This contention deserves to be rejected out-
rightly. In our opinion, such minor contradictions would not tantamount to be
of substantial character, which would be a ground for impeaching the
credibility of the witnesses.
G
To prove the demand of dowry and the payment of dowry, the
prosecution led the evidence of PWs 1, 6, 7, 12 and 15. As already noticed,
PWs 7, 12, and 15 are all independent witnesses. PW-I brother of the deceased
had stated that his sister's marriage was fixed with PW-16 Nagesh Gowda on
H 17-5-1987 who did not tum up on the date of the marriage. It is further stated

•
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, J.] 29

that on that day A-1 came forward to get married with the deceased- A
Kamalamma on the condition that dowry of Rs. 10000 and three sovereign
of gold would be given to him. PW-6 is the father of the deceased who had
also made a similar statement. The most important evidence is of PW-7 who
is an independent witness and participated in collecting the contribution
towards the payment of dowry amount to the accused. He stated that he had
been to the marriage of the deceased-Kamalamma fixed for 17.5.1987 with B
Nagesh Gowda PW-16 and as PW-16 did not tum up at the appointed time,
A-1 came forward to get married with the deceased on the condition that he
be paid dowry of Rs. 10000 and three sovereigns of gold. PW-7, on receipt
of offer from the accused, had a discussion with PW-6. PW-6, however,
expressed his inability to pay the dowry as he had no money. PW-7 had C
further stated that the people who had come for the marriage took a
philanthropic view of contributing their mite. As a result a sum of Rs. 8000
was collected. PW-7 had further stated it was decided that the remaining
balance of Rs. 2000 and three sovereigns of gold should be given after
harvesting the crops. PW-12 was another independent witness who also stated
that he had attended the marriage of the deceased with A-1 and the marriage D
was solemnized after taking the dowry. PW-15 is another independent witness
who officiated as a priest for the marriage. He had stated that he had given
the auspicious time as between 10.30 am. to 11.30 a.m. on 17.5.1987. But
PW-16 Nagesh Gowda who was the bridegroom did not tum up. He had
further stated that he waited up to 2.00 p.m. but even then he failed to ium E
up. He had further stated that after 3.00 p.m. or so the elders came to his
house and told him that A-1 had come forward to get married with the
deceased. They further requested him to see if the horoscopes of both A-1
and deceased-Kamalamma would tally, to which he replied in affirmative.
Thereafter, he fJXed the auspicious time to be between 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
The marriage was solemnized at 6.30 p.m in which tie officiated as priest. F
This witness had further stated that people were collecting money as A-I was
to be given a dowry of Rs. 10000 and three sovereigns of gold. He had
further stated that PW-6 father of the deceased expressed his inability to pay
the full amount on that day and requested for a period of three months to pay
the remaining balance. G
Looking at the totality of the evidence, as noticed above, we are of the
view that there is over-whelming evidence with regard to the factum of
demand of dowry and payment of the part of dowry on 17.5.1987. The High
Court failed to take not~ of the totality of the evidence into consideration and
took out the minor discrepancies here and there as ground for impeaching the H
I '
...,. ,

30 SUPREME. COURT REPOR.TS (2003) I S.C.R.

A credibility of the witnesses and thereby ~ommitted a grave miscarriage of
justice.

The next question to be considered is whether the offence under Section
302 IPC has been established against A-1 beyond all reasonable doubts.
According to the prosecution story, the only eye-witness is PW-9 Smt.
B Girijama, who is no other than the wife of the brother of A-1. This witness
has turned hostile. According to PW-9 on 13.11.1987, the dec~!J!>ed
Kamalaaima and her sister had slept in one room in the houi;e of the 1Ul41lJ!ied.
All other accused and father-in-law and her husband were sleeping in !lm>ther
room. On the.next day, early in the morning at about 4.00 a.m. i.e. 14.l l.1987
C she got up and found that the deceased-Kamalamma was not there. She
prepared coffee but the deceased did not tum up. Then she informed the
husband of the deceased and mother-in-law. According to the prosecution
story, the deceased had gone to the bath-room and set fire for warm water.
At that time A- I was abusing his wife. There is a small window through
which PW-9 could see what was going on in the bathroom. On hearing the
D abusive language she went there to see what was happening there. There she
saw, through a small window, that A-I had hit the deceased on her head with
MO 11 ( axe) with all his might, The deceased-Kamalamma fell down at the
stone in the bathroom unc<mlii::ipusly. Then again A-1 assaulted on her head.
Due to heavy blow there wa11 a lot of bleeding and the blood spread on that
E stone. Thereafter, she went and woke Iler mother-in-law A-2. As she also got
up, PW-9 showed all that to her who also saw it through that window.
Thereafter A-2 and A-3 went to the bathroom and all were talking that
Kamalamma was no more. A-I was also threatening that this should not be
disclosed to anyone. Thereafter A-1 asked A-3 to bring battery from inside.
Thereafter A-I bodily lifted the dead body of his wife and went outside. A-
F 3 was putting the torch and A-2 also followed them. PW-9, being terrified
and panicky, woke up her husband and showed the blood in the bathroom.
Her husband also got very much afraid IJlld he did not go outside. Thereafter,
she went to answer the second call of nature. By that time she learnt that A-
l and A·3 had come back to the house. The blood was washed out with
water. The other inmates of the house were told that they should tell on
G inquiry by the police or anyone else that the deceased - Kamalamma had died
as she fell into the well while returning from the other well from where they
were to bring water.

