Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2008

Bhola Ram …..Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1.The question for consideration is whether the appellant

Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by both the Trial Court and

the High Court for having caused the dowry death of Janki

Devi, an offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, Bhola

Ram deserves an acquittal since there is no evidence

inculpating him.

The facts:

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 1 of 17

Page 2 2.Darshan Ram married Janki Devi on 30

th

June, 1986

after which they resided in Darshan Ram’s house in village

Mehma Sarja. The couple has a female child.

3.At the time of their marriage, Janki Devi’s family gave

dowry within their means to Darshan Ram and his family.

But according to the prosecution, his brothers Parshottam

Ram and Bhola Ram (the appellant) and his sister Krishna

Devi and mother Vidya Devi demanded more dowry from

time to time.

4.Janki Devi’s family was unable to fulfill the additional

demands for dowry and, according to the prosecution, she

was humiliated and cruelly treated by Darshan Ram’s family

for their incapacity. Being unable to face the harassment,

cruelty and humiliation meted out by Darshan Ram’s family,

Janki Devi consumed poison and thereby committed suicide

on 6

th

September, 1989.

5.About one and a half months before her death, a

demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made by Janki Devi’s in-laws for

the purchase of a car. Janki Devi’s father PW-2 Nath Ram

borrowed this amount from PW-1 Nirbhai Singh for meeting

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 2 of 17

Page 3 the dowry demand. The amount was then handed over by

him to Darshan Ram in the presence of other members of his

family.

6.Unfortunately, Darshan Ram’s family was not fully

satisfied with this payment. According to the prosecution,

about a fortnight before her death, Janki Devi came to her

father and told him that there was a further demand for an

amount of Rs. 30,000/- for purchasing some articles for a

service station proposed to be run by Darshan Ram and

Bhola Ram. Thereupon, Nath Ram accompanied Janki Devi to

her matrimonial home and informed Darshan Ram and the

other accused that he would not be able to pay this amount.

On this, Darshan Ram’s family informed him that he should

pay the amount failing which he could take Janki Devi back

with him. Nath Ram requested the family not to insist on the

demand and left Janki Devi at her matrimonial home in

village Mehma Sarja.

7.On 3

rd

September, 1989 PW-3 Des Raj, the brother of

Nath Ram’s wife, informed Nath Ram about Janki Devi being

ill-treated on account of Nath Ram’s inability to meet the

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 3 of 17

Page 4 additional demand for dowry. Again on 5

th

September, 1989

Des Raj informed Nath Ram that Janki Devi wanted to meet

Nath Ram and was weeping in his presence.

8.On receiving this information, Nath Ram went to village

Mehma Sarja along with his brother PW-4 Sukhdev Ram.

When they reached the bus stand in the village they were

informed that Janki Devi had consumed poison and had

taken her life, having suffered more than enough cruelty at

the hands of the family of Darshan Ram. Nath Ram and

Sukhdev Ram then proceeded to Janki Devi’s matrimonial

home and found her lying there but no one from Darshan

Ram’s family was present in the matrimonial home.

9.Nath Ram then lodged a First Information Report (FIR)

in Police Station Nehianwala. On the basis of the FIR PW-7

Manminder Singh prepared an inquest report in the presence

of Sukhdev Ram. On the next day, that is 7

th

September,

1989 PW-5 Dr. Tirath Goyal performed an autopsy on the

dead body of Janki Devi. He noted that froth was coming out

from her nose and mouth. Her viscera were sent to the

Chemical Examiner who reported that Janki Devi had died

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 4 of 17

Page 5 due to having consumed an organo phosphorus insecticide

which was poisonous and sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature.

10.On the basis of the above details and further

investigations, a charge sheet was filed against Darshan

Ram and four members of his family (including Bhola Ram)

under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC for causing

the dowry death of Janki Devi.

11.The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried by the

Sessions Judge at Bathinda.

Decision of the Trial Judge

12.In his Judgment and Order dated 3

rd

December, 1991

the Sessions Judge at Bathinda in Sessions Case No. 35 of

15

th

May, 1990 held that Section 304-B of the IPC required

the prosecution to establish four ingredients, namely: (i) the

death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or

occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, (ii) such

death should have occurred within seven years of her

marriage, (iii) soon before her death she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 5 of 17

Page 6 husband, and (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for,

or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the present

case, all four ingredients were established by the

prosecution.

13.It was further held that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and

their mother Vidya Devi were living together in the same

house at village Mehma Sarja and that they had demanded

additional dowry from Janki Devi’s family. However,

Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi were living separately and

they could not be said to have caused the dowry death of

Janki Devi. Consequently, Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi

were found not guilty of the charges framed against them

and they were acquitted. However, the Sessions Judge

found that Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi, by their

attitude and behaviour, caused Janki Devi to take the

extreme step of taking her own life. These three accused

were accordingly convicted for offences punishable under

Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with

fine for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and 2

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 6 of 17

Page 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section

498-A of the IPC.

14.The accused preferred two appeals (one by Vidya Devi

and the other by Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram) against their

conviction and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana.

Decision of the High Court

15.In so far as Vidya Devi is concerned, her conviction was

upheld by the High Court and she preferred a Special Leave

Petition in this Court. She was granted special leave to

appeal but during the pendency of her appeal she passed

away and accordingly her appeal was disposed of.

16.Darshan Ram and Bhola Ram preferred a joint appeal in

the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 25 SB of 1992.

This appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge who by his

Judgment and Order dated 5

th

July, 2004 upheld their

conviction and sentence.

17.The High Court held that Vidya Devi, Darshan Ram and

Bhola Ram were all residing together in the same house at

village Mehma Sarja. It was held that the amount of Rs.

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 7 of 17

Page 8 10,000/- initially taken from Nath Ram was used to purchase

a car for Darshan Ram and that car was being plied as a taxi

by him. It was also held that a service station was at the

initial stages of being established by Darshan Ram and Bhola

Ram and that they needed Rs. 30,000/- for expenses in

connection with that venture. Since all three convicts were

residing together at village Mehma Sarja, they were equally

responsible for demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi

and her father and thereby compelling her to take her life.

18.It appears that Darshan Ram has not challenged the

Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge and his

conviction and sentence have attained finality.

19.We are, therefore, only concerned with the appeal filed

by Bhola Ram who challenged his conviction and sentence in

this Court and was granted special leave to appeal on 8

th

July, 2008. He was also granted bail by this Court on the

same day and we are told that even today, he is on bail.

Discussion

20.Learned counsel for Bhola Ram submitted that in fact

there is no specific allegation against him. The statements of

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 8 of 17

Page 9 all the witnesses are omnibus or generic in nature and

Darshan Ram and other members of his family have been

generally accused of having demanded additional dowry

from Janki Devi’s family. It is submitted that in the absence

of any particular allegation, demands for dowry made by

Darshan Ram cannot be attributed to Bhola Ram and under

these circumstances, there is really no evidence to uphold

his conviction.

21.On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel

for the State that the three convicts were jointly and directly

concerned with the demands of additional dowry made on

Janki Devi and her family. Consequently, it is not possible to

segregate the case of Bhola Ram from that of the other two

convicts.

22.We are unable to accept the contention of learned

counsel for the State. The Sessions Judge found that there

was no evidence that Parshottam Ram and Krishna Devi

made demands for additional dowry from Nath Ram.

Accordingly, they were acquitted at the trial stage itself.

Therefore, the segregation process, based on the evidence

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 9 of 17

Page 10 on record, had begun at the trial stage. This is clearly

because in a dowry death, some actors play an active role

while others play a passive role. Consequntly, to sustain the

conviction of Bhola Ram, there must be some suggestive

evidence and not generic evidence implicating him in the

demand for additional dowry from Nath Ram.

23.As observed by the Law Commission of India (LCI) in its

91

st

Report of 10

th

August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) the truth

may not come in a dowry death case due to the sequestered

nature of the offence. This is what the LCI said:

“Those who have studied crime and its incidence know

that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a

difficult matter and still more difficult is successful

prosecution of the offender. Crimes that lead to dowry

deaths are almost invariably committed within the safe

precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a

member of the family; other members of the family (if

residing in the same house) are either guilty associates

in crime, or silent but conniving witnesses to it. In any

case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth

may not come out of the chains. There would be no

other eye witnesses, except for members of the

family.”

24.This passage also clearly brings out that in a case of a

dowry death, every member of the family may not be fully

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 10 of 17

Page 11 and equally guilty. The degree of involvement may differ – as

an associate, as a silent witness, as a conniving witness and

so on.

25.So far as this case is concerned, we have gone through

the evidence of all the witnesses on record and while there is

no doubt that Janki Devi died an unnatural death within a

few years of her marriage to Darshan Ram, no definite

allegation has been made by any of the witnesses including

Nath Ram or anybody from his family that Bhola Ram had

demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in his

family or had treated Janki Devi with cruelty or in a

humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry

death.

26.In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 2007

the ingredients of an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC

were held to be as follows:

“In order to seek a conviction against a person for the

offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to

prove that:

(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or

bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under

normal circumstances;

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 11 of 17

Page 12 (b) such death should have occurred within 7

years of her marriage;

(c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or by any relative of

her husband;

(d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in

connection with the demand of dowry; and

(e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased

should have been subjected soon before her

death.”

