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 exaggeration is not
ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court observed :
“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 case of the prosecution
even against the real accused as appears to have
happened 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 is tangible material
to support allegations made against 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.
Moreover, ingredient of offence under Section 304B is not
mere demand of dowry but “cruelty or harassment” for or in
connection with demand of dowry. In Amar Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan3
, it was observed :
“29. ……….. What is punishable under Section
498-A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or
harassment by the husband or the relative of the
husband on the 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 IPC. 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
2 (2007) 15 SCC 415
3 (2010) 9 SCC 64
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 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
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 material that the 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.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1797 OF 2012
MONJU ROY & ORS
V
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation:(2015) 13 SCC693
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 Rs.5000/-. 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
and 306 IPC.
2. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar Roy on
20th 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 fulfilled, Shanti
Roy was harassed and even kept without food. On 31st 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. 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.
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
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 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
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
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 all the
family members unless there is an independent corroboration
of such allegation. He submitted that in the 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 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 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 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. Even if demand was jointly made,
the appellants have not been assigned any role in harassment
in absence of which, presumption under Section 113B 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 & Ors.2000 (5) SCC 207
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
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
specifically named. The death having taken place within seven
years of marriage in circumstances other than normal,
statutory presumption under Section 304B clearly arises and
1 2000 (5) SCC 207
the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing
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.
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 exaggeration is not
ruled out. In Kans Raj, this Court observed :
“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 case of the prosecution
even against the real accused as appears to have
happened 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 is tangible material
to support allegations made against 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 Jharkhand2
, it was
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
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 Devi have been introduced only
to spread the net wide as often happens in cases
like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, 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 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.”
10. Moreover, ingredient of offence under Section 304B is not
mere demand of dowry but “cruelty or harassment” for or in
connection with demand of dowry. In Amar Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan3
, it was observed :
“29. ……….. What is punishable under Section
498-A or Section 304-B IPC is the act of cruelty or
harassment by the husband or the relative of the
husband on the 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 IPC. 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
2 (2007) 15 SCC 415
3 (2010) 9 SCC 64
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 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
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 material that the 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 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 relationships, there being
possibility of the appellants’ having been named by way of
exaggeration, we are of the view that the appellants deserve
to be given benefit of doubt in that 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 304B
IPC without interfering with conviction and sentence 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.
……..…………………………….J.
[T.S. THAKUR]
.….………………………………..J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 17, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment