STATE OF HARYANA versus ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1041, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1801 of 2013)
JUNE 13, 2019
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 498-A r/w 304B – Dowry death – Death
of victim due to burn injuries within 7 years of marriage, otherwise
than under normal circumstances – Conviction u/s. 498A r/w 304B
– However, set aside by the High Court – Interference with – Held:
Not called for – High Court rightly found that the evidence of the
complainant-father of the victim did not show any proximate
connection between the demand of dowry and the act of cruelty of
harassment and or the death – Prosecution was unable to prove
that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before
her death in connection with any demand for dowry – Thus, the
evidence being weak, was not sufficient to convict the respondents.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Considering the evidence, the High Court did not
find the evidence strong enough to hold the respondents guilty.
To attract Section 304B of the Penal Code, the prosecution has
to establish that soon before the death the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand
for dowry. The High Court rightly found that the evidence did
not show any proximate connection between the demand of dowry
and the act of cruelty of harassment and or the death. The
prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in
connection with any demand for dowry. Under Section 304B, the
prosecution cannot escape from discharging its burden of proving
that the harassment or cruelty was related to demand for dowry
soon before death. The High Court has been swayed by the fact
that the evidence of the complainant-father of the victim, did not
evince direct knowledge of demand of dowry. The judgment and
order under appeal is not liable to be interfered with. [Para 15-
17] [1044-F-H; 1045-A-B]
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1041
     1041
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1801 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2012 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.984-SB of
1998
Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. for the Appellant.
Sudhir Naagar, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana is against a judgment
and order dated 3.5.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the appeal filed by the
respondents, reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajhar convicting the respondents under
Sections 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal code and
acquitting the respondents.
2. The victim (Babli) and her sister (Neeru) were married to two
brothers, Kartar (Respondent No.3) and Pawan, sons of Smt. Angoori
Devi  (Respondent No.1) and Akhey Ram (Respondent No.2).  After 3
½ years of marriage the victim, wife of Kartar Singh (Respondent No.3)
died of burn injuries.
3. The victim’s father (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’)
lodged an FIR, pursuant to which Sessions Crime No. 9 of 29.3.1996
was commenced.     It was alleged that about 1 & ¼ years ago when his
daughter Babli was pregnant, her in-laws had asked her to leave the
house and return only if she brought Rs.60,000/-.
4. It is alleged that the victim
informed her parents about this
demand and she started living with her parents.  She gave birth to a
daughter, after which she stayed with her parents for 5 to 6 months.
Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused to take the victim
back.   It is stated that the victim has lived with her in-laws for about 20
days, after which she was thrown out from her matrimonial home.    Her
mother-in-law (Respondent No. 1) and father-in-law (Respondent No.
2) demanded gold ring and a chain.   It is stated that a village Panchayat
was convened after which Babli was sent to her in-laws house on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
29.10.1995. On 3.12.1995, the complainant came to know about the
death of the victim.  He came to know that the victim had been burnt to
death.  He went to the spot and saw the dead body.
5. According to the complaint, since the victim had died due to
torture and beating by her in-laws to press their demand for dowry, the
matter was reported to the Sadar Police Station, Bahadurgarh.
Investigation was commenced and the body of the victim was sent for
post mortem examination.   The post mortem report opined that the
cause of death was shock as a result of anti-mortem superficial deep
burns over entire body.
6.  The prosecution examined nine witnesses.  No witnesses were
examined on behalf of the defence.   In the examination under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent No. 3, Kartar
Singh, husband of the victim, deposed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
being his parents, resided separately.
7. The complainant who deposed as the 4th  prosecution witness
(PW4) stated  that immediately after marriage the respondent started
harassing the victim for dowry and also used to beat his daughter.   The
victim was thrown out of the house  when she was in the family way  as
they wanted her to bring Rs.60,000/- in cash, gold articles and a
Refrigerator.
8. According to the complainant, as he could not afford to give
cash and ornaments, the victim was thrown out.  While the victim was
at his house, she gave birth to a girl child.  After about six
months,
through the intervention of a Panchayat, he sent the victim back to her
matrimonial home. No member of the Panchayat was examined.
9. The victim stayed there for 15-20 days, after which she was
set on fire and killed by the accused.  According to the complainant,
Rakesh, elder brother of Akhey Ram (Respondent No. 3) came to  his
village and told him about the death of the victim. Thereafter, the
complainant along with villagers went to the house of accused and saw
the victim lying dead.
10. The complainant has, in his evidence, claimed that his younger
daughter, Neetu told him that the victim had been killed by the accused
and later set on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body.   The younger
daughter Neetu was, however,  not examined by the prosecution.
STATE OF HARYANA  v. ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
11. The victim’s brother, Subhash who deposed as the 5th
prosecution witness (PW-5) more or less reiterated what the complainant,
his father, had said.
12. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident.  The
respondent No.3 has in his statement under Section 313 stated that his
parents did not live with him and that he was not at home when the
incident took place.
13. The High Court found that the complainant did, in his evidence,
say that he had first hand knowledge of demand of dowry.  The High
Court refused to uphold the conviction on the basis of hearsay evidence,
since the primary witness Neetu was never produced in Court to give
evidence.  Moreover, the High Court found discrepancies between his
evidence in Court and his statement to the Police, with which he had
been confronted.
14. The High Court found substance in the submission made by
the Counsel for the respondents that if the respondents had really harassed
or maltreated the victim, her sister married to another son of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, brother of the respondent No.3, would not
have abstained from giving evidence.  The Court also opined that counsel
was justified in submitting that if there had been harassment as a result
of greed for dowry, the victim and her sister who was married to the
victim’s brother-in-law (husband’s brother) would also have been harassed
and tortured.  There is no allegation of harassment of the victim’s sister
Neetu.
15. Considering the evidence, the Court did not find the evidence
strong enough to hold the respondents guilty.  We agree with the High
Court that the evidence is weak, and not sufficient for conviction.
16. It is true, that the victim died of burns.  The death was otherwise
than under normal circumstances and within 7 years of marriage.
However, to attract Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution has to establish that soon before the death the deceased
was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for
dowry.  The High Court rightly found that the evidence did not show any
proximate connection between the demand of dowry and the act of
cruelty of harassment and or the death. The prosecution has not been
able to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
17. Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution
cannot escape from discharging its burden of proving that the harassment
or cruelty was related to demand for dowry soon before death.  In this
case, the High Court has been swayed by the fact that the evidence of
the complainant, being the father of the victim, did not evince direct
knowledge of demand of dowry.   The judgment and order under appeal
is not liable to be interfered with.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Nidhi Jain
                                             Appeal dismissed.
STATE OF HARYANA  v. ANGOORI DEVI & ANR.
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]