As per case facts, Usha Rani died due to asphyxia by strangulation with 100 percent post-mortem burns, within three months of her marriage. Her father complained that her husband Ram ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 111
IIIINNNN TTTTHHHHEEEE HHHHIIIIGGGGHHHH CCCCOOOOUUUURRRRTTTT OOOOFFFF PPPPUUUUNNNNJJJJAAAABBBB AAAANNNNDDDD HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA
AAAATTTT CCCCHHHHAAAANNNNDDDDIIIIGGGGAAAARRRRHHHH
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM))))
DDDDaaaatttteeee ooooffff DDDDeeeecccciiiissssiiiioooonnnn:::: 11114444....11110000....2222000022225555
Ram Chander and others …Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana …Respondent
CCCCOOOORRRRAAAAMMMM:::: HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMRRRR.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT
HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMSSSS.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR
Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Proceedings against appellant No. 2 abated vide
order dated 27.08.2025.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr. DAG, Haryana with
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT,,,, JJJJ....
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
17.05.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (I)
Kaithal, whereby, they were convicted for the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC and
sentenced Ram Chander, appellant No.1 and Bharat Singh appellant
No.2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2 222
each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 304-B/34
IPC each. They are further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a to fine of
Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment for two months each for the offence under section
498A/34 IPC. Sona Devi, appellant No.3 was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for the minimum period of 7 years and to pay
a fine of Rs. 5000/-and fine in default of payment of fine to further
undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under section
304-B/34 IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for
two months for the offence under section 498A/34 IPC.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, Bharat Singh,
appellant No.2 had expired on 18.02.2017 and vide order dated
27.08.2025, the proceedings qua appellant No. 2 Bharat Singh stood
abated. Consequently, the present appeal is being contested on behalf
of Ram Chander, husband of the deceased and Sona Devi, sister in
law (Jethani) of the deceased.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. is that on 24.10.2000, Ram Chander
Inspector/SHO Police Station City Kaithal alongwith the police
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 3 333
officials was present at Bus Stand Manas, in the meantime Charan
Dass complainant appeared before him and made a statement Ex.PF,
which is reproduced below:-
“Statement of Charan Dass son of Trilok Chand by
Caste Shorgir resident of Saina Saida, Police Station
Pehowa. District Kurukshetra, Aged about 38 years.
Stated that I am resident of above address and do the
shop of Cycle Puncture. I have four children out of them
two are sons and two are daughters. On dated 16(07(
2000, I solemnized the marriage of my elder daughter
Usha Rani with Ram Chander @ Chander son of Ganga
Ram by Caste Shorgir resident of Polar Theh according
to Hindu Rites and Customs at my village Saina Saida
and in the marriage, according to my capacity sufficient
dowry was given and with her, the marriage of my
younger daughter Bedi Rani was solemnized with Disha,
the younger brother of Ram Chander, whose
“MUKLAWA” ceremony was not performed. After the
marriage my daughter Usha Rani used to reside at the
house in(laws with her husband Ram Chander at Polar
Theh and after ten days of marriage, when my daughter
Usha Rani came at our house then told us that her
husband Ram Chander, “JETHANI” Sona and “JETH”
Bharat used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry
and used to say that if scooter will not bring then we will
not keep her. Now this time, you came after bringing the
scooter from your parents then about after one month,
my son(in(law Ram Chander came to take my daughter
Usha Rani then we got understand him that we are poor
persons. Already in the marriage, we gave enough
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 4 444
articles and cannot give more and Ram Chander after
taking my daughter Usha Rani came at Polar Theh then
about after ten days of this, my wife Krishna Devi came
at village Polar Theh to see her daughter. Then my
daughter Usha Rani told to my wife Krishna devi that
her husband Ram Chander, “JETH” Bharat and
“JETHANI” Sona used to beat her now also and used to
demand of Scooter and say that if you will not come to
bring the scooter from your parents, then we will not
allow you to live here. On which my wife Krishna Devi
told this matter to us after coming house. Then on dated
