VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1)versusSTATE OF A.P. REP.BY PUB.PROSECUTOR

                   [2013) 3 S.C.R. 449


                   VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1)                        A
                            V.
       STATE OF A.P. REP.BY PUB.PROSECUTOR
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2007)
                    MARCH 13, 2013
                                                             B
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Death of
married woman -Conviction of appellant-husband ulss.3048 C
and 498A - Justification - Held: Not justified - Demand, if at
all made by the appellant on the deceased for purchasing a
computer to start a business six months after the marriage,
was not in connection with the marriage and was not really a
'dowry demand' within the meaning of s.2 of the Dowry D
Prohibition Act, 1961 - In any case, the prosecution witnesses
made general allegations of harassment by the appellant
towards the deceased and did not bring in evidence any
specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the
deceased - On the other hand, from the evidence of appellant E
(DW1), it is clear that while cleaning the house he came
across a chit (Ext. D19) written in the handwriting of his wife
and containing her signature - It appears from Ext. D19 that
the deceased wrote the chit according to her free will saying
that nobody was responsible for her death and that her F
parents and family members had harassed her husband and
she was taking the step as she was fed up with her fife because
of the quarrels that were taking place - Evidence of DW1
(appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the
prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to G
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry -
Since the prosecution was not able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the. ingredient of harassment or cruelty,
neither of the offences u!ss.498A and 3048, !PC has been
                           «9                                H
   450       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A made out by the prosecution - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
   s.2.
       The wife of appellant died due to burn injuries. The
  prosecution alleged that ever since her marriage, the
  deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture
8
  by her husband and in-laws and they all brutally
  assaulted her on innumerable occasions for not getting
  sufficient dowry. Charge-sheet was submitted against
  the appellant and his relatives under Sections 498A and
C 3048 IPC.
       The appellant took the defence that the deceased had
  left behind a suicide note written by her one day before
  her death in which she has stated that she had committed
  suicide not on account of any harassment by the
D appellant and her family members but due to the
  harassment by her own parents. The Trial Court,
  however, disbelieved the defence and convicted the
  appellant and his other relatives under Sections 3048 and
  498A, IPC holding that the deceased was subjected to
E torture and harassment by the accused, mainly for the
  reason that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given to the
  appellant by the father of the deceased (PW1). In appeal,
  High Court acquitted the two other relatives of the
  appellant (A2 and A3) but maintained the conviction of the
F appellant under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC and
  therefore the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. The evidence of the father and mother of
G the deceased, viz. PW1 and PW4 is that the demand of
  Rs.50,000/- by the appellant was made six months after
  the marriage and that too for purchasing a computer to.
  start his own business. It is only with regard to this
  demand of Rs.50,000/- that the Trial Court has recorded
H a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence
    VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY         451
               PUB.PROSECUTOR
under Section 3048, IPC and it is only in relation to this    A
demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a computer to start
a business made by the appellant six months after the
marriage that the High Court has also confirmed the
findings of the Trial Court with regard to guilt of the
appellant under Section 3048, IPC. Both the Trial Court       B
and the High Court failed to appreciate that the demand,
if at all made by the appellant on the deceased for
purchasing a computer to start a business six months
after the marriage, was not in connection with the
marriage and was not really a 'dowry demand' within the       C
meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
[Para 6] [456-D-H]

   Appasaheb & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9
SCC 721: 2007 (1) SCR 164 - referred to.
                                                              D
     2. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the
offences under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC, the
prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the           E
prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4,
it is found that they have made general allegations of
harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and
have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty
or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. From
                                                              F
the evidence of the appellant (DW1), it is clear that while
cleaning the house the appellant came across a chit
written in the handwriting of his wife and containing her
signature. This chit has been marked as Ext. 019 and the
appellant has identified the handwriting and signature of     G
the deceased in Ext. 019 which is written in Hindi. It
appears from Ext. 019 that the deceased has written the
chit according to her free will saying that nobody was
responsible for her death and that her parents and family
members have harassed her husband and she was
                                                              H
    452      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A taking the step as she was fed up with her life and
  because of her quarrels were taking place. [Para 7) [457-
  E-G; 458-E-H; 459-A]

         3. The evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext.019
    cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the
B   deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in
    connection with demand of dowry. The onus was on the
    prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
    ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential
    ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the
C   accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected
    her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section
    498A, IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the
    presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act that
    the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in
D   Section 3048, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides
    the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by
    the accused to the deceased soon before her death.
    Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond
    reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or
E   cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and
    3048, IPC has been made out by the prosecution. [Para
    9) (459-E-H; 460-A]
                       Case Law Reference:
F         2007 (1) SCR 164     referred to         Para 6
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1431 of 2007.
       From the Judgment & Order dated 11.12.2006 of the High
G Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 544
  of 2003.
      A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, Prabhakar Sharma, Dipankar
  Das, Devesh Singh, Shanti Kumar Jaisani, Anu Gupta for the
H Appellant.
    VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY              453
               PUB.PROSECUTOR
    Mayur R. Shah, D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhawl,           A
Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain, M. Bala Shivudu for the
Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the              8
judgment dated 11th December, 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003.

     2. The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by
Gynaneshwar Jaiswal on 4.4.1999 at 2.15 p.m. in Mangalhat C
Police Station, Hyderabad. In the FIR it was stated by the
informant that his daughter Meenakshi Jaiswal was married to
the appellant on 22.2.1996 and at the time of marriage he gave
sufficient gold jewellery, silver items, furniture, electrophinic
gadgets etc., worth above Rs.2,50,000/- but ever since her         o
marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by
her husband Vipin Jaiswal, her husband's parents Prem Kumar
Jaiswal and Yashoda Bai and her husband's sister Supriya and
her husband and they all brutally assaulted her on innumerable
occasions for not getting sufficient dowry. It was further stated E
in the FIR that on 2.4.1999 the informant received a call from
the appellant and he went to the house of the appellant along
with his relatives to find out what had happened as well as to
give invitation for a function at his place but they all abused him
and the appellant physically assaulted and pushed him out from
                                                                    F
the house but fearing the safety of his daughter and her welfare,
he did not report the matter to the police. It is further stated in
the FIR that on 4.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. when he came back
home, he was informed on telephone by his son that Meenakshi
had received severe burn injuries and as a result died in the
house of the appellant. The police registered a Criminal Case G
under Section 3048, IPC and took up investigation and ·
submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant and his other
relatives under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC.

    3. At the trial, besides other witnesses, the prosecution      H
    454     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A examined the father of the deceased (informant) as PW 1, the
  cousin of PW 1 as PW 2 and the mother of the deceased as
  PW 4. The appellant volunteered to be a witness and got
  examined himself as OW 1 and took the defence that the
  deceased had left behind a suicide note written by her one day
9 before her death in which she has stated that she had
  committed suicide not on account of any harassment by the
  appellant and her family members but due to the harassment
  by her own parents. The Trial Court, however, disbelieved the
  defence and convicted the appellant and his other relatives
c under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC. The Trial Court in
  particular held that there was material that two days prior to
  the death of the deceased, her father (PW1) and his relative
  (PW2) were called by her and told that she has been harassed
  by the appellant and her in laws for not being paid the amount
  demanded by the appellant and when PWs 1 and 2 went to the
0
  house of the appellant, they were abused by the appellant and
  on 4.4.1999, PW 1 and others were informed by one Suresh
  Kumar, a neighbour of the appellant, about the incident. From
  the aforesaid and other evidence, the Trial Court came to the
E conclusion that the deceased was subjected to torture and
  harassment by the accused, mainly for the reason that an
  amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given to the appellant by PW
  1. The appellant and other relatives of the appellant carried
  Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003 before the High Court and
  by the impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the two
F other relatives of the appellant (A2 and A3) but maintained the
  conviction of the appellant under Sections 3048 and 498A,
  IPC.

       4. At the hearing before us, learned senior counsel for the
G appellant submitted that the findings of the Trial Court and of
  the High Court with regard to the demand of dowry are in relation
  to the demand of Rs.50,000/-. He submitted that this demand
  of Rs.50,000/- is not mentioned in the FIR (Ext. P1). He further
  submitted that in any case, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is
H clear that this demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant was not
    VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY             455
       PUB.PROSECUTOR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

a dowry demand but an amount which the appellant wanted from       A
the family of the deceased to purchase a computer and set up
his own business. He further submitted that the Trial Court and
the High Court ought not to have disbelieved the suicide note
(Ext. D19) which was in the handwriting of the deceased as
proved by DW1. In this context, he explained that the signature    B
on the suicide note (Ext. D19) purporting to be that of the
deceased, tallied with the signature of the deceased in Ext. D1
which was a hall ticket issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open
University for an examination which the deceased took in
March, 1998.                                                       c
      5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have
discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in
particular, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 to establish that
there was demand of dowry of not only Rs.50,000/- but other        D
items as well. He further submitted that Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 defines 'dowry' as any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of1he parties to the marriage. He     E
submitted that the expression "in connection with the marriage
of the parties to the marriage" is wide enough to cover the
demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the appellant for purchase of
a computer. He further submitted that so far as the suicide note
(Ext. D19) is concerned, the same cannot be believed to have       F
been written by the deceased who was only a matriculate and
the High Court has given good reasons in the impugned
judgment why the suicide note cannot be believed to have been
written by the deceased. He argued that in any case only on
the basis of the evidence given by DW1, the Court cannot hold      G
that the suicide note had been written by the deceased and
not by someone else. He submitted that since the prosecution
has been able to prove that the deceased had been subjected
to not only a demand of dowry but also cruelty soon before her
death, the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the    H
    456      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   appellant guilty both under Sections 3048 and 498A, IPC.

          6. We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4,
    the father and mother of the deceased respectively. We find
    that PW 1 has stated that at the time of marriage, gold, silver
    articles, ornaments, T.V., fridge and several other household
8
    articles worth more than Rs.2,50,000/- were given to the
    appellant and after the marriage, the deceased joined the
    appellant in his house at Kagaziguda. He has, thereafter,
    stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox cum type
C   institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the
    deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant
    asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from them as he was intending
    to purchase a computer and set up his own business. Similarly,
    PW4 has stated in her evidence that five months after the
    marriage, the appellant sent her away to their house and when
D   she questioned her, she told that the appellant was demanding
    Rs.50,000/- and that the demand for money is to purchase a
    computer to start his own business. Thus, the evidence of PW1
    and PW4 is that the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant
    was made six months after the marriage and that too for
E   purchasing a computer to start his own business. It is only with
    regard to this demand of Rs.50,000/- that the Trial Court has
    recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence
    under Section 3048, IPC and it is only in relation to this demand
    of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a computer to start a business
F   made by the appellant six months after the marriage that the
    High Court has also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court
    with regard to guilt of the appellant under Section 3048, IPC.
    In our view, both the Trial Court and the High Court failed to
    appreciate that the demand, if at all made by the appellant on
G   the deceased for purchasing a computer to start a business
    six months after the marriage, was not in connection with the
    marriage and was not really a 'dowry demand' within the
    meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This
    Court has held in Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
H (2007) 9 sec 121:
     VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY                457
        PUB.PROSECUTOR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
            "In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry"   A
     any property or valuable security should be given or agreed
     to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any
     time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage
     of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of
     property or valuable security must have some connection           B
     with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between
     the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the
     marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal
     provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly
     well known social custom or practice in India. It is well         c
     settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act
     is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or
     transaction and words are used which everybody
     conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows
     or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the       0
     words are to be construed as having that particular
     meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR
     (1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India v.
     Union of/ndia, AIR (1997) SC 558)."

