--r--

~ A

BISW AJIT HALDER@ BABU HALDER AND ORS. .. 1,- v.

STA TE OF WEST BENGAL

MARCH 19, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] ~

Penal Code, I 860:

,._

c s. 304B-Applicability of-Held, applicable when cruelty or harassment is in connection with dowry demand-Evidence Act, 1872-s. I 13B-Dowry death.

Prosecutions case is that deceased was subjected to harassment by her

husband and in-laws on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. She

D committed suicide. Trial Court convictd husband and in-laws under ss.304B

and 498A IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and passed various sentences. They filed appeal before High Court wherein it was held

that the appellants were to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under s.304B IPC, but there was no necessity for separately sentencing them under ' either s.498A IPC or ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act. t E In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that there was no finding that there was demand for dowry and/or that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, or that harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry.

F Respondent contended that s.304B IPC has to be read in the context of s.113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Court could presume the death of the deceased to be dowry death and that the appellants being members of the matrimonial home at the relevant time were responsible for the dowry death of the deceased.

G Allowing the appeal, the Court

} HELD: I. Reading together s. 3048 IPC and s.113B of Evidence Act, 1872, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married women dies in an

~ unnatural circumstance at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her

H 120 •


B!SWAJIT HALDER@BABU HALDER v. STATEOFWEST BENGAL [PASAYAT, J.] 121

' marriage and thre are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such A ...,

married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under' dowry death" and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives.

!Para 1411124-CI

Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1226, referred B

to.

2. There is no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. c Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of s. 3048 IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand fo:r dowry.

Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained. f Para 1511124-C, D, El D Kanchy Ramchander v. State of A.P., [19961 SCC (Crl.) 31, relied on

) CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3 71 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2006 of the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 195 of 1996.

Pradip Ghosh, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, Manish P.S. Chouhar, Vishal Anand, Ruchi Rathi and Sarla Chandra for the Appellants.

Radha Rangaswamy for the Respondent.

F .... ) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a G Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, but modifying the sentence. Appellants faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 3048 read with Section 34 of the Indian

-{ Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'DP Act').

3. The prosecution version in brief is as follows:

4. Rupali, sister of informant Di lip Patra (PW-I) was married to appellant 8iswajit Halder-appellant no. I on 6th March, 1992. Appellants Dula[ Chandra Halder and Maya Halder are the parents of 8iswajit. At the time of marriage dowry i.e. of Rs.43,000/-, gold ornaments and the household articles were B given to the appellants, but they were not satisfied with the dowry items.

Since marriage Rupali was put under pressure to bring one colour television, English Khat and VJP bag for her father-in-law and other relatives. Rupali time 1and again had reported about the persistent demand of the appellants to her father and brothers. Rupali' s brother (PW- I) on different occasions requested C the appellants not to harass Rupali for non-payment of those items. On 27th July, 1992 Rupali committed suicide at the house of the appellants by consuming poison and after getting the sad news from his relatives, PW-I, who being a member of Indian Armed Forces was posted at Punjab, came to his native village and lodged the FIR on 6th August, 1992.

5. On receipt of the FIR, police started investigation and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for their trial.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after framing charges against all the three appellants examined 17 witnesses in all, including PW-I, relatives E of the victim woman, two doctors and the investigating officer.

7. On examination of the prosecution evidnce and after hearing both the prosecution and defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found sufficient materials against all the appellants to convict them for offences punishable under Sections 3048/34 and 498A/34 of the !PC and also under F Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Learned trial Judge, after convicting the appellants, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each for the offence punishable under Section 3048 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In G default of the payment rigorous imprisonment for three months was stipulated.

Learned trial Judge also sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous in; i.prisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 3(1) of the DP Act and that apart, the appellants were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of R;. l 0,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act with default

BISWAJIT HALDER@BABU HALDER v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [PASA YAT, .I]

J 23

-! stipulation. Learned trial Judge directed that all the sentences were to run A concurrently.

8. Questioning correctness of the conviction and the sentences imposed appellants preferred appeal before the Calcutta High Court which held that the appellants were to suffer the minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 3048 IPC, but there was no necessity for separately sentencing the appellants B on either Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no finding that there was demand for dowry and/or that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, or that harassment was for C or in connection with the demand of dowry.

IO. Learned counsel for the respondent on the 01.her hand submitted that Section 3048 IPC has to be read in the context of Section 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act'). The court could presume the death of the deceased to be dowry death and it was open to the Court D to presume further that the appellants being members of the matrimonial home at the relevant were responsible for the dowry death of the deceased. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1226.

11. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 3048 are E as follows:-

(l) The death of a woman should be caused by bums or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her F marriage;

(3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

12. Alongside insertion of Section 3048 in IPC, legislature also introduced

J Section 1138 of Evidence Act, which lays down when the question as to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person H

A 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.

. B

13. Explanation appended to Section 1 13 B lays down that "for the purpose of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304 B of IPC" .

 14. lfSection 304 B !PC is read together with Section 113 B of the Evidence Act, a comprehensive picture emerges that if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marria.ge and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married C woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under "dowry death" and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives.

15. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand D of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 3048 !PC.

It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. (See: Kanchy Ramchander v. State of A.P., [1996] SCC (Cr!.) 31). Since the prosecution failed to prove that aspect, E the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained.

16. The appeal is allowed.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.