27.It is true that there was a demand of dowry of Rs.

10,000/- which was paid by Nath Ram by borrowing this

amount from Nirbhai Singh, but that demand was for the

purchase of a car for use by Darshan Ram. Under the

circumstances, it can safely be presumed that Darshan Ram

made the demand for additional dowry for his benefit. Bhola

Ram may have been a silent or a passively conniving

participant, but there is nothing on record to suggest that he

had either actively made such a demand or that the

demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his benefit

either directly or indirectly.

28.Similarly, the evidence on record does not show that

the demand of another amount of Rs.30,000/- from Nath

Ram just a fortnight before Janki Devi took her life was made

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 12 of 17

Page 13 by Bhola Ram to purchase articles for the service station

being set up by him and Darshan Ram at village Nehianwala.

At best, it could be said that this amount was intended for

use for the joint business venture of Bhola Ram and Darshan

Ram. Given that the earlier demand for additional dowry was

made for the benefit of Darshan Ram, it is more than likely

that this demand was also made by him. In any event, there

is again nothing to suggest that Bhola Ram was in any

manner actively concerned in making the demand directly or

indirectly from Nath Ram.

29.Consequently, we do not find any evidence to suggest

any active complicity of Bhola Ram in demanding any

additional dowry from Nath Ram either for himself or for

Darshan Ram or his proposed business venture.

30.Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to

bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As

held in Kans Raj a dowry death victim should also have

been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her

husband or a relative. In this case, even assuming the silent

or conniving participation of Bhola Ram in the demands for

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 13 of 17

Page 14 dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest

that he actively or passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty

or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High

Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of

an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC or

even considered it.

31.The High Court has relied on the presumption available

under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude

that Janki Devi’s death was a dowry death. However, this

presumption cannot be stretched to implicate all and sundry

in Darshan Ram’s family in demanding additional dowry from

Janki Devi’s family and harassing her and treating her with

such cruelty that she had to resort to taking her life. As

mentioned above, there is a possibility of members of the

family having varying roles, active and passive. Depending

on the nature and extent of involvement, a person may be

punished for an offence under Section 498-A or Section 304-

B or Section 306 of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. A dowry death will not ipso facto suck

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 14 of 17

Page 15 the husband with all his relatives into the net of Section 304-

B of the IPC.

32.It was contended by learned counsel for the State that

Darshan Ram, Bhola Ram and Vidya Devi were living

together at village Mehma Sarja and so their active

involvement in the dowry death cannot be ruled out. While

these persons may be staying together, it does not lead to

any positive conclusion that each one of them was actively

involved in demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi and

also behaving in a cruel or humiliating manner towards her

resulting in her consuming poison to end her life. In cases of

this nature which attract a reverse onus of proof, the least

that is expected of the prosecution to bring home a charge

under Section 304-B of the IPC is to adduce some evidence

to suggestively implicate a relative, in this case, to

suggestively implicate Bhola Ram both in the demands for

additional dowry and harassment or cruelty. Such evidence

is not available on record and so the mere fact that all the

members of Darshan Ram’s family were living together at

village Mehma Sarja, would not alter the factual situation.

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 15 of 17

Page 16 33.Consequently, in the absence of the prosecution

proving the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC, the initial

burden cast on it has not been discharged. Therefore, the

presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot

be attracted.

Conclusion

34.Based on the evidence available on record (or the lack

of it) we have no doubt that the appeal filed by Bhola Ram

ought to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and he is

acquitted of the charges against him under Section 304-B

and Section 498-A of the IPC in relation to the death of Janki

Devi.

35.The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence

of Bhola Ram is set aside.

Post script

36.What is a little disturbing about this case is that it is

illustrative of the slow movement of the wheels of criminal

justice delivery. The dowry death took place on 6

th

September, 1989. The Trial Court pronounced its decision on

3

rd

December, 1991 within two years of Janki Devi’s death.

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 16 of 17

Page 17 The first appeal was decided by the High Court on 5

th

July,

2004 which is more than twelve years later. A petition for

special leave to appeal was filed in this Court in 2004 and

leave was granted only after a gap of four years in 2008.

Thereafter this appeal was listed for hearing as if it is an

appeal of 2008 rather than a petition of 2004 thereby wiping

away four years of its age in this Court. And even then, it has

taken another five years for its disposal, making a total of

nine years spent in this Court. It is high time those of us who

are judges of this Court and decision makers also become

policy makers.

….…….…………………….. J.

(Ranjana Prakash

Desai)

….…….…………………….. J.

(Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi;

November 11, 2013

Crl. Appeal No.1022 of 2008 Page 17 of 17