As per case facts, a man was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for dowry death of his wife, who died an unnatural death within a year and a half ...
2025 INSC 710 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 342 OF 2015
VIRENDER PAL @ VIPIN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant
1, through this appeal by special
leave, seeks to assail the judgment dated 15
th May,
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “accused-appellant”.
2
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh
2, whereby it dismissed
Criminal Appeal No. S-2212-SB of 2011
3 preferred by
the appellant. The appellant, in the said appeal, had
assailed the judgment and order of sentence dated
26
th May, 2011 and 28
th May, 2011, rendered by the
Sessions Judge, Panipat
4, convicting the accused-
appellant for the offence punishable under Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860
5 and
sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of
the present appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. Shri Balraj Singh (PW1-Complainant)
6 lodged a
complaint on 1
st June, 2009, at the Police Station
Chandni Bagh, Panipat, alleging inter alia that the
accused-appellant and his daughter, Punita alias
Gayatri
7, got married on 28
th February, 2008 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of their
marriage, the complainant had given dowry to the
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as “criminal appeal”.
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as “trial Court”.
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as “IPC”.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant”.
7
Hereinafter, being referred to as “deceased-Punita”.
3
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
accused-appellant and his family beyond his
capacity. However, the accused-appellant, along with
his mother, father, brother, and uncle, remained
dissatisfied with the dowry and started subjecting
deceased-Punita to harassment, taunts, and physical
abuse soon after the marriage. The complainant
further alleged that during her visits to the parental
home, his daughter informed him, his wife Rajwati
Devi, and his son Pramod Kumar (PW-2) about the
ill-treatment meted out by her in -laws, who
repeatedly taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry
and coming from a poor family. Consequently, the
complainant, along with his brother-in-law, Puran
Singh and his nephew Jitender Pal (PW-10), visited
the matrimonial home of the deceased during which
the accused-appellant, his father and his uncle,
Sukhbir allegedly demanded Rs.5 lakhs to secure a
job for the accused-appellant. The complainant
assured them of making arrangements and later sent
his daughter back to her matrimonial home after
giving her a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Despite this, the
accused-appellant and his family members did not
relent from subjecting deceased-Punita to cruelty. On
1
st June, 2009, at approximately 07:45 am, the
4
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
deceased-Punita telephonically informed her brother
Satender Kumar (PW-3) that on the previous night,
her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-
in-law, and uncle-in-law had assaulted her, and she
requested him to come down to her matrimonial
home immediately, apprehending impending danger
to her life. At about 08:00 am, the complainant
received a call from the accused-appellant informing
him that his daughter had died. Upon reaching
Panipat, the maternal family members of deceased-
Punita learnt that she had jumped down from the
roof of the house and ended her life due to persistent
harassment and demands of dowry meted out to her
by the matrimonial family.
5. Based on this complaint, an FIR, bearing No.
335 of 2009, came to be registered at the Police
Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, against the accused-
appellant and his family members
8 for the offences
punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34
of the IPC and subsequently, the investigation
commenced. On completion of the investigation, a
8
Harinder Kumar @ Billu (Brother of the appellant), Rajeshwar Dayal
(Father of the appellant), Brajesh Rani (Mother of the appellant) and
Sukhbir Singh (Uncle of the appellant).
5
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant,
his father and mother for the offences punishable
under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
However, the police did not find any cogent evidence
against the appellant’s brother i.e., Harinder
Kumar@Billu and uncle i.e., Sukhbir Singh. Thus,
the charges against the said accused persons were
dropped by the Investigating Officer. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court, and charges under
Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC were
framed against the accused-appellant and his father
and mother who denied the charges and claimed
trial.
6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and
exhibited 17 documents. The details of the witnesses
are as follows:
Prosecution Witness (PW) Role/Position
PW-1 Balraj Singh Complainant/father of deceased
PW-2 Parmod Kumar Brother of deceased
PW-3 Satender Kumar Brother of deceased
PW-4 Jagbir Singh Draftsman officer, Superintendent
of Police, Panipat
PW-5 Gurvinder Singh Constable
PW-6 Radhey Shyam Constable
PW-7 Dharampal Assistant Sub Inspector
PW-8 Mahender Singh Constable
6
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
PW-9 Dr. Rahul Diwan Medical Officer, General Hospital,
Panipat
PW-10 Jitender Pal Nephew of PW1
PW-11 Saifudeen SHO of P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat
PW-12 Ashok Kumar Assistant Sub-Inspector
7. The accused persons were examined under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
9, and, upon being confronted with the
circumstances appearing against them in the
prosecution case, they denied the same and claimed
innocence, asserting that they had been falsely
implicated. The accused-appellant contended that no
dowry demands were ever made, and the deceased
was never subjected to any maltreatment in the
matrimonial home. It was further stated by the
accused-appellant that deceased-Punita was
receiving medical treatment for knee pain, and, on
the day of the incident, he had gone to attend a job
interview.
8. In support of their defence, the accused persons
examined eight witnesses:
9
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
7
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
Defence Witness
(DW)
Role/Position
DW-1 – Mohan Lal Neighbor of the appellant.
DW-2 – Savdeep Kaur Previous landlord of the Appellant
DW-3 – Hans Raj Resident, Power House Colony,
Panipat
DW-4 – Ram Phal Driver, Resident, Khindora Village,
Ghaziabad
DW-5 – Raghubir
Singh
Orthopedic Surgeon, Raghudeep
Hospital, Panipat
DW-6 – Dr.
V.K.Gupta
Orthopaedic Surgeon, Asian
Institute of Medical Sciences,
Faridabad
DW-7– Dr. Sandeep
Grover
M.D. Medicines, D.M. Clinical
Immunology, Meerut (UP)
DW-8 - Meghnath Resident, Khindora Village
9. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court
observed that the demands for money and valuable
articles are directly related to the dowry in the
marriage, as the same were made to the father of
deceased-Punita by the accused-appellant and his
relatives. The trial Court noted that the prosecution
had successfully established the charges against the
accused-appellant, primarily relying on the evidence
of dowry demands, ill-treatment and circumstantial
evidence as stated by the close parental relatives of
deceased-Punita including her father, i.e., the
complainant Shri Balraj Singh (PW-1). Additionally,
8
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
the Court noted that the accused-appellant’s father
and mother were not specifically found to have made
the demands of dowry, further confirming that only
the accused-appellant was involved in the demand
for dowry from deceased-Punita soon before her
death. The trial Court held that deceased-Punita died
an unnatural death at her matrimonial home within
one year and three months of her marriage and that
there was ample evidence on record for the Court to
raise the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872
10 against the accused-appellant
as no satisfactory explanation was provided by him
regarding the unnatural death of his wife in the
matrimonial home. The trial Court, after appreciating
the evidence, acquitted the parents of the accused-
appellant of the charges as framed against them but
convicted the accused-appellant for the offence
punishable under section 304-B of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years, vide judgment and order dated 26
th May,
2011 and 28
th May, 2011, respectively.
10
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Evidence Act’.
9
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
10. Being aggrieved, the accused-appellant
preferred an appeal before the High Court assailing
the judgement and order of sentence and conviction
passed by the trial Court. The High Court, while
adjudicating the said appeal, referred to the
testimonies of the complainant and the prosecution
witnesses who deposed about the continuous
demands for dowry associated with mental and
physical abuse meted out to deceased-Punita and
found them to be consistent, thereby establishing the
charge against the accused-appellant beyond all
manner of doubt. The Court noted that once the
prosecution discharged the initial burden of proving
the factum of harassment meted out to the deceased-
Punita relating to demand of dowry and that such
harassment continued till soon before her death,
then by virtue of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,
the burden shifted on to the accused-appellant to
disprove that his wife’s death was not related to any
dowry demands and not an unnatural one. However,
the accused has failed to discharge the said burden.
Accordingly, the High Court, vide its judgment dated
15
th May, 2014, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
accused-appellant’s conviction and sentence as
10
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
recorded by the trial Court. The said impugned order
is assailed by the accused-appellant before this Court
via special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
11. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
accused-appellant, vehemently and fervently argued
that deceased-Punita suffered from a knee problem
because of which she was under depression, leading
her to commit suicide. Further, there was no demand
of dowry by the accused-appellant as the demand of
cash for securing job for the accused-appellant
cannot be treated equivalent to a demand of dowry.
He urged that there is no material on record which
can establish beyond reasonable doubt that dowry
was demanded by the accused-appellant soon before
the death of his wife or that she was harassed on
account of such demand. The statements of Shri
Balraj Singh (PW-1), Pramod Kumar (PW-2),
Satendra Kumar (PW-3) and Jitendra Pal (PW-10) are
not consistent but contradictory in nature with
respect to the alleged cruelty meted out by the
accused-appellant and his family members to
deceased-Punita with respect to dowry demand. For
11
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
a presumption to be raised under Section 113-B of
the Evidence Act, the following conditions have to be
fulfilled:
i. That the woman met with unnatural death
within a period of seven years of her
marriage;
ii. The woman was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or his
relatives;
iii. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry;
and
iv. Such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
12. Furthermore, it was urged that the prosecution
was under obligation to prove that soon before the
occurrence, cruelty or harassment was meted out to
deceased-Punita, which compelled her to take the
extreme step of ending her own life, however, the
prosecution miserably failed to discharge this onus
cast upon it by law. Learned counsel, thus, urged
that the High Court committed a grave error while
reappraising the evidence and rejecting the appeal of
12
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
the accused-appellant. His fervent plea was that no
clear evidence was led by the prosecution to show
whether the deceased-Punita committed suicide by
jumping from the terrace or was it a simple case of
accidental fall.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the accused-appellant implored this
Court to accept the appeal, reverse the judgment of
the Courts below and acquit the accused-appellant of
the charges.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State: -
13. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing
on behalf of the respondent-State, vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of learned counsel for the accused-appellant.
He urged that the High Court has rightly held that
there is ample evidence of unimpeachable nature
against the accused-appellant establishing his guilt
for the charges levelled. As per the evidence on
record, dowry articles have been recovered from the
matrimonial house of the deceased-Punita. Further,
the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses is
consistent with regard to demand of dowry and
13
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
harassment meted out by the accused-appellant to
deceased-Punita soon before her death. Since the
prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of
dowry death, the Court has to infer the guilt of the
accused-appellant, unless he is able to discharge the
burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 113-B of
the Evidence Act. In the present case, the prosecution
has led reliable evidence showing that the deceased-
Punita, met with an unnatural death within seven
years of marriage, and that she was continuously
harassed and mal-treated for dowry demands by her
husband or his family members soon before her
death. As the prosecution has fulfilled the necessary
conditions for invoking the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the burden shifted
on to the accused-appellant by virtue of the said
provision, however, the accused-appellant hopelessly
failed to rebut the presumption.
On these grounds, learned counsel, appearing
on behalf of respondent, thus urged that the
judgments of the Courts below are unassailable and
implored the Court to dismiss the appeal.
14
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
Discussion and Analysis: -
14. We have heard the submissions advanced at bar
and have gone through the impugned judgment and
material placed on record.
15. For appreciating the submissions advanced at
bar, it will be apposite to discuss the statements of
the material prosecution witnesses, which provide
the substratum of allegations set out against the
accused-appellant in the case at hand.
16. In support of its case, the prosecution examined
Shri Balraj Singh (PW-1), the complainant and father
of the deceased-Punita, who testified that his
daughter was married to the accused-appellant on
28
th February, 2008 and a substantial dowry was
given as per his capacity, but the accused persons
were dissatisfied and subjected his daughter to
cruelty for demand of additional dowry. A panchayat
was called, in which, he along with Jitender Pal (PW-
10) and Puran Singh went to his daughter’s
matrimonial house at village Khindora and requested
the matrimonial relatives with folded hands not to
maltreat his daughter. Sukhbir took him out of the
house and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs for securing a job
15
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
for accused-appellant. Being left with no other option
but to accede to this illegal demand, he assured all
the accused persons that he would give Rs. 5 lakhs
but needed some time to arrange for the same. When
Sukhbir and the accused-appellant came to take
deceased-Punita from her parental house, the
complainant gave them Rs. 50,000/-. However, after
a few months, the accused persons again started
harassing his daughter for demand of dowry.
17. Pramod Kumar (PW-2), brother of deceased-
Punita, testified that his sister was harassed and
maltreated by her husband (accused-appellant) and
her in-laws for bringing less dowry. Similarly,
Satender Kumar (PW-3), brother of deceased-Punita,
deposed that after his sister’s marriage, her in-laws
harassed her over insufficient dowry. Jitender Pal
(PW-10), who was the nephew of Shri Balraj Singh
(PW-1), deposed that he accompanied the
complainant and others to a Panchayat meeting ,
convened at the house of the accused-appellant,
where the accused-appellant and his uncle, Sukhbir
demanded Rs. 5 lakhs to secure employment for the
former.
16
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
18. Rahul Diwan (PW-9), the Medical Officer, who
conducted post-mortem upon the body of deceased-
Punita, stated that she had sustained multiple
injuries, including massive subdural hematoma in
the brain, contusions on the scalp and chin, and
abrasions on the left hypochondrium and thigh. He
further opined that the cause of death of Punita was
because of shock and hemorrhage due to an ante -
mortem injury to the vital organ, i.e., the brain.
19. In defence, Mohan Lal (DW-1), a neighbor of the
accused-appellant having a shop adjacent to the
house of the accused-appellant, deposed that he had
never heard of any dispute amongst the family
members of the accused -appellant. Dr. Raghbir
Singh (DW-5), Dr. V.K. Gupta (DW-6), and Dr.
Sandeep Grover (DW-7) were examined to prove the
accused-appellant’s defence theory regarding the
medical condition being faced by deceased-Punita
relating to her knee.
20. In the present case, the accused -appellant
contends that the case of prosecution relies solely on
general allegations of dowry demands, unsupported
by any concrete evidence, thereby, entitling him to
17
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellant also
emphasizes that the essential ingredients under
Section 304-B of the IPC, that the death of the woman
otherwise than for natural causes should have taken
place within seven years of marriage and the
existence of credible evidence establishing cruelty or
harassment by the husband or his relatives in
connection with dowry demands etc., have not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that
the mere fact of an unnatural death without a clear
nexus between the alleged harassment and the death
is insufficient for conviction.
21. It is well established from the evidence available
on record that that Punita died under circumstances
other than natural, as stated by Dr. Rahul Diwan,
Medical Officer (PW-9). The Medical Officer deposed
on oath that he carried out the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of deceased-Punita
and issued the post-mortem report.
11
22. We are constrained to note here that there is an
apparent flaw in the approach of the trial Court
inasmuch as, neither the number and nature of
11
Exhibit PK-3.
18
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
injuries were elaborated by the medical officer in his
testimony, nor did he give any specific opinion
regarding the cause of death. We are of the firm view
that if the Public Prosecutor was negligent in
performing his duties, the presiding officer of the trial
Court should have remained vigilant and the Court
questions should have been put to the medical officer
regarding the number and nature of injuries caused
to the deceased and to seek a clear opinion regarding
the cause of death.
23. Be that as it may, Dr. Rahul Diwan (PW-9),
Medical Officer, proved his affidavit
12 wherein, the
following injuries were noted on the dead body of the
deceased: -
“3. Injuries:
(i) Contusion present on bilateral parietal region of
scalp. On dissection all the layers of scalp show
echymosis. On opening of skull, there is massive
subdural haematoma involving both parieto
temporal region of brain with underlying brain
parenchyma haemorhagic(sic).
(ii) A red contusion of size 5 x 1 cm on chin in
midline with infiltration(sic) in surrounding
tissues.
(iii) Two red coloured contused abrasion of size 2 x
1 cm and 1 x 1 cm on left hypochondrium. On
dissection there is underlying echymosis.
(iv) A red coloured abrasion of size 8 x 1 cm on
left(sic) thigh on posteriolateral aspect.”
12
Exhibit PK.
19
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
24. In this affidavit, the cause of death has been
opined as shock and haemorrhage due to injury on
the vital organ, i.e., brain, which was ante-mortem in
nature.
25. We feel that the approach of the trial Court in
accepting the testimony of Dr. Rahul Diwan (PW-9),
the Medical Officer on affidavit, is contrary to the
mandate of Section 296 of the CrPC (corresponding
Section 332 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023) which provides that only evidence of formal
character may be received on an affidavit.
26. However, the fact remains that the defence has
cross-examined Dr. Rahul Diwan (PW-9), the Medical
Officer, with reference to the affidavit and the post-
mortem report. It is also clear that the defence did
not take any objection to the mode of recording
evidence adopted by the presiding officer. Thus, we
feel that this omission on the part of the presiding
officer tantamounts to a curable irregularity because
no prejudice was caused to the accused-appellant by
following such course of action.
20
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
27. Upon going through the post-mortem report
13,
it is clear that the death of Punita was caused by
ante-mortem injuries caused by mechanical violence
and hence, her death was definitely otherwise than
under natural circumstances within the meaning of
Section 304-B IPC.
28. The accused has taken alternative defences for
explaining the death of Punita. The two defences
which are totally divergent are (a) that the deceased
accidently fell down from the terrace and received the
injuries, or (b) that the deceased-Punita committed
suicide by jumping from the terrace as she was
perturbed because of the knee issue which was
plaguing her. We feel that this diametrically opposite
defence taken by the accused-appellant does not
have any legs to stand and we have strong reasons to
observe so.
29. Satender Kumar (PW-3), the brother of
deceased-Punita, categorically stated that when he
reached the matrimonial home of his sister after
receiving the news of her death, he saw the dead body
of his sister lying on a cot at the second floor of the
13
Exhibit PK-3.
21
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
building and blood was oozing from her nose and ear.
No cross-examination whatsoever was conducted
from Satender Kumar (PW-3) on this important
aspect of his testimony. Thus, the explanation offered
by the defence that deceased-Punita fell down from
the terrace and received injuries or that she
committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace is
totally a figment of imagination unsubstantiated by
the evidence on record.
30. The deceased was married to the accused -
appellant on 28
th February, 2008. She received
injuries associated with violence and died on 1
st
June, 2009, while she was at her matrimonial home.
Thus, the period between the marriage and her death
by severe traumatic injuries is just a year and four
months. There are consistent evidence from the
testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses,
i.e., Balraj Singh (PW-1) father of the deceased,
Parmod Kumar (PW-2) brother of the deceased, and
Satender Kumar (PW -3) another brother of the
deceased, that deceased-Punita was continuously
being harassed by the accused-appellant and his
relatives on account of the demand of dowry. At one
point of time, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also given
22
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
to the accused-appellant and Sukhbir Singh, who
had come to the house of the complainant, Balraj
Singh (PW-1) and demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for
taking deceased-Punita back to the matrimonial
home. This amount was being demanded so that the
accused-appellant could secure employment. The
accused-appellant brought deceased-Punita to the
matrimonial home after receiving an amount of
Rs.50,000/- but little time thereafter the
maltreatment of deceased-Punita resumed for the
remaining amount. No significant cross-examination
was conducted from Balraj Singh (PW-1) on this
important aspect of his testimony.
31. Furthermore, Satender Kumar (PW-3), made a
categorical statement that on the date of the incident,
deceased-Punita called him over telephone, and she
was in despair and was crying. She conveyed that the
accused-appellant had beaten her earlier night and
she is apprehending that she might be killed. She
made a fervent plea to be saved from the clutches of
the accused persons. This version of Satender
Kumar (PW-3) could not be shaken in cross -
examination. Hence, there is sufficient evidence on
the record to show that deceased-Punita was
23
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
continuously harassed even before her death in her
matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry
and money.
32. The fact regarding holding of a Panchayat is
corroborated by the defence witnesses as well. Of
course, the version of the defence witnesses is that
the Panchayat was held to discuss the medical issues
being faced by the deceased-Punita. The only medical
issue which deceased-Punita was facing as per the
defence was some knee problem. We feel that
deceased-Punita being a young woman of less than
30 years could not have been so perturbed by the
knee issue that the resolution would require a
Panchayat meeting. Thus, this flimsy defence taken
by the accused-appellant is not tenable and the
version of the prosecution witnesses that the
panchayat was held to discuss the issues of demand
of dowry and the maltreatment being meted out to
the deceased is the only acceptable theory.
33. Furthermore, whatever the gravity of the knee
issues may have been, that by itself could not have
instigated deceased-Punita to end her life because
admittedly she was being provided treatment, and
24
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
her pain had subsidised as per the evidence of the
defence witness, Dr. Sandeep Grover (DW-7).
34. Dr. V.K. Gupta (DW-6) and Dr. Sandeep Grover
(DW-7) also corroborated the same and stated that
the patient was being given symptomatic treatment.
Hence, the plea taken by the defence that deceased-
Punita was so perturbed by her knee issues that she
ended her life by jumping from the terrace is
absolutely flimsy and unbelievable. Rather we find
that this is nothing, but a fictional story created by
the accused-appellant as an afterthought to escape
conviction. This conclusion is further fortified by the
evidence of Shri Balraj Singh (PW-1), Pramod
Kumar(PW-2) and Satender Kumar(PW-3) being the
maternal family members of deceased-Punita who
stated that prior to her marriage, deceased-Punita
was not suffering from any ailment of knees.
35. As has been noted above, the dead body of
deceased-Punita was found lying on a cot at the
second floor of the house of the accused-appellant.
On the contrary, the defence witness, Mohan Lal
(DW-1), stated that he saw the accused-appellant
shifting the deceased to the hospital in his own car.
However, no such theory has been propounded in the
25
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
statement of the accused-appellant recorded under
Section 313 of the CrPC.
36. Furthermore, if at all, the body of deceased-
Punita had been brought down and had been taken
to the hospital by the accused-appellant in his car,
then there was no reason as to why the body was seen
by the witnesses lying on the second floor of the
house. Apparently thus, the accused-appellant must
have shifted the dead body to mislead the
investigation.
37. The trial Court as well as the High Court have
distinguished the case of the acquitted accused
persons from that of the accused-appellant by
assigning cogent reasons. The accused-appellant,
being the husband of deceased-Punita, was under a
greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to
ensure the well-being of his wife, but he failed to do
so. He was primarily responsible for the demands of
money being made from the deceased and her
maternal family members.
38. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the
demand of money was being made so that the
accused-appellant could secure a job. The deceased
called her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) on the
26
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
date of incident at 07:45 am and complained that she
was being maltreated/beaten by her matrimonial
family members including the accused-appellant and
expressed a grave danger to her life. Hence, there is
ample evidence on record establishing that deceased-
Punita was being treated with cruelty in her
matrimonial home owing to the demand of dowry
soon before her death.
39. Consequently, all the ingredients required to
prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B of
the IPC against the accused-appellant are made out
from the evidence available on record.
40. As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with
the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded
by the trial Court and later affirmed by the High
Court. The impugned judgments and orders i.e.,
judgment and order of sentence dated 26
th May, 2011
and 28
th May, 2011, passed by the Sessions Judge,
Panipat and judgment dated 15
th May, 2014, passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana , do not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by
this Court.
41. The appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.
27
Criminal Appeal No(s). 342 of 2015
42. The accused-appellant is on bail. He shall
surrender within a period of four weeks from today
and serve the remaining sentence awarded to him by
the trial Court.
43. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH )
….……………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL )
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 15, 2025.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....