MONJU ROY & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 275, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 275 
MONJU ROY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012) 
APRIL 17, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3048, 498A and 306 - Dowry 
death - Prosecution against husband, his mother and his c 
siblings - Prosecution abated against mother due tn her 
death - Conviction by courts below - Husband-accused 
undergone the sentence awarded-Appeal by the accused-
siblings of husband- Held: Offence u/s 3048 can be said to 
have been committed not only when 'demand of dowry' is D 
made, but also when 'cruelty or harassment' for or in 
connection with such demand, is made - There is no material 
to show that the appellants-accused harassed the victim 
resulting in her death -
Moreover, the possibility of 
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all the 
E 
family members cannot be ruled out- Therefore, appellants-
accused acquitted uls 3048 giving them benefit of doubt -
Conviction under other offences is upheld. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though, it is accepted that the deceased 
was subjected to harassment on account of non-
F 
fu lfillment of dowry demand, but possibility of 
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all G · 
the family members cannot be ruled out. Moreover, 
ingredient of offence under Section 3048 IPC is not mere 
demand of dowry but "cruelty or harassment" for or in 
connection with demand of dowry.[para 7-8 and 1 O] [280-
B-D; 281-F-G] 
H 
275
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000 (3) SCR 662 = 
2000 (5) SCC 207; Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand 
2007 (6) SCR 105 = 2007 (15) SCC 415; Amar Singh vs. 
State of Rajasthan 2010 (9) SCR 526 = 2010 (9) SCC 64 
- relied on. 
B 
2. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and 
when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand 
of dowry or harassment which follows, cannot be 
weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus 
C allegation against all family members particularly against 
brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on 
same footing as husband and parents. In such case, 
apart from general allegation of demand 'f dowry, court 
has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by 
D all the named members. [para 11) [282-0-E] 
3. In the facts and circumstances of the present 
E case, even if it is accepted that the appellants who were 
the siblings of the accused-husband were involved in 
raising the demand for dowry, there is no material that 
the appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death. 
Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband 
F who may be benefitted by the dowry and may be in a 
position to harass and not all other relatives, though no 
hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is 
also true that till such an unfortunate event takes place, 
the family members may not disclose the demand of 
G dowry being a private matter and under the hope that
the relationship of the couple may improve. However, 
having regard to the nature of their relationships, there 
being possibility of the appellants' having been named 
by way of exaggeration, the appellants deserve to be 
H given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the
MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
277 
present case. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the A 
appellants under Section 3048 IPC is set aside, without 
interfering with conviction and sentence under other 
heads. [para 12-13] [282-F-H; 283-A-B] 
Case Law Reference 
2000 (3) SCR 662 
2007 (6) SCR 105 
2010 (9) SCR 526 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
para 5 
para 9 
para 10 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal C 
Appeal No. 1797 of 2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2011 of 
the High Court at Calcutta in C. R. A.. No. 86 of 2005 
D 
Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for 
the Appellants. 
Kabir S. Bose, Anip Sachthey for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - 1. The appellants 
stand convicted under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the 
Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentenced to undergo 
Rigorous Imprisonment ("RI") for 10 years and to pay fine of F 
Rs.5000/c. In default, to undergo further imprisonment for 
two years. They also stand sentenced to suffer RI for three 
years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer 
further imprisonment for three months under Sections 498A 
a~3001PC. 
G 
2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar 
Roy on 2Q1h February, 1994. According to the prosecution, 
Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters and brother raised a 
demand of Rs.5000/- and since the said demand was not H
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A fulfilled, Shanti Roy was harassed and even kept without 
food. On 31'1 July, 1995, she committed suicide by pouring 
kerosene and setting herself on fire. She was pregnant 
carrying eight months' old foetus. Chittaranjan Saha (PW1 ), 
brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report. 
B After conducting investigation, appellants Monju Roy, Anju 
Roy, sisters of Sekhar Roy, Tulshi Roy, brother of Sekhar 
Roy, Sumitra Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy and Sekhar Roy, 
husband of the deceased were sent up for trial. Sumitra 
Roy died on 27th August, 2001 during pendency of the trial. 
c 
3. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also 
produced documents in support of its case. The witnesses 
examined included brother of the deceased PW 5 and mother 
of the deceased PW 14 to prove that the deceased was 
D harassed by demand of dowry. Accepting the evidence, the 
trial court convicted and sentenced the three appellants as 
mentioned above and also Sekhar Roy who has not preferred 
appeal and is said to have undergone the sentence awarded 
to him. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence 
E with the modification that instead of life imprisonment under 
Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for 
ten years was awarded. 
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants 
F Shri Pijush K. Roy and Shri Kabir S. Bose for the State of 
West Bengal and with their assistance have gone through 
the record. 
5.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that 
G omnibus allegation against all the family members could not 
be taken at the face value, having regard to the well known 
tendency of naming all the family members by the family of 
an unfortunate victim. In such circumstances, the court may 
be cautious in accepting such omnibus allegations against 
H all the family members unless there is an independent
MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
279 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 
corroboration of such allegation. He submitted that in the A 
present case, the allegation is that all the five family members 
raised a demand of Rs.5000/- and beyond stating that all 
the family members harassed her, no individual role in 
harassment has been specified. The benefit of dowry could 
go either to the husband or at best his mother and not to the 
B 
siblings who are alleged to have joined in such demand. 
There is no independent corroboration of the allegation as 
such allegation has been made for the first time in the FIR. 
The allegation is based on the version given to the witnesses 
three months after the marriage or thereafter, though it is C 
stated that the witness continued to receive information about 
such demand even thereafter upto 15-20 days prior to the 
occurrence. He submitted that mother-in-law of the 
deceased has already died and husband of the deceased 0 
has undergone the sentence. The appellants who are two 
sisters and one brother of the husband of the deceased have 
been in custody for more than four years and two months. 
The possibility of exaggeration about the number of family 
members who raised demand of dowry was not ruled out. 
E 
Even if demand was jointly made, the appellants have not 
been assigned any role in harassment in absence of which, 
presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act could 
not be raised against them. Reliance has been placed on
observations of this Court in Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab F 
& Ors.1. 
6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the above 
submission and pointed out that the deceased was pregnant 
for eight months and would not have committed suicide within G 
two years of marriage unless the harassment for dowry had 
been caused. He submitted that there is no reason to 
disbelieve the version of close relatives of the deceased that 
dowry was demanded by all the family members and the 
demand continued till her death. All the members have been H 
' 2000 (5) sec 207
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A specifically named. The death having taken place within 
seven years of marriage in circumstances other than normal, 
statutory presumption under Section 3048 clearly arises and 
the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing 
B 
the appellants. 
7. We have given serious thought to the question 
raised about the possibility of exaggeration in prosecution 
version in implicating all the family members. 
c 
8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with 
the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was 
subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of 
dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that 
possibility of naming all the family members by way of 
D exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court 
observed: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"5 ........ . A tendency has, however, developed for 
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the 
deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths 
which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the 
case of the prosecution even against the real 
culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to 
seek conviction for maximum people, the parents 
of the deceased have been found to be making 
efforts for involving other relations which ultimately 
weaken the caso of the prosecution even against 
the real accused as appears to have happer:<:J 
in the instant case." 
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant 
relatives without there being specific
material. Only 
the husband, his parents or at best close family 
members may be expected to demand dowry or to 
harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there
MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
281 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
is tangible material to support a/legations made against 
A 
such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations 
is not enough to summon them .in absence of any 
specific role and material to support such role. 
9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of JharkhancP, it was 
B 
observed: 
"14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 
Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased 
Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the 
c 
deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told 
them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal 
Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his 
wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is 
possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana 
o 
Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide 
as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A 
and 394 /PC, as has been observed in several 
decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State 
of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc, Hence, we allow the 
E 
appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside 
the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial 
court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that 
they be released forthwith unless required in connection 
with some other case." 
F 
10. Moreover, ingredient of offence under Section 
3048 is not mere demand of dowry but "cruelty or 
harassment" for or in connection with demand of dowry. In 
Amar Singh vs. State
ofRajasthan~. it was observed : 
G 
'· 
"29 . ........... What is punishable under Section 498-A 
or Section 304-B /PC is the act of cruelty or harassment 
by the husband or the relative of the husband on the 
2 (2007) 15 sec 415 
3 (201 O) s sec 64 
H
282 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the 
Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before 
her death a woman has been subjected by any person 
to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any 
demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such 
person had caused the dowry death within the meaning 
of Section 304-B /PC. The act of subjecting .a woman 
to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any 
demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be 
established by the prosecution for the court to presume 
that the accused has caused the dowry death." 
11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when 
a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry 
or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden 
D scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all 
family members particularly against brothers and sisters and 
other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband 
and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of 
demand of dowry court has to be satisfied that harassment 
E was also caused by all the named members. 
12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 
even if it is accepted that the appellants were involved in 
raising the demand for dowry there is no material that the 
F appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death. 
Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who 
may be benefitted by the dowry and
may be in a position to 
harass and not all other relatives, though no hard and fast 
rule can be laid down in that regard. It is also true that till 
G such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members 
may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter 
and under the hope that the relationship of the couple may 
improve. However, having regard to the nature of their 
H relationships, there being possibility of the appellants' having 
been named byway of exaggeration, we are of the view that

MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
283 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt in that A 
regard in the facts of the present case. 
13. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the 
conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 
3048 IPC without interfering with conviction and sentence B 
under other heads. Since the appellants are said to have 
already undergone the sentence awarded for other charges 
which may be verified, they may be released from custody 
forthwith unless required in any other case. 
c 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal partly allowed. 
D