PARVATI DEVI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 711, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 711
711
PARVATI DEVI
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 574 of 2012)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B and 201 r/w s. 34 – Dowry death
– Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased daughter of
informant (PW-3) was married to A-1 – Within few months of
marriage, A-1, his father (A-2) and his mother (A-3) started
harassing her for cash and motor cycle – They threatened the victim
that if the demand was not fulfilled then they would throw her out
of matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else – Similar
message was conveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law (PW-2) with whom
A-1 had raised the issue of insufficient dowry – It was within 15
days of this incident that PW-3 received information from PW-2
about his daughter having gone missing from matrimonial home –
A missing complaint was lodged with local police after making futile
search – Five days after the complaint, a dead body was recovered
from the banks of the river – PW-3 identified the body as that of his
daughter – Doctor who conducted autopsy deposed that there was
no evidence of any ante-mortem injury – Trial Court convicted all
the accused under ss.304 B and 201 r/w s.34 on the basis of
circumstantial evidence – High Court upheld conviction – Appeal
against conviction – A-2 died during pendency of appeal – Held:
The circumstances set out in s.304B were established in the
light of
the fact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonial
home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after
demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had
occurred under abnormal circumstances – Such a death has to be
charactarized as a “dowry death” – There was sufficient evidence
to inculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased) – The circumstances
put together, unerringly pointed to his guilt in extinguishing the life
of his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to
satisfy the demands of dowry – The impugned judgment and order
of sentence imposed on A-1 is maintained – However, against A-3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
(Mother-in-law), evidence showed only omnibus allegations against
her with respect to dowry demands – Prosecution was not able to
indicate any specific allegations, nor pointed to any specific
evidence or testimony against her – Conviction order against her is
set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with
Section 113B of the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that
once the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that a woman
has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection
with any demand for dowry, soon before her death, the Court
shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have
subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with the
demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning
of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however,
rebuttable and can be dispelled on the accused being able to
demonstrate through cogent evidence that all the ingredients of
Section 304B IPC have not been satisfied. [Para 17][722-C-E]
Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359
: [2011] 1 SCR 724; Maya Devi and Anr. v. State of
Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 405 : [2015] 11 SCR 903 –
relied on .
1.2 In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigation
conducted by the prosecution, the circumstances set out in
Section 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of the
fact that the deceased, had gone missing from her matrimonial
home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after
demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had
occurred under abnormal circumstances, such a death would have
to be charactarized as a “dowry death”. [Para 18][722-E-F]
2. Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearly
indicates that the deceased woman had died under abnormal
circumstances that could only be explained by her husband and
in-laws, as she was residing at her matrimonial home when she
suddenly disappeared and no plausible explanation was offered
for her disappearance. The plea raised on behalf of the accused
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
that the body recovered from the banks of Barakar river was
unidentifiable, is devoid of merits when PW-3, father of the
deceased testified that he could recognize the dead body as that
of the deceased, from a part of the face that had remained intact
and from the clothes that were found on the body. As regards A-
1, the High Court and the trial Court have rightly raised a
presumption against him under Section 113B of the Evidence
Act which prescribes that the Court shall presume that a person
has caused a dowry death of a woman if it is shown that soon
before her death, she had been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
[Para 19][722-F-H; 723-A-B]
3.1. The case of the prosecution rests solely on
circumstantial evidence. No eye witness was produced who could
testify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banks
of river Barakar. From the circumstances, there can be two
hypothesis. One is that the deceased was done away with within
the four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body was
smuggled out and dumped into the river. The second pre-
supposition would be that the deceased was alive when she was
taken to the river-side under some pretext and pushed in, leading
to her death by drowning. If the first assumption is taken to be
correct, then surely, some villager would have seen the accused
persons carrying the dead body to the river where it was finally
dumped. However, the
prosecution has not produced any villager
who was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken out of
the matrimonial home and carried to the river. Therefore, this
version would have to be discarded in favour of the second one
which is that the deceased was alive, when she was accompanied
to the river and then she was forcibly pushed in and could not
emerge alive from the watery grave. The latter assumption also
gains strength from the post mortem report which records that
there were no signs of any ante mortem injury on the body. If the
deceased was killed in the house, then the body would certainly
have revealed some signs of struggle. [Para 21][723-E-H;
724-A-B]
3.2 There is sufficient evidence brought on record to
inculpate A-1 (husband of the deceased). The circumstances put
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
together, unerringly point to his guilt in extinguishing the life of
his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to
satisfy the demands of dowry. The impugned judgment and order
of sentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference and
is maintained. [Para 22][724-B-C]
3.3 As for A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence on record
only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with
respect to dowry demands. The respondent-State has not been
able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific
evidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only direct
evidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the
victim) mentions that A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. The
findings of the Courts below convicting A-3 for the offence under
Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC is interfered
with. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to
be detained in any other case. [Para 23][724-D-F]
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC
152 : [2010] 2 SCR 380; Ashok Kumar v. State of
Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350 : [2010] 7 SCR 1119 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 1 SCR 724
relied on
Para 15
[2015] 11 SCR 903
relied on
Para 16
[2010] 2 SCR 380
referred to
Para 16
[2010] 7 SCR 1119
referred to
Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.574 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2007 of the High Court
of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Appeal No.345 of 1999 (R).
With
Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2012
Aabhas Parimal, Somanatha Padhan, Satya Kam Sharma, Ms.
Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Mrs. L. Bhaswati
Singh, Aditya Narayan Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. Ram Sahay Mahto, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 575/2012
(hereinafter referred to as A-1) and his mother Parvati Devi, appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012 (hereinafter referred to as A-3) are
aggrieved by the common judgment dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand upholding the judgment of conviction dated
20th September, 1999 under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34
IPC passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencing
them and Nema Mahto (father of A-1 and husband of A-3) to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and three years
respectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently.
For the record, Nema Mahto had also preferred an appeal registered as
SLP (Crl.) No. 6955 of 2009 which abated on his expiring during its
pendency.
2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the impugned
judgment is that the informant, Bodhi Mahto (PW–3) had got his daughter,
Fulwa Devi, married to Ram Sahay Mahto (A-1) in the year 1997 and
within a few months of the marriage, A-1, his father Nema Mahto (since
deceased) and mother, Parvati Devi (A-3) started to harass Fulwa Devi
raising a demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a Rajdoot Motor
cycle. On expressing the inability of her parents to satisfy their
demands,
she was brutally assaulted and threatened that A-1 would be married off
to another girl. Thereafter, on information being received that his daughter
had gone missing from her matrimonial home, P.W.3 rushed to her home
but finding her traceless, he approached Birni Police Station and lodged
a missing complaint. A case was registered by the local police on 8th
August, 1997 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 being Case No. 71 of 1997, for
the offences under Sections 304/201/34 IPC. On completion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused for
the aforesaid offences along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Five days after the FIR was lodged by PW-3 on 13th August,
1997, a skeleton was recovered from the banks of river Barakar, at a
distance of about one kilometer short of Village Sirmadih which was
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
assumed to be that of Fulwa Devi. Charges were framed against the
three accused under Sections 304B/34, 201/34 IPC. To bring home the
guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereas
the accused examined six witnesses. The material witnesses examined
by the prosecution included Dr. B.P. Singh (PW-1), the doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, Sahdeo Mahto
(PW-2), brother–in–law of the deceased, Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), father
of the deceased as well as the informant, Jogeshwar Mahto (PW-4),
brother of the deceased, Tiki Devi (PW-5), wife of PW–4 (sister-in-
law/Bhabhi of the deceased) and Suresh Prasad Singh (PW-6), the
Investigating Officer.
4. After a critical analysis of the deposition of the aforesaid
witnesses, the High Court summarized their testimony. Dr. Bhupendra
Prasad Singh (PW–1) deposed that he had conducted the autopsy of the
dead body produced before him as that of Fulwa Devi and found the
body to be highly decomposed. The left leg, left forearm and left hand
were absent. Similarly, the right upper limb and right lower limb below
the knee joint were absent. No evidence of any ante-mortem injury was
found. The time that had elapsed till the post-mortem examination was
conducted, was assessed as one week.
5. Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), the informant and the father of the
deceased testified that his deceased daughter was married to A-1 and
within a few months of
her marriage, the accused had started maltreating
her and complained about inadequate dowry given by her parents. They
had demanded cash of Rs. 20,000/- and a Rajdoot Motor cycle from his
daughter and had threatened that if their demand was not met, she would
be exterminated. Fulwa Devi had shared this demand of additional dowry
with her parents, brother and sister-in-law. A similar message was
conveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law, Sahadeo Mahto (PW-2) with whom
the accused had raised the issue of insufficient dowry. PW–3 deposed
that when he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter in the month
of “Ashar”, A-1 and his father (A-2, since deceased) had cautioned
him that if he did not fulfill their demand, they would throw out Fulwa
Devi from the matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else.
It was within a period of fifteen days of the aforesaid incident that PW–
3 received information from PW-2 about his daughter having gone missing
from her matrimonial home. On rushing to her matrimonial home and
looking all over for her, when she could not be traced, an FIR was lodged
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
with the local Police as PW – 3 stated that he had reason to believe that
the accused had murdered her and concealed her body somewhere. It
was only after five days of lodging of the complaint that the dead body
of the deceased was recovered. PW–2 and PW–3 went to the spot
where the dead body was recovered. On seeing the face that was partly
intact and by identifying the clothes, PW-3 identified the body as that of
his daughter. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused,
PW-3 stood firm by his testimony, that remained unshaken.
6. Sahdeo Mahto (PW-2), son-in-law of PW–3 and Jogeshwar
Mahto (PW-4) son of PW–3 testified on the very same lines as PW-3.
They deposed that Fulwa Devi was being ill-treated and besides
demanding dowry from her, she had been threatened that if the demand
for dowry was not fulfilled, her husband would get re-marrried to someone
else. PW–4 stated that during her visit to her parental home, Fulwa Devi
had informed her family members about the demands of dowry made on
her by all the accused and the threat extended to her that if their demands
were not met, they would go in for a second marriage of their son, A-1.
7. Both the witnesses narrated as to how they came to know
about the deceased going missing from her matrimonial home. PW–2
deposed that he came to know from third parties that Fulwa Devi was
missing from her matrimonial home and her dead body had been thrown
into Barakar river after she was murdered. He
immediately informed
his father-in-law, PW–3 who set out in search of his daughter on the
banks of the river. PW-3 made an extensive search along with his son-
in-law, PW-2 and his son, PW-4 and also informed the Police. The rest
of the version of both the witnesses on the aspect of recovery of a dead
body from the banks of the nearby river and identification by them of the
body as that of Fulwa Devi, remained consistent with one corroborating
the other.
8. The High Court has observed that the evidence of Sahdeo
Mahto, PW–2, is relevant to the extent that prior to her death, Fulwa
Devi had spoken to him about the dowry demand made on her by the
accused persons. He was not an eye-witness to the incident but stated
on hearsay that he came to know from a villager that the dead body of
Fulwa Devi was thrown in Barakar river after she was murdered by the
accused. The said witness did identify the dead body as that of Fulwa
Devi on the basis of the clothes that she was wearing. Jogeshwar Mahto,
PW-4 has corroborated the testimony of his father, PW–3 on the aspect
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [HIMA KOHLI, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
of demand of dowry and the fact that Fulwa Devi had communicated
this at her parental home during one of her visits. All the three witnesses
took a common stand that demands of dowry were made on the deceased
close to the time that she had gone missing from her matrimonial home
and that she was last residing at her matrimonial home when she had
suddenly vanished one fine day.
9. The High Court has adversely commented on the slip shod
manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Investigating
Officer, Suresh Prasad Singh (PW- 6) who recorded the statements of
the witnesses, prepared the inquest report of Fulwa Devi, testified about
the two places of occurrence namely, the matrimonial home of the
deceased at village Karni and the spot at the bank of river Barakar
where the dead body was found, but failed to record the statements of
any of the residents of the village that comprised of only twenty-five
houses including the statement of the neighbours of the accused; nor did
he make any concerted effort to trace the dead body of the deceased. It
was only on persistent efforts made by the father, brother and brother-
in-law of the deceased viz., PW-3, PW-4 and PW-2 respectively, that
the dead body was ultimately located after almost a week from the date
Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial home by which time,
the body had got decomposed to a large extent.
10. Linking the chain of circumstantial
evidence from the point
when Fulwa Devi had informed her parents and relations about the dowry
demands made upon her by the accused within a few months of her
marriage to the stage when she had suddenly gone missing from her
matrimonial home and finally, when her body was recovered on the banks
of river Barakar, the High Court concurred with the findings returned by
the trial Court for inculpating all the three accused on the following basis:
“(i) The deceased Fulwa Devi was married with Ram Sahay
Mahto S/o. Nema Mahto and Parvati Devi within seven years of
her death;
(ii) The dead body of the deceased was found in river Barakar on
13.8.97 and there are consistent evidence that the deceased died
otherwise than  under normal circumstances;
(iii) The deceased was at her Sasural prior to her death;
(iv) The deceased was traceless but neither information was given
to her parents nor information was  given to the police;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
(v) The deceased was subjected to assault and harassment by
the accused persons who are husband and his other relatives;
(vi) Such cruelty and harassment was in connectionwith demand
of dowry;
(vii) Such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her
death.”
11. The High Court agreed with the view expressed by the trial
Court that the accused have miserably failed to explain the circumstances
under which the deceased had vanished from her matrimonial home and
has outrightly rejected the defence set up by the accused that she was
not residing with her husband and in-laws; rather, she was living with
her brother-in-law, PW–2. Another plea taken by the accused that the
dead body recovered from the banks of river Barakar was unidentifiable,
was also turned down, having regard to the fact that the accused failed
to explain the circumstance in which the deceased went missing from
her matrimonial home and became traceless. The conduct of the accused
of failing to inform the family members or the police about the deceased
going missing from her matrimonial home and failure on their part to
make any effort to search her out, were also held against them. In fact,
PW-4, brother of the deceased had categorically deposed that when he
had gone to her matrimonial home, he found it to be locked and all the
accused were absconding just after the occurrence which was a critical
circumstance that was held against them.
12. For examining the case of the prosecution and the
evidence
adduced by the accused, we may extract below the relevant provision
of Section 304B IPC that relates to “dowry death”: -
“304B Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or har-assment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such
death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall
have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [HIMA KOHLI, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprison-ment for a term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
13. As can be seen from the aforesaid provision, for convicting
the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, the
following pre-requisites must be met:
(i)
that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns
or bodily injury or occured otherwise than under normal
circumstance;
(ii)
that such a death must have occurred within a period of
seven years of her marriage;
(iii)
that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her
death; and
(iv)
that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or
related to any demand for dowry.
14. Coming next to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the same refers to a presumption relating to a dowry death and is
phrased as below:-
“113B. Presumption as to dowry death -  When the question
is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, “dowry death”
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
The
explanation appended to Section 304B IPC states that the
word “dowry” shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as follows:
“2. Definition of ‘dowry’ - In this Act, “dowry” means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
(a)
by one party to a marriage to the other party  to the marriage;
or
(b)
by the parents of either party to a marriage by any other
person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include
dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
Personal law (Shariat) applies.”
15. The import of the aforesaid provisions has been explained in
several decisions of this Court. In Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana1 , it
has been held that:
“17. While considering the case under Section 498-A (Sic. Section
304-B), cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of
time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous
harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make life
of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide.”
16. In Maya Devi and Anr. vs. State of Haryana2, it was held
that:
“23. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main
ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is
that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment “for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”.
The expression “soon before her death” used in Section 304-IPC
and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that there is no proximity for the alleged
demand of
dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim,
we shall advert to while considering the evidence led in by the
prosecution. Though the language used is “soon before her death”,
no definite period has been enacted and the expression “soon
before her death” has not been defined in both the enactments.
Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within
the term “soon before her death” is to be determined by the courts,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval
1 (2011) 11 SCC 359
2 (2015) 17 SCC 405
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [HIMA KOHLI, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned
and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence
of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based
on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident
of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to
disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would
be of no consequence.”
[Also refer to G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka3 and
Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana4]
17. Section 304B IPC read in conjunction with Section 113B of
the Evidence Act leaves no manner of doubt that once the prosecution
has been able to demonstrate that a woman has been subjected to cruelty
or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, soon
before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the
persons who have subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection
with the demand for dowry, have caused a dowry death within the meaning
of Section 304B IPC. The said presumption is, however, rebuttable and
can be dispelled on the accused being able to demonstrate through cogent
evidence that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC have not been
satisfied.
18. In the instant case, despite the shoddy investigation conducted
by the prosecution, we are of the view that the circumstances set out in
Section 304B of the IPC have been established in the light of the fact
that the deceased,
Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial
home within a few months of her marriage and immediately after
demands of dowry were made on her and that her death had occurred
under abnormal circumstances, such a death would have to be
charactarized as a “dowry death”.
19. Recovery of the body from the banks of the river clearly
indicates that Fulwa Devi had died under abnormal circumstances that
could only be explained by her husband and in-laws, as she was residing
at her matrimonial home when she suddenly disappeared and no plausible
explanation was offered for her disappearance. The plea raised on behalf
of the accused that the body recovered from the banks of Barakar river
was unidentifiable, is devoid of merits when PW-3, father of the deceased
testified that he could recognize the dead body as that of Fulwa Devi,
3 (2010) 3 SCC 152
4 (2010) 12 SCC 350
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
from a part of the face that had remained intact and from the clothes
that were found on the body. As regards A-1, the High Court and the
trial Court have rightly raised a presumption against him under Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act which prescribes that the Court shall
presume that a person has caused a dowry death of a woman if it is
shown that soon before her death, she had been subjected by such person
to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
How far could this be held against A-3, will be discussed later.
20. The plea taken by A-1 that he was not present in the village at
the time of the occurrence and was at Kolkata, has been rightly rejected
as meritless. Similarly, the testimonies of Babulal Yadav, DW-3 and
Basudeo Mahto, DW-4 were disbelieved, particularly since DW–3
claimed to be the uncle of A-1, but could not even furnish the name of
his nephew’s wife and DW–4, cousin of A-1 had deposed that he did not
know about his marriage or whether his wife was dead or alive. Neither
of the two witnesses could produce any documentary evidence in support
of their stand that at the relevant time, A-1, was working in Kolkata.
DW–6, Kauteshwar Yadav, who hails from the village where the said
accused resided but has deposed that he himself is not a permanent
resident thereof, miserably failed to establish an illicit relationship between
the deceased and her brother–in-law, Sahdeo Mahto (PW–2) or that
she was living with
him and not residing at her matrimonial home.
21. As discussed above, the case of the prosecution rests solely
on circumstantial evidence. No eye witness has been produced who
could testify as to how the body of the deceased was found on the banks
of river Barakar. From the circumstances narrated above, there can be
two hypothesis. One is that the deceased was done away with within
the four walls of her matrimonial home, her dead body was smuggled
out and dumped into the river. The second pre-supposition would be that
the deceased was alive when she was taken to the river-side under
some pretext and pushed in, leading to her death by drowning. If the first
assumption is taken to be correct, then surely, some villager would have
seen the accused persons carrying the dead body to the river where it
was finally dumped. However, the prosecution has not produced any
villager who was a witness to the body of the deceased being taken out
of the matrimonial home and carried to the river. Therefore, this version
would have to be discarded in favour of the second one which is that the
deceased was alive, when she was accompanied to the river and then
PARVATI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ORS. [HIMA KOHLI, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
she was forcibly pushed in and could not emerge alive from the watery
grave. The latter assumption also gains strength from the post mortem
report which records that there were no signs of any ante mortem injury
on the body. If the deceased was killed in the house, then the body
would certainly have revealed some signs of struggle.
22. There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpate
Ram Sahay Mahto, A-1 (husband of the deceased). The circumstances
put together, unerringly point to his guilt in extinguishing the life of his
wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to satisfy the
demands of dowry. In our view, the impugned judgment and order of
sentence imposed on A-1 does not deserve interference and is maintained.
Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2012 filed by A-1 is accordingly dismissed.
The said appellant who is presently on bail, is directed to surrender before
the Trial Court/Superintendent of Jail within four weeks to undergo the
remaining period of his sentence.
23. As for Parvati Devi, A-3 (Mother-in-law), from the evidence
on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her
with respect to dowry demands. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to
any specific evidence or testimony against her. In fact, in the only direct
evidence before the Court, PW-3 (informant and father of the victim)
mentions that
A-2 threatened to harm the deceased. In view of the above,
we are of the opinion that it is necessary to interfere with the findings of
the Courts below convicting A-3 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574
of 2012) for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section
34, IPC. The said appeal filed by A-3 is accordingly allowed. She is
directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any
other case.
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of.