If the statement of PW-9 is excluded from consideration, the entire
H prosecution story with regard to the offence of murder under Section 302
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, J.] 31
IPC, rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is now well-established principle A
of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence the chain must unerringly
link to the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence on record to show that
there was a trail of blood from the house to the place where the dead body
was found in the well. There was no evidence of dragging the body. The
recovery of blood stained shirt and lungi and MO 11 (axe), said to have been
stained with blood, seized at the instance of the accused was disbelieved by B
the High Court. We are also of the view that dragging of body of the deceased
from the house to the well, where the dead body was found, could not be the
handy work of an individual. The accused must have been. assisted by the
other inmates of the house inasmuch as there were seven inmates in the
house on the fateful day. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, C
with regard to the offence under Section 302 IPC, came to tho conclusion
that the prosecution had failed to establish complete and conclusive chain of
circumstances to bring the guilt of A-I beyond reasonable doubt. The High
Court also considered a seizure memo namely the seizure of clothes, which
were found hanging over a beam in the hut and the fact that the father of A-
l was present there. The High Court disbelieved the seizure, as there was no D
evidence to show that those clothes belonged to none other than A-1. Similarly,
the seizure of MO 11 (Axe) and recovery of the stone from the bath-room
of the house was disbelieved by the High Court for the reasons assigned in
the judgment and the same do not warrant any interference. Jn our view,
therefore, the acquittal recorded by the High Court for the offence under E
Section 302 !PC against A-1 does not suffer from any infirmities and it is
confirmed.

The next and important question to be considered is as to whether A-
is liable for conviction under Section 304B IPC. As already noticed, an
alternate charge was framed under Section 304B but the Sessions Court as F
well as the High Court did not record any findings under this count. The
Sessions Judge did not record any separate finding under this section
presumably because the accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The
High Court did not record any conviction under this section as the High
Court was of the view, which according to us is erroneous, that no demand G
of dowry and payment of dowry has been established. We have already held
that there is over-whelming evidence against A-1 with regard to demand and
receipt of part of dowry.

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 28 of 1961) was enacted by the
Legislature effective from 20th May, 1961. The Statement of Objects and H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] I S.C.R.

A Reasons for enactment of the legislation are as follows:-
"The object of this Bill is to prohibit the evil practice of giving
and taking of dowry. This question has been engaging the attention
of the Government for some time past, and one of the methods by
which this problem, which is essentially a.social one, was sought to
B be tackled by the conferment .of improved property rights on women
by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is, however, felt that a law
which makes the practice punishable and at the same time ensures
that any dowry, if given does ensure for the benefit of the wife will
go a long way to educating public opinion and to the eradication of
this evil. There has also been a persistent demand for such a law both
c in and outside Parliament. Hence, the present Bill.."

Ever since the Act came into being, there is a sea of change by various
amendments so as to make the Act more purposeful and punishment deterrent.
Realising that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, the evil practice of giving
D and taking of dowry remains unabated and the dowry related offences were
menacingly on the increase, the Act was amended by Act No. 63 of 1984.
After taking note of the observations of the Committee on Statute of Women
in India and with a view to making of thorough and compulsory investigations
into cases of dowry deaths and stepping up anti-dowry publicity, the
Government referred the whole matter for consideration by a Joint Committee
E of both the Houses of Parliament. The Committee, after examining the whole
matter in great depth in its proceedings, recommended to examine the working
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Act was further amended vide Act No. 43
of 1986. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are as follows:-

"The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was recently amended by the
F Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to give effect to certain
recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Parliament
to examine the question of the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and to make the provisions of the Act more stringent and
effective. Although the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984
G was an improvement on the existing legislation, opinions have been
expressed by representatives from women's voluntary organisations
and others to the effect that the amendments made are still inadequate
and the Act needs to be further amended.

2. It is, therefore, proposed to further amend the Dowry Prohibition
H Act, 1961 to make provisions therein further stringent and effective.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, J.] 33
The salient features of the Bill are: A
(a) The minimum punishment for taking or abetting the taking of
dowry under Section 3 of he Act has been raised to five years
and a fine of rupees fifteen thousand.

(b) The burden of proving that there was no demand for dowry will
be on the person who takes or abets the taking of dowry.
B

r (c) The statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall
not subject him to prosecution under the Act.

(d) Any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical, journal or any
other media by any person offering any share in his property or c
any money in consideration of the marriage of his son or daughter
is proposed to be banned and the l{rson giving such advertisement
and the printer or publisher of such advertisement will be liable
for punishment with imprisonment of six months to five years or
with fine up to fifteen thousand rupees.
D
(e) Offences under the Act are proposed to be made non-bailable.

(f) Provision has also been made for appointment of Dowry
Prohibition Officers by the State Governments for the effective
implementation of the Act. The Dowry Prohibition Officers will
be assisted by the Advisory Boards consisting of not more than E
five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be
women).

(g) A new offence of "dowry death" is proposed to be included in
the Indian Penal Code and the necessary consequential
amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the F
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have also been proposed.

We are only pointing out the aforesaid Statement of Objects and Reasons
to demonstrate the importance of Legislation and the intendment of the
Legislature with a view to curb the increasing menace of evil practice of
giving and taking of dowry by imposing a deterrent punishment. G
Consequent upon the aforesaid amendment Section 3046 !PC was
inserted in the Indian Penal Code and Section 1136 was inserted in the
Indian Evidence Act respectively.

Section 3046 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: •
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) I S.C.R.

A "3048. Dowry death. (I) Where the death of a women is caused •
by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by ·
her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with,
any demand or dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and
B such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have
the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(28 of 1961).
c (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life."

Section 1 I 3B of the Indian Evidence Act was inserted by Act 43 of
1986 w.e.f. 5.1.1986. It reads: -
D
"1138. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with,
any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had
E caused the dowry death.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 3048 of the Indian Penal
Code 45 of 1860."
F The aforesaid legal position, as it stands now, is that in order to establish
the offence under Section 304B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove that
the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death occurs within 7
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
G subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband. Such harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand
for dowry.

If the prosecution is able to prove the aforesaid circumstances then the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. It is the
H rebutable presumption and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M. V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, J.] 35
The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence of A
the accused was a total denial. Therefore, the presumption as to dowry death
envisaged under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act remains unrebutted. We
have already held that there is over-whelming evidence against the accused
with regard to the demand of dowry and acceptance of a part of dowry. In
this connection the evidence of PWs I, 6, 7, 12 and 15 are referred to. The B
only question remains to be answered is as to whether the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any
demand of dowry soon before her death or not. To answer this question, it
will be profitable to refer to the testimony of PW· I, the brother of the deceased
and PW-6, father of the deceased. From the prosecution of evidence on
record, it will clearly appear that the remaining balance of dowry was C
Rs. 2000 and three sovereigns of gold. PW-I had stated that four days earlier
to Diwali festival she came to the parental house and asked them to clear the
dowry due and she also said that she was tortured by her husband and her
mother-in-law on the dowry issue. To this, PW-I replied that he would pay
in January after the harvest. But the deceased told him that she would not go
back to her husband's house as her husband (accused) and her mother-in-law D
would torture her if she went back without money and gold. She was persistent
that she would not go back after Diwali festival. Then PW- I also stated that
his father PW-6 went along with her sister (deceased) and stayed there ove~
night and came back the following morning. Thereafter, on 14.11.1987 they
received information that his sister had been murdered. PW-6 is the father of E
the deceased. He stated that his daughter- Kamalamma is married to the
accused. He also stated that A-1 demanded that if he gave Rs. ten thousand
and three sovereigns of gold as dowry, he would marry the deceased. He
further stated that after the marriage there was a due of Rs. 2000 and three
sovereigns of gold. He further stated that his daughter had come to his house
four days prior to the Diwali festival and informed that she was being tortured F
by not bringing the balance amount and gold. She further told him that her
husband told her not to come to the house without bringing the balance of
dowry amount and gold. PW-6 further stated that after the Diwali festival his
daughter refused to go back to her husband's house without the balance
amount of dowry and gold apprehending torture and harassment. PW-6 G
ultimately took his daughter to the house of accused and told them that he
would immediately clear the balance amount and gold after harvesting the
crops. He stayed over-night in the house of the accused and left the house
only the next day. He has stated that on Thursday he had taken his daughter
to the house of the accused and stayed for a night there. On Friday, the next
day, he came back to his own house. The following day i.e. Saturday at about H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C:R.

A 8.30 a.m. he received the information that his daughter had died. He stated
that Saturday was 14.11.1987. This would clearly show that PW-6 took his -;..
daughter to the house of the accused on 12.11.1987 and halted over-night
there and returned to his house the next day i.e. 13 .11.1987 and the deceased
was murdered on 14.11.1987, stated to be early in the morning. There was
no evidence on record which would throw some light that in the intervening
B period of 13.11.1987 and 14.11.1987 there was some settlement or resolution
with regard to the balance amount of dowry being paid to the accused. From
the testimony of PW-I and PW-6, it clearly appears that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the
demand for dowry by her husband. In the absence of the evidence_ on record
c showing any settlement or resolution for payment of balance of dowry amount
and gold in the intervening period of 13.11.1987 and 14.J 1.1987, the cruelty
and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry as on 12.J 1.1987
would continue till her death on I 4.11.1987. This would constitute cruelty
and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death.
As already noticed, the marriage of the deceased with the accused was
D solemnized on 17.05.1987 and she died within 7 years of marriage. Having ~
I
regard to the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record we are I
of the view that the offence under Section 304B IPC is found to be well
established against A- I.

The next question to be considered is the quantum of punishment.
E While considering the quantum of punishment, the Court must keep in view
the background and intendment of the legislature so as to eradicate the evil
practice of giving and taking dowry by prescribing the deterrent punishment.
This was clear from the Objects and Reasons of Amending Act of 1986 (Act
43 of 1986). Consequent upon the aforesaid amendment Section 304B IPC
F was introduced in which the punishment is, imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for J_
life. As would reveal from the various amendments as noticed above, despite
stringent law, the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry remains unabated.
On the contrary, it is menacingly on the increase. In the instant case, the
conduct of the accused is of vital importance while considering the quantum
G of punishment. The marriage of the accused with the deceased on 17 .5.1987
is neither an arranged marriage nor a Jove marriage. As already noticed, it is
a marriage by accident and the main consideration was the payment of dowry T-
I-
and not out of love. It also appears from the testimony of PW-9 that a
suggestion was put to the witness that accused used to permanently go to one
H Kallugudde Earegowda's house for work and that Kallugudde Earegowda
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. M.V. MANJUNATHEGOWDA [H.K. SEMA, J.] 37
has three female children. It was also suggested that accused was also having A
j
love affair with the first daughter of Kallugudde Earegowda. All this go to
show that the main consideration of the accused marrying with the deceased
was love of dowry and not love for the girl. So greed of the accused of the
'
dowry, even for a paltry sum of Rs. 2000 and three sovereigns of gold, would
cost the precious life of a human being. Such conduct of the accused is not
only abhorrent to the concept of rule of law, but also against the conscience B
of the entire society. The practice of giving and demanding dowry is a social
evil having deleterious effect on the entire civilized society and has to be
condemned by the strong hands of judiciary. D'espite various amendments
providing deterrent punishment with a view to curb the increasing menace of
dowry deaths, the evil practice of dowry remains unabated. The Court cannot c
be oblivion to the intendment of the legislature and the purpose for which the
enactment of the law and amendment has been effected. Every court must be
-~ sensitized to the enactment of the law and the purpose for which it is made
by the legislature, keeping in view the evil practice of giving and taking
do\vry, which is having a deleterious effect on the civilized society. It must
be given a meaningful interpretation so as to advance the cause of interest of D
the society as a whole. No leniency is warranted to the perpetrator of the
..., crime against the society. Keeping these overall accounts and circumstances
in the background, we are of the view that a deterrent punishment is called
~
for. Accused No. I (M.V. Manjunathe Gowde) is accordingly convicted under
Section 304B IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The E
impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeals filed by the
State are allowed to the extent indicated. We, however, refrain from interfering
with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court insofar as the offence
under Section 302 IPC is concerned.

_, The accused-respondent is now directed to surrender before the F
concerned court to serve out the sentence. If the accused does not surrender,
the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, shall take necessary steps in accordance
with law to apprehend the accused .
...
K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed.