Head
Notes
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As has been held by the Apex
Court in the case of Kunhiabdulla*,
in order to attract application of
s.304B IPC, the essential ingredients
are : (1) The death of a woman should
be caused by burns or bodily injury
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 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]
*Kunhiabdulla Versus State of Kerala
2004 (2 ) SCR853 = 2004 (4) SCC 13
- referred to.
1.2 As
generally happens in a crime of dowry death, 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 in her `Sasural' in her
bedroom. [para 17] [1150-B-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 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 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
Kunhiabdullah, `soon before' is a
relative term and it would depend upon
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 an offence of dowry
death as well as for raising a
presumption u/s 113-B 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 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 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)
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-1did 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 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 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 Kerala
2004 (2 ) SCR853 = 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 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-B-C]
1.6 Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5
for attraction of s. 304B 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]
1.7 There is an important feature of
the case. 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., the father of
accused No. 1 and husband of accused
No. 2 and two daughters. PW 1 has
described father-in-law of the 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 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 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 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 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 someone on phone, but in
vain. There is nothing to cast a doubt
on the said 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 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. 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]
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 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 before the court.
[para 37] [1160-B-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 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 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 inside
the bedroom of the deceased. The
manner in 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 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.
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 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 DW 1
also cannot be believed that her
brother accused No. 1, the husband 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 suicide. It is in the
testimony of PW 7
(C.O/Investigating 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 Act and the findings of the High
Court are correct. [para 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 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 since
no charge u/s
302 IPC was levelled, this Court 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* 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 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1980 SC 898 referred to para 8
2004 (2) SCR853 distinguished para 16
and 24
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 2003.
Indu Malhotra, Rajesh and Vivek Jain
for the Appellants.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG,
R.K. Gupta, Pradeep Misra, Suraj
Singh, Vandana Mishra, Anurag Dubey,
Meenesh Dube, Ravinder Singh and S.R.
Setia for the Respondent.
Subject
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 304-B and 498-A IPC and s. 4 of
Dowry Prohibition 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 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 u/s 113-B of Evidence
Act is attracted and the accused could
not 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 before her death' -
Connotation of - Proximity Test.
Administration of criminal justice -
Framing of appropriate charge -Dowry
death - Bride strangulated and burnt to
death by her husband and mother-in-
law as their 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,
conviction and sentence u/ss 304-B and
498-A upheld - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
304-B and 498-A - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sentence/Sentencing.
Words and Phrases:
Expressions `soon before her death' as
occurring in s.304-B IPC; and
`rarest of rare cases' in the context
of dowry deaths - Connotation of.
A bride, aged about 24 years, died of
strangulation 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 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.
Judgement
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO(s). 1168 OF 2005
SATYA NARAYAN TIWARI @ JOLLY & ANR.
Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondent(s)
O R
D E R
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
The
hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows to women.
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
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.
This Appeal has been
filed against the impugned
judgment and order of the
Allahabad High Court dated
12.07.2005.
The facts of the case are that
Geeta (deceased) was married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan
Tiwari @ Jolly
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 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.
On 03.11.2000 at about 12 noon
the first informant
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 304B, 498-A IPC and
Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act
and awarded life sentence under
Section 304B 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.
2
We have carefully perused the
impugned judgment and
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, 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.
Although bride burning or
bride hanging cases have 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.
3. 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 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 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.
In the present case, there was a
post mortem done by a
committee of three Doctors. We
have perused the post
mortem report. In that report ante
mortem injuries were
mentioned as under :-
"1. Ligature mark around
the neck, 31x7 cms.
Base slightly grooved with dark
red. On cut
section-tissue 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."
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
strangulation with
simultaneous A/M burn."
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 302 IPC should have been
levelled against the
4
appellants but surprisingly enough that
has not been done
in this case.
On the evidence on record which
we are repeating here
again, we see no reason to disagree
with the view taken by
the High Court.
The deceased was aged about 24
years and about = day
had passed since she died when post
mortem was done. She
was of average build. Eyes
and mouth were partly 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.
At the trial, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses.
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was the father of
the deceased and
maker of the F.I.R. who as well as his
relative Jaideo
Awasthi PW 2 gave evidence about the
demand of Maruti Car
by the accused respondents
since after six months of
marriage and about the demand of Maruti
Car being repeated
and pressed 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 autopsy
on the dead body of
5
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 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 Tiwari
DW 1 was the real sister of the husband
of the deceased.
Devendra Misra DW 2 and
Sushil Kumar Misra DW 3 were
non-family members of the two accused.
As held by the Apex Court in the
case of Kunhiabdulla
Versus State of Kerala,
2004 (4) SCC 13, in order to
attract application of
Section 304B 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 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 or in
6
connection with demand of dowry;
5. Such cruelty or harassment is
shown to have meted out
to the woman soon before her
death.
As generally happens in a crime of
dowry death, this
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
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 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.
7
As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and
5, the relevant
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 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
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
Geeta's Sasural at Farrukhabad on
getting message from Geeta about the
atrocities of the two
accused heaped upon
her rendering her life miserable
because of non-fulfilment
of the demand of Maruti Car.
Both the accused were there at their
home at Farrukhabad
and repeated the demand of Maruti car.
On his expressing
inability to meet this demand, he and
Jaideo Awasthi were
8
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 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 DW
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 that juncture would ruin
her matrimonial life
and so she advised him not to take any
legal step at that
time.
Then he received 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, 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.
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 thereafter on the day of
the incident on the
9
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 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 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 not only be
physical but also mental.
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 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 Ghanshyam could not
10
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 life at their hands.
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. Vidushi DW 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 other three, is an indication that
Surya Kant Dixit
(father of the 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. 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
11
maltreatment, harassment
and torture heaped upon her
(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 Surya
Kant Dixit PW 1 and
Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has the natural
aura of the truth.
Learned counsel for
the appellants argued that the
alleged demand of Maruti Car made after
about six months of
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 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
accused and the death
of the deceased. The counsel
for accused made reference to
the case of Balwant 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.
As held by this Court in
Kunhiabdullah and another Vs.
State of Kerala, 2004 (4)
SCC 13, 'soon before' is a
12
relative term and it would depend upon
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 an offence
of dowry death as
well as for raising a 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 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 of the woman
concerned, it would be of no
consequence.
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, the facts were somewhat
different in that the
deceased was not shown to have been
subjected to cruelty by
13
her husband for at least 15 months
prior to her death. On
the fact of that case, it was held that
Section 304B IPC
was not attracted.
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 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,
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1
accompanied by Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 had
to go to her Sasural
in Farrukhabad in an attempt to
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
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
14
time but it seems that
that did not happen. Surya Kant
Dixit PW 1 was in a
helpless state 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 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.
Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5
for attraction of
Section 304B 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.
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 important
recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10
15
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 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 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. 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
telephone was stuck under the left arm
of the deceased and
burnt telephone wire was found stuck
with the dead body.
The post mortem report also
makes mention of the burnt
wire and burnt cordless phone being
found stuck with the
dead body along with a half burnt scarf
around the neck.
16
The recovery memoes
Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11 had been
prepared by S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 at
the dictation of
ShirBahadur singh PW 5. Shir Bahadur
Singh PW 5 (Tehsildar
Magistrate) is a witness to the
recovery memoes. Inquest
report (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 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 on
the Chhajja were found.
Not only this, it appears that the
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 is
nothing to cast doubt on the said
recoveries.
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
17
application of violence
on the deceased on the Chhajja
(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 breathing process with the
compression of the windpipe
of her neck before
burning her. Respiration had not
completely stopped. In 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 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 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.
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.
18
As a matter of fact, ligature mark was
the impression left
by the constricting object 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 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.
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. 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, 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
19
interest of
the accused persons. It was practically impossible for PW 1
(father of the deceased) to maneuver any manipulation in the post
mortem report. We also cannot accept the argument that the doctors
were incompetent.
The theory of suicide
put forth by the defence
completely falls through
on careful analysis of the
evidence and 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. If a cloth is
suddenly tightened around the
neck, it is likely to cause
loss of consciousness,
rendering it impossible for the
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
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
20
rendered immobile and in a helpless
state.
Vidushi DW 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 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.
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,
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
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
21
bearing age. She had been married about
three years back.
No evidence could be
led by the defence that she was
suffering 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 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.
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 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 could
be no question of
the knot bring produced before the
court.
On close scrutiny
and careful appreciation of the
22
evidence, we are of the firm view that
the trial judge
wrongly 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
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 Tiwari alias
Jolly. No one else could have
access there. The manner in
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
(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
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-
23
in-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 the bedroom of 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 DW 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 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. 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 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.
24
The interested testimony of DW 1
Vidushi also cannot 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
police station that
her daugther-in-law had committed
suicide. It is in the testimony
of D.P.N. Pandey PW 7
(C.O/Investigating 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 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 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 , Advocate-uncle of the accused Satya
Narayan Tiwari, DW 2 Devendra Misra, Advocate, and few other
lawyers.
25.
We note from the testimony of DW 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 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
of the criminal act committed by them.
Learned counsel for the accused
also argued that it was
the accused Bhuvaneshwari who had
passed on the information
of the death of the deceased to her
parents on telephone.
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 (father of the
deceased) denied that
the telephone received by him was from
Bhuvaneshwari Devi.
According to him, he had received the
telephone call from
some stranger. 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
point on this premise. The reason is
that the crime was
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
26
as a case of suicide.
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 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
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.
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 of
her marriage;
(2)the deceased had
been subjected to cruelty by her
husband and mother-in-law (the
two accused appellants)
27
over the demand of 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
connection with the
demand of dowry i.e. 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 crime who
caused her death by strangulation
and burning on the
given date, time and place.
In our opinion, the trial Judge
recorded an acquittal
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 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
of the High Court
are correct.
As a result of the above
discussion, this Appeal is
28
dismissed accordingly.
On 27.10.2005 this Court
had granted bail to the
appellants. Their bail bonds are
cancelled. They shall be
taken into custody forthwith to serve
out remaining period
of sentence.
Application for impleadment is
allowed.
......................J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
......................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 28, 2010.
Labels----the essential ingredients of s.304B IPC, plea of alibi, Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , rarest of rare cases, Administration of criminal justice - Framing of appropriate charge, `rarest of rare cases' in the context of dowry deaths, `soon before her death' as occurring in s.304-B IPC, allegation of manipulation of post mortem report, Section 498A IPC,
No comments:
Post a Comment