Shanti Devi

Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Suicide by married woman – Allegation of maltreatment and cruelty against husband on account of demand of dowry – Victim-deceased had left matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stayed with her parents for 14 months continuously – She rejoined matrimonial home only at the assurance given in the panchayat by accused and his family members that she would not be humiliated and subjected to cruelty – Three years after marriage, she committed suicide – Conviction of husband u/s.498A – Challenged – Held: While considering the case u/s.498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and should be continuous making life of the deceased miserable forcing her to commit suicide – In the instant case, there was demand of scooter by the accused in the close proximity of the death – The demand was consistent and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else – Both these witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, however, nothing could be elicited from them to show that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false – Conviction upheld – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B. Evidence Act, 1872: s.113A and s.113B – Distinction between. s.113B – Necessary ingredients – Discussed. Evidence: Suicide note – Evidentiary value of – On facts, held: The authorship of the suicide note was not proved by producing witnesses nor the said document was sent to handwriting expert along with the admitted signature of the deceased for comparison – Prosecution could not establish nexus of the deceased with the said note – Onus was on the accused to establish his defence by sufficient evidence to rebut presumption that he had caused the dowry death, which he failed to discharge – Courts below were right in ignoring the said note – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304B, 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was married to the appellant on 4th April, 1988. After one year of marriage, the deceased came and stayed with her parents for about 14 months and after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 25th June, 1991, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR that the deceased had committed suicide, making allegations that the deceased was consistently harassed by the appellant and was maltreated and harassed for bringing dowry. The trial court convicted the appellant and his mother under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC. The High Court acquitted appellant’s mother but dismissed the appeal of the appellant. In the instant appeal, the defence raised by the appellant was that there was no demand of scooter or dowry and that the deceased wanted to marry some other person and her marriage with the appellant was against her will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note (Ex P-2) to that effect. =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The theory of love affair of the deceased was disbelieved by the courts below. Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer was totally rejected from consideration in evidence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased could be established with this document. There was no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence to indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of the deceased. The father and the brother of the deceased when stepped into the witness-box did not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 was written in the hand of the deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that the Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement could be termed as a hear say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion was put to the father and the brother of the deceased to the effect that the deceased had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some other person. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some handwriting expert alongwith the admitted writing of the deceased for comparison. Both the situations were missing. Even the Investigating Officer did not say a word as to from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case this document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter were not examined. The father and the brother of the deceased both had denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting of the deceased. More so, there was nothing on record to show that she was educated. The Investigating Officer had not stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of the deceased nor he has disclosed on whose information he had inferred that the letter had been written by the deceased. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body’s case that the alleged suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased. Evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-2 purported to have been written by the deceased had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed to discharge that onus. The defence of the appellant, thus, was very weak and fragile. In view of that, there is no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 19] ] [734-H; 735-G-H; 736- A-H; 737-A-F; 738-A-B] 2.1. The demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation been false, the said witnesses could have also mentioned other articles purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses were subjected to long cross- examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false. [Para 14] [737-G-H; 738-A-B] 2.2. While considering the case under Section 498-A, IPC, 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. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased to leave her matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family members would not humiliate or subject the deceased with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home. It was specific evidence of the brother of the deceased that just few days before her death, when he went to see his sister, there was a demand of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact situation, it cannot said that there was no demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death. [Paras 15] [738-B-E] 2.3. In the provision of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with or demand of dowry. It is unlike the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abatement of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113B relatable to Section 304B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. The expression shown before her death has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. [Paras 16 to 18] [738-F-H; 739-A-G] T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982; Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 3708 – referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 2006 SC 2475 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 332 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 982 referred to Para 18 AIR 2009 SC 2155 referred to Para 18 AIR 2010 SC 3708 referred to Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2004 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998. Mahabir Singh, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. Manjit Singh, AAG, Rao Ranjit, Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2004 Bansi Lal …Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 5th May, 2004 in … Continue reading →