10(09(2000, I and my brother Phool Singh came at
village Polar Theh and I and my brother after collecting
my son(in(law Ram Chander and Bharat and Sona Devi
got understand that we are poor persons cannot give
more dowry and I said to them after giving rupees five
thousands in cash that cannot give more than this and do
not harass more and after about 20(25 days from this my
daughter Usha Rani told to us after coming to the house
that her husband Ram Chander, “JETH” and
“JETHANI” have turned out after beating her and said
that you came after taking ten thousands from your
parents otherwise do not come. On which I, after coming
at Polar Theh, got understand sufficiently to my son(in(
law Ram Chander and his family members. But they did
not agree with my any talk and used to say that if you
will give rupees ten thousands for Scooter then we will
keep your daughter otherwise not. On dated 14(10(2000
Bharat the JETH of my daughter Usha Rani came at our
house and at his own responsibility he brought my
daughter Usha Rani at Polar Theh. Today at about
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 5 555
10:00A.M. I received the information from Polar Theh
by telephone that my daughter Usha Rani has killed by
burning. On which I and my brother Phool Singh and my
wife Krishna Devi and Ramji Lal and my father Tirlok
Chand alongwith other persons of village reached at
Polar Theh then saw that the dead body of my daughter
Usha Rani has burnt deadly and kept in the house of my
son(in(law and we have verified then it came to know
that my son(in(law Ram Chander and “JETH” Bharat
and “JETHANI” Sona Rani have killed after sprinkling
the kerosene on my daughter Usha Rani in greed of more
dowry at brick klin of Rajinder Gupta at village Manas
and they brought at Polar Theh for her last rites. That I
after leaving my brother Phool Singh and other persons
of village near the dead body of my daughter Usha Rani
at Polar Theh, verifying at brick klin at village Manas,
were going to police station for information. You met at
Bus Adda Manas. Legal action be taken. This occurrence
is of 6:00 Α.Μ.
ATTESTED.
Sd/((In English).
Ram Chander Inspector/SHO. Police Station Sadar
Kaithal.
Dated: 24(10(2000.
Sd/((In Hindi).
Charan Dass”.
4. On the basis of the statement Ex.PF, an action taken
report Ex.PF/1 was mentioned, which led to the registration of the
FIR Ex.PH in the present case against the appellants and Bharat
Singh, since deceased. After recording of the formal FIR, the IO took
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 6 666
into possession various articles, rough sketch of the place was
prepared and usual investigation was conducted. Ultimately, the
challan was presented against the appellants for commission of the
offence punishable under Sections 304-B IPC. Since, the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Ultimately, the trial Court
found that the appellants had committed the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 read with Section 511 IPC and
Section 34 IPC. The appellants pleaded that they had been falsely
involved in the case and claimed to be tried by the trial Court.
5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution
examined 9 witnesses in the present case. The prosecution examined
PW1 Dr. Lajja Ram, who alongwith four more doctors had conducted
the postmortem on the dead body of Ms. Usha Rani daughter of
Charan Dass, complainant on 25.10.2000. In his testimony, he stated
as follows:-
“On the same day at about 12.30 P.M., dead body of a
young female of moderately built bearing bluish green
printed suit which has no burn sign, eyes and mouth
were semi open, clotted blood was present in both
nostiral, postmortem staining present, rigormortis is
present in passing away stage, superficial to deep burn
present all over the body, there was no blister formation,
no red line of demarcation present no spliting of fat
present, at places the skin chared at placed attitude of
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 7 777
the body (pugilistic, stools sticky present around the
buttock).
On examination of neck and other parts of the body no
other injury could be made out.
On dissection of neck, subcutaneous tissues was
congested, oedematous with spillage of blood present, on
dissection and left side of mid part of the neck, on deep
dissection, multiple rings of trachea were fractured
trachel mucosa was congested (deeply) with clotted
blood present. No soots partical were present in/ trachea
and larynx.
Rest of the visceras on internal examination were
congested. In our opinion, the cause of death in this case
was asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was
ante(mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of events, the 100% burn present over
the body, the burnwas post(mortem in nature.
Probable duration between injury and death immediate
and between death and postmortem bearing 24 to 48
hours.
Ex. PA is the correct carbon copy of most(mortem report
which bears my signature as well signatures of Dr.
R.K.Gupta, Dr. V.K. Nagpal, Dr. H.S.Saini and Dr.
Hajari Lal, whose signature I also identified. Ex. PA/1 is
the copy of application moved by the police on which the
post(mortem examination was conducted. Ex. PB is
enquest report into 19 papers and each paper bears my
initial”.
6. The prosecution further examined PW2 Ram Phal Singh
Patwari, who visited the spot and prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PD.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 8 888
In his cross-examination, he stated that there was other brick kiln,
opposite the brick kiln where the occurrence had taken place. There
was five brick kiln in village Manas. There were about 30/35 houses
in the back of points No. A and G (rooms of Ram Chander). There
were labourers, who were residing in 20/25 houses. The prosecution
further examined PW3 Constable Mahavir, who had delivered the
special report. The prosecution examined PW4 Hem Chander
Assistant Sub Inspector, CIA Staff Kaithal, who had visited the spot
at brick kiln in village Manas alongwith the complainant. He initially
conducted the investigation and took into possession the various
articles, which were lying at the spot. He took into possession one
match box containing match sticks, plastic cane, one half burnt
underwear, one half burnt Salwar, one half burnt shirt and all the
articles were sealed by him.
7. The prosecution further examined PW5 Charan Dass,
who supported the case of the prosecution and deposed in favour of
the prosecution. He had reiterated the allegations levelled in the initial
complaint. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that many
labourers used to reside at the brick kiln. About 20/25 labourers had
come to inform him, however, he did not know their names. He
further admitted that Sona Devi and Bharat, appellants No. 2 and 3
had five children, i.e., two sons and three daughters. The youngest
one might be of 07 years of age and the eldest was about 16 years old.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 9 999
The children of Bharat Singh were residing at village Polar, but
Bharat Singh and Sona Devi were residing at brick kiln of Manas.
When Usha Rani came in his house second time, prior to that he had
once gone to brick kiln of Manas. He handed over Rs.5,000/- to Ram
Chander, accused. All the three accused were making demands of
scooter for the use of Ram Chander, accused. He did not know Ram
Chander was already having a scooter but he had not seen it. He
further stated that if accused was having a scooter, he might be
demanding the amount for repayment of the loan of the scooter. The
prosecution examined Ms. Krishna, mother of the deceased as PW6
who supported the testimony of PW5 Charan Dass. In her testimony,
she stated that the accused had demanded scooter and had also asked
her to come back in the matrimonial home with a scooter. She also
admitted that in her cross-examination that Sona Devi, appellant
No. 3 was having three children. The prosecution further examined
PW7 Baksa Singh, who had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PH. The
prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW8 Raju, who visited
the spot and collected the photographs. The photographs were
exhibited as Ex.P-6 to P-20 and their negatives as P-21 to P-33.
Finally, the prosecution examined Inspector Ram Chander as PW9,
who had conducted the investigation in the present case. In his
cross-examination, he admitted that there were 10/12 residential
temporary sheds of labourer at the brick kiln of Rajinder Gupta. The
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1110000
labourer were residing there. When the police party visited the brick
kiln, only 2/3 women were there and the rest of labourer had already
fled away after the incident at the brick kiln. Even, the ladies who
were present, expressed their ignorance about the matter. Even, he
had made inquiries from Sampuran Singh Ex. Sarapanch, Kartar
Singh etc., who told that accused had burnt Usha Rani at the brick
kiln of Manas and, thereafter, they had brought the dead body in the
village for the last rites.
8. After concluding the evidence, the statements of all the
accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but all
had taken a common defence that Usha Rani, since deceased, was hot
tampered lady and she herself committed suicide. They never raised
any demand of dowry nor tortured her at any point of time, even they
were present at the spot at the time of occurrence.
9. In the defence evidence, the appellants had examined
Sampuran Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of village Polar. As per the said
witness, he knew the family of the appellants. The appellants No. 2
and 3 had five children and they used to reside in the village. They
never worked on brick kiln. They were labourers and used to work in
the fields. Ram Chander accused was married with Usha Rani (since
deceased) and both of them were residing at the brick kiln. The
accused never harassed the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.
Apart from that, the appellants tendered Chulha tax receipts for the
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1111111
year 2001 as Mark A, another Chulha tax receipt for the year 2004 as
Mark B, copy of ration card as Mark C and copy of affidavit of
Seema Bansal as Mark D in their defence evidence and, thereafter, the
evidence was closed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants had vehemently
argued that the occurrence in the present case had taken place at a
brick kiln of village Manas and admittedly during the course of
investigation, it was found that several other labourers were also
residing in nearby houses. However, the testimony of any such
witness was not recorded by the police. Rather, there was positive
evidence on record to show that Usha Rani (since deceased) had
committed suicide and the appellants had no concern with the same.
Apart from that Bharat Singh and Sona Devi, appellants No. 2 and 3
had five children, who are staying in the village and had no concern
with the matrimonial affairs of Ram Chander and Usha Rani. Still
further, the occurrence in the present case had taken place at about
10.00 a.m. on 16.07.2000, whereas the complaint was lodged by the
complainant at about 05.00 p.m. The delay in lodging the FIR in the
present case is fatal and would definitely affect the credibility of the
witnesses produced by the prosecution in the instant case. Even,
during the course of trial, the prosecution lead no evidence to show
that the delay was properly explained in the instant case. In the
present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1112222
harassed by the accused in connection with demand of dowry, in any
manner. It has been stated by the witnesses of the prosecution that
Usha Rani, since deceased was harassed by the accused in connection
with demand of a scooter, however, Ram Chander, appellant No. 1
already owned a scooter and the allegation was completely baseless.
Even in his cross-examination, PW5 Charan Dass had admitted that
all the three accused had made a demand of scooter for the use of
Ram Chander, appellant No.1. However, he did not know as to
whether Ram Chander, appellant No.1 was having a scooter. He
further stated that if he was having a scooter, he may be demanding
the amount for repayment of the loan of the scooter. Thus, there was
no definite demand of dowry and the allegations were vague and
unfounded.
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel had vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants and stated that the matter was directly reported by the
complainant to the police and there is no evidence that the version of
the prosecution was a coloured version or contained any falsehood.
Even PW5 Ram Chander and PW6 Krishna had consistently deposed
against the appellants in the present case and even from the testimony
of PW1 Dr. Lajya Ram, it stood proved that Usha Rani, since
deceased, had died due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation, which
was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1113333
course of events. Even, Usha Rani, since deceased had suffered 100%
burn injuries on her person and the probable duration between the
injury and death was immediate. Apart from that, there was sufficient
evidence to show that soon after her marriage, Usha Rani was
subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and she was
done to death by burning her in a barbaric manner. Thus, the
impugned judgement, which is based on correct appreciation of
evidence and settled law and is liable to be upheld by this Court.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record carefully.
13. In the present case, the remaining appellants, i.e..,
appellants No. 1 and 3 have been convicted for commission of the
offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 IPC. At this stage,
before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to reproduce
the legal provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
""""333300004444BBBB.... DDDDoooowwwwrrrryyyy ddddeeeeaaaatttthhhh.... (((( (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 harassment 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
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1114444
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life."
444499998888AAAA.... HHHHuuuussssbbbbaaaannnndddd oooorrrr rrrreeeellllaaaattttiiiivvvveeee ooooffff hhhhuuuussssbbbbaaaannnndddd ooooffff aaaa wwwwoooommmmaaaannnn
ssssuuuubbbbjjjjeeeeccccttttiiiinnnngggg hhhheeeerrrr ttttoooo ccccrrrruuuueeeellllttttyyyy.... (((( Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine. Explanation.(For the purpose of
this section, "cruelty" means(
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand”.
14. From a bare perusal of the above referred provisions of
law, it is apparent that when a married woman committed suicide
within a period of seven years of her marriage, then the presumption
under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act comes into operation.
However, when a person had committed dowry death of a woman and
“soon before her death”, such woman has been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment, in connection with demand of dowry,
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1115555
the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act comes into
effect. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced
below:-
""""111111113333((((BBBB.... PPPPrrrreeeessssuuuummmmppppttttiiiioooonnnn aaaassss ttttoooo ddddoooowwwwrrrryyyy ddddeeeeaaaatttthhhh.... (((( 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)."
15. While discussing the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the matter of KKKKaaaassssnnnnssssrrrraaaajjjj VVVVssss.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff
PPPPuuuunnnnjjjjaaaabbbb,,,, ((((2222000000005555)))) 5555 SSSSCCCCCCCC 2222000000007777 as under:-
".......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;
(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
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1116666
have been subjected to soon before her death. As and
when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a
presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the
accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act”.
16. Similarly, in SSSShhhhaaaammmmnnnnssssaaaahhhheeeebbbb MMMM.... MMMMuuuullllttttttttaaaannnniiii VVVVssss.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff
KKKKaaaarrrrnnnnaaaattttaaaakkkkaaaa,,,, ((((2222000000001111)))) 2222 SSSSCCCCCCCC 555577777777,,,, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again
discussed the requirement for invoking the provisions of Section
304-B of IPC and also discussed the provisions of Section 113-B of
Evidence Act and held as follows:-
"27. The postulates needed to establish the said offence
are: (1) Death of a wife should have occurred otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage; (2) soon before her death she should have
been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused
in connection with any demand for dowry. Now reading
Section 113B of the Evidence Act, as a part of the said
offence, the position is this: If the prosecution succeeds
in showing that soon before her death she was subjected
by him to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with
any demand for dowry and that her death had occurred
(within seven years of her marriage) otherwise than
under normal circumstances ''the court shall presume
that such person had caused dowry death'."
28. Under Section 4 of the Evidence Act "whenever it is
directed by this Act that the court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is
disproved". So the court has no option but to presume
that the accused had caused dowry death unless the
accused disproves it. It is a statutory compulsion on the
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1117777
court. However it is open to the accused to adduce such
evidence for disproving the said compulsory
presumption, as the burden is unmistakably on him to do
so. He can discharge such burden either by eliciting
answers through cross(examination of the witnesses of
the prosecution or by adducing evidence on the defence
side or by both."
17. Thus, from a bare perusal of the above referred
provisions of law and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, we sum up that when the death of a woman is caused by burns
or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances within a period of seven years of her marriage and the
woman was subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband and such cruelty of her husband/his relative
was in connection with demand of dowry and the deceased had been
subjected to cruelty soon before her death, then in such
circumstances, the Court had no other option, but to presume that the
accused had committed a dowry death. However, there is no doubt
that the accused can always disprove such a presumption raised
against him. However, in such cases, the accused would be required
to adduce evidence to disprove such statutory presumption.
18. In the instant case also, before proceeding any further, it
would be appropriate to refer to the testimony of PW1 Dr. Lajja Ram,
who alongwith other four doctors had conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of Smt. Usha Rani wife of appellant
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1118888
No.1. As per him, Usha Rani had suffered 100% burn injuries and
superficial to deep burns were present all over the body. On
examination of neck and other parts of the body, no other injury could
be made out. However, on dissection of neck, subcutaneous tissues
were congested, oedematous with spillage of blood was present on
dissection whereas deep dissection, multiple rings of trachea were
fractured, trachel mucosa was congested deeply with clotted blood
present. As per the opinion of the board of doctors, the cause of death
in the present case was asphyxia, as a result of strangulation, which
was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of events. Even, Usha Rani had suffered 100% burn injuries
over her body. Apart from that, the death had occurred within almost
03 months of marriage. Consequently, it is apparent that admittedly,
the death of the deceased had occurred within almost 03 months of
her marriage and she had not died natural death. Thus, her death had
occurred in otherwise than normal circumstances within 03 months of
the marriage.
19. Now next considerable question before the Court is that
soon before her death, whether Usha Rani was subjected to cruelty
and harassment by the accused in connection with any demand of
dowry. For the said purpose, the prosecution has relied upon two
witnesses, i.e., PW5 Charan Dass and PW6 Smt. Krishna. PW5
Charan Dass clearly stated that soon after the marriage, the accused
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 1 1119999
had repeatedly raised demands of money. Even, all the three accused
were made to understand that he was a poor person and had already
given sufficient dowry. Even, Usha Rani had come to their house and
told that all the three accused were demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
Thereafter, the demands for a scooter was raised. Even, PW6 Krishna
deposed on similar lines and stated that her daughter Usha Rani was
harassed by all the three accused in connection with demand of dowry
and the accused told her to bring a scooter, which was to be used by
Ram Chander, accused.
20. Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place at about 10/11
a.m. on 16.07.2000 whereas the FIR was got registered by the
complainant at about 05.00 p.m. In fact, this insignificant delay in
lodging the FIR would not adversely affect the veracity of the
statements made by various prosecution witnesses. It is a matter of
common knowledge that delay in registration of the FIR depends on
various factors and facts and circumstances of every case are
different. In the present case, the complainant and his family
members had reached village Polar at about 10/11 a.m. and,
thereafter, the complainant left his family members near the dead
body and went to village Manas at the brick kiln, where the incident
had taken place, to verify the other facts. As such, the delay in
registration of the FIR was natural and no adverse inference can be
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2 2220000
drawn regarding that. Still further, in the present case, there was
sufficient evidence to show that Usha Rani, since deceased, was
harassed in connection with demand of dowry.
21. In the present case, apart from that Ram Chander
husband of Usha, since deceased, Sona Devi, i.e., her sister-in-law
(Jethani) has also been arrayed as an accused and was convicted by
the trial Court. However, the defence has raised an argument that
Sona Devi appellant No. 3 and her husband Bharat Singh appellant
No.2 had no concern with the matrimonial affairs of Ram Chander
and Usha Rani. This Court agrees with the submissions raised by
learned defence counsel for the reasons, which are mentioned in this
paragraph. The prosecution examined its star witness Charan Dass as
PW5. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that Bharat
Singh and Sona Devi, i.e., appellants No. 2 and 3 had two sons and
three daughters. The youngest one might be seven years of age and
eldest was aged about 16 years old. The children of Bharat Singh
resided at village Polar, but Bharat and Sona Devi were residing at
brick kiln of Manas. He further stated that an amount was demanded
for the purchase of a scooter, which was to be used exclusively by
Ram Chander. Apart from that, the defence also examined DW1
Sampuran Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of the village, who stated that Bharat
Singh and Sona Devi, i.e., appellants No. 2 and 3 were having five
children and they were agricultural laborers and used to work in the
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2 2221111
fields. Even, they used to reside in the village, whereas Ram Chander
and his wife Usha Rani were staying in the brick kiln in village
Manas. Apart from that, the defence has also placed on record the
Chulha tax receipts Mark A and B, copy of ration card Mark C and
affidavit of Seema Bansal as Mark D, which would clearly show the
separate residence of Bharat Singh and Sona Devi.
22. Apart from that, in the present case, the prosecution
witnesses have repeatedly stated that there was demand of a scooter,
which was to be exclusively used by Ram Chander. It is an admitted
fact that Sona Devi appellant No. 3 is a rustic lady and can never be
the beneficiary of demand of scooter by the other family members.
Consequently, it cannot be stated that she had raised the demand of
scooter and had harassed the deceased in connection with alleged
demand of scooter. Even otherwise, it has also come on record that
there were several Jhuggies at the brick kiln and all the laburers were
residing separately. Thus, by extending the benefit of doubt, Sona
Devi appellant No.3 is liable to be acquitted by this Court. So far as
Ram Chander appellant No.1 is concerned, we have found that the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was against the
appellant No.1 and the findings of the trial Court are correct and
liable to be affirmed by this Court. Apart from that, even the quantum
of awarded sentence does not call for any interference by this Court
and the appeal qua appellant No.1 is ordered to be dismissed.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555533332222----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2 2222222
However, Sona Devi, appellant No. 3 is ordered to be acquitted by
extending the benefit of about to her.
23. The appellant No.1 is directed to surrender within 15
days from today, failing which, the CJM concerned shall issue non
bailable warrants against the present appellant No.1/accused and shall
commit him to custody to serve the remaining sentence of
imprisonment.
24. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
25. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.
26. Records of the Court below be sent back.
((((NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT))))
JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
((((SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR))))
14.10.2025 J JJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
amit rana
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....