       7. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the           E
 offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution
 is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
 deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the
 accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and
 in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made                F
 general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the
 deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts
 of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. On
 the other hand, DW1 in his evidence has stated that on
 4.4.1999, the day when the incident occurred, he went to the          G
·nearby temple along with his mother (A2) and his father (A3)
 went to the bazar to bring ration and his wife (deceased) alone
 was present at the house and at about 1.00 p.m., they were
 informed by somebody that some smoke was coming out from
 their house and their house was burning. Immediately he and           H
    458      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A his mother rushed to their house and by that time there was a
  huge gathering at the house and the police was also present.
  He and his family members were arrested by the police and
  after one month they were released on bail. What DW1 has
  further stated is relevant for the purpose of his defence and is
B quoted hereinbelow:

                 "While cleaning our house we found a chit on our
          dressing table. The said chit was written by my wife and it
          is in her handwriting and it also contains her signature. Ex.
          D 19 is the said chit. I identified the handwriting of my wife
c         in Ex. 019 because my wife used to write chits for
          purchasing of monthly provisions as such on tallying the
          said chit and Ex. 019 I came to know that it was written
          by my wife only. Immediately I took the Ex. 019 to the P.S.
          Mangalhat and asked them to receive but they refused to
D         take the same."

  From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that while cleaning the
  house the appellant came across a chit written in the handwriting
  of his wife and containing her signature. This chit has been
E marked as Ext. 019 and the appellant has identified the
  handwriting and signature of the deceased in Ext. 019 which
  is written in Hindi. The English translation of Ext.019
  reproduced in the impugned judgment of the High Court is
  extracted hereinbelow:
F                 "I, Meenakshi W/o Vipin Kumar, do hereby execute
          and commit to writing this in my sound mind,
          consciousness and senses and with my free will and
          violation to the effect that nobody is responsible for my
          death. My parents family members have harassed much
G         to my husband. I am taking this step as I have fed up with
          his life. Due to me the quarrels are taking place here, as
          such I want to end my life and I beg to pardon by all."

  It appears from Ext. 019 that the deceased has written the chit
H according to her free will saying that nobody was responsible
    VIPIN JAISWAL(A-1) v. STATE OF A.P. REP.BY              459
       PUB.PROSECUTOR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
for her death and that her parents and family members have          A
harassed her husband and she was taking the step as she was
fed up with her life and because of her quarrels were taking
place.

      8. When the appellant, who is the husband of the
                                                                    B
deceased, has said in his evidence as OW1 that the aforesaid
chit (Ext. 019) has been written by the deceased herself and
has been signed by her and it also appears from his evidence
quoted above that he was acquainted with her handwriting and
signature, the Trial Court and the High Court could have            C
recorded a finding one way or the other by comparing her
handwriting and signature with some of her other handwritings
and signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. In the
alternative, the Trial Court and the High Court could have sought
for an expert's opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act
on whether the handwriting and signature were that of the           0
deceased. But unfortunately, neither the Trial Court nor the High
Court have. resorted to these provisions of the Evidence Act
and instead by their own imaginary reasoning disbelieved the
defence of the appellant that Ext.019 could not have been
written by the deceased.                                            E
     9. In our considered opinion, the evidence of OW1 (the
appellant) and Ext.019 cast a reasonable doubt on the
prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dqwry. In -F
our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the
essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the
accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her
to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC. G
Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry
death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to
prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty
caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death.
                                                               H
    460      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond
  reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty,
  neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 3048, IPC has
  been made out by the prosecution.

        10. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the
8
    impugned judgment of the High Court and that of the Trial Court
    and direct that the bail bond furnished by the appellant shall
    stand discharged.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeal allowed.