2012 INSC 0249
Rammurti & Another
v.
State of M.P
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R.
DAVE
Criminal Appeal No. 1171 Of 2003 | 21-03-2012

1. This appeal is directed is directed against the judgment & order passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 1991 dated
24.01.2003. By the impugned judgment & order, the High Court has reversed
the findings & the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions judge, who had
acquitted the appellant from charges under Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 & 201 of
the Indian Penal Code (,,the IPC for short) & under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (the "Act for short).

2. In this appeal, we have Rammurti (A2) & Chandrabhan Singh (A.4) as
appellants before us. They are calling in question the judgment & order passed
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicting them & sentencing them
under Section 304-B of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution which has been substantially accepted by the
High Court runs as under:-

a. Rammmurti is the husband of the Raj Kumari (deceased). Chandrabhan Singh
is the younger brother of Rammurti. The marriage between Rammurti & the
deceased was solemnised on 10.05.1984. Her death has taken place on
21.05.1987, viz., within seven years from the date of the marriage

b. The Death of Raj Kumari, under the suspicious circumstance, was brought to
the notice of the jurisdictional police authorities by one Sri. Mansingh,
chowkidar of the village. In his information of the police, he had specifically
stated that on his way back to home from his daughter-in laws place, he was

1  SpotLaw
told by one Mr. Pratap Sing, that wife of Rammmurti has expired. He has also
stated that Pratap Singh did not tell him about the cause of the death of
rammurtis wife. He does not stop there. He continues by adding that Pratap
Singh had told him that the wife of Rammurti was being cremated.

c. Based on the information so furnished, the investigation agency had carried
on the investigation by seizing the burnt has, blood-stained soil & other
reminiscences that were at the place where the deceased was cremated.

d. After cremation of the body of the deceased by Rammurti, Chandarbhan
Singh & others, information was sent to the parents of the deceased who were
living at a distance of but 100 kms. After coming to know about the death of her
daughter, PW-9, who is none other than the father of the deceased, had
requested his elder brother to go over to the place of the deceased & to find out
the cause of the death of the deceased. The information was also furnished to
PW-10, who is none other then the mother of the deceased.

e. Since PW-9s brother did not return from the place of the deceased, P.W-9
was constrained to go to the village of the deceased. After coming to know the
cause & the manner of the death of the deceased, PW-9 lodged the police
complaint before the jurisdictional police authorities.

4. After investigation, the police charge- sheeted Rammurti, Chandrabhan Sing
young brother of the accused & other close relatives of Rammurti.

5. Since the offence was triable by the Sessions Judge, the Learned Magistrate
placed the case before the learned Sessions Judge for trial. Learned judge, on
the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, framed the charges under
Section 304-B read with Section 498-A, & in the alternate, under Section 306 &
201 of the IPC, & under Section 4 of the Act which appellants denied. Since the
accused persons did not plead guilty, learned judge commenced the trial.

2  SpotLaw
6. In order to prove the charges, the prosecutions examined 18 witnesses in
support of their case. The accused persons did not lead any evidence,
whatsoever. The learned Sessions Judge, after recording the statement of the
accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after
considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion the prosecution
has failed to prove the charges against accused person &, accordingly, acquitted
the accused.

7. The State, being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Sessions
judge, had carried the matter in appeal before the High Court.

8. The High Court, after perusing the entire evidence on record, found it fit not
to accept the conclusion of acquittal arrived by the learned Sessions Judge with
regard to acquittal of the present accused, namely Rammurti & Chandrabhan
Singh. Accordingly, has passed & order convicting the appellants under Section
304-B of the IPC & sentencing them 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction & of sentence passed by the
High Court, the present appellants-accused are before us.

10. Shri. Varinder Kumar Sharma appears for the appellant & Ms. Vibha Datta
Makhija appears for the State, Shri, Sharma principally urges three points:
firstly, that there is a discrepancy & material contradiction in the evidence
adduced by the prosecution in support of its case, Secondly, he contends that the
ingredients borne out in Section 3048 of the IPC are & made out as against the
appellant. Thirdly, Shri. Sharma states that it appears on the record that the
prosecution never alleged harassment of the deceased for the dowry prior to
giving their testimony in the trial.

11. Shri. Sharma took us through the evidence of brother of deceased (PW.4),
father of deceased (PW9) & the mother of deceased (PW 10) & state that the
allegation of the dowry harassment has been stated for the first time in their
evidence before the Trial Court & no any time earlier. He further, submits that
there is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was, at any time,
harassed by the appellants for dowry. Shri. Sharma also emphasises on the

3  SpotLaw
unnatural conduct of he father of deceased (PW.9), when he was informed about
the unnatural death of the deceased, he chose not to visit to the place of the
deceased but had asked his elder brother to enquire about the cause of the death
of the deceased. In support of his submissions, Shri, Sharma pointed out from
the evidence on record & also relied on the dicta of this Court.

12. Per contra Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, would refer to Section 304-B of the I
PC & Contend that for the application of 304-B, the following conditions are
required to be met- a) that there should be a death of a women which should be
a death of a women which should be caused by a burn or bodily injury or under
any other suspicious circumstances. b) Such death should be caused within 7
years of he marriage. c) It should be shown that soon before her death she was
subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. d) Such
harassment must be with regard to the demand of dowry. Further, Ms.Makhija
contends, that, if these 4 ingredients are present, then, by virtue of Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption against the accused, Ms.
Makhija also brought to out notice that the deceased was married to Rammurti
on 10th May, 1984, however, she visited her matrimonial house twice, after the
performance of ceremony of "Gona on 14.3.1986, till her death. Ms. Makhija
takes us through the Statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code to
counter the arguments of Shri. Sharma that there was no allegation of demand
for dowry.

13. It has come out in the evidence of Keshav Singh (PW 4), the brother of the
deceased that the accused-Rammurti had come to their house on more than one
occasion demanding for a TV & a Motor Cycle in dowry. He also testified that
about 5-6 days, prior to the death of the deceased, he along with Sayeed Khan
(PW-5) went to the house of the deceased where the deceased told him, in the
presence of Sayeed Khan that the accused use to beat her for dowry & also
threatened to kill her, if the demands were not satisfied. The same is
corroborated by Sayeed Khan. It has come put in the evidence of Baldbhan
Singh (PW 9), the father of deceased that at the time of ,,Gona the
accused-Rammurti had demanded a TV & a Motor Cycle as dowry & there
were altercation with regard to this. He also mentioned a letter that the deceased
has written alleging the harassment for the dowry. He also testified that when he
got the news of the death of her daughter, he requested his elder brother to find
out as to what had happened, he has also stated that he had never lodged the
complaint with regard to harassment for dowry.

4  SpotLaw
14. Kusum Bai, the mother of the deceased (PW 10) has testified that the
accused demanded a TV & a Motor Cycle as dowry & when the deceased had
returned home after ,,Gona Ceremony, the deceased informed her that
Rammurti has assaulted her for non fulfillment of dowry demand. She has state
that when the deceased came to visit her paternal house for the second time after
the ,,Gona she war again threatened, by appellants, to fulfil the demand of
dowry or face death. She also testified that altercation had taken place with
regard to demand for dowry between her husband & the appellants.

15. Shri, Bharat Singh (PW11), uncle of deceased has testified that he was
aware of the dowry demand made by the accused & the latercation between the
accused & his brother, the father of the deceased (PW 9). He state that the
deceased had even complained to him of the demand for dowry & torture that
she was subject to, in that regard. He further stated that his brother (PW 9), on
information from Parmal (accused before Trial Court) about the death of Raj
Kumari, was asked to go & enquire as to what has happened. He further stated
that he reached village Sawan & that on reaching there, accused persons asked
him to write that he does not suspect any body.

16. On perusal of the statement under Section 161 of PW4. PW9 & PW10, we
find that it is clear from the record that there was demand of dowry &, also
there use to the altercation amongst the deceased & appellants, even prior to the
recording of evidence in the trial. Therefore, in our opinion, Shri. Sharmas
submission that the case was improved in the trial is devoid of merit.

17. It has been sufficiently established, before us, that the death of the deceased
was caused under mysterious circumstances & not under normal circumstances.
She died within 7 years of her marriage & there is enough evidence to
substantiate that she underwent persistent cruelty & harassment meted out by
her husband as well as by his parents in connection with demand for dowry, &
in particular the demand for a TV & a Motor Cycle. One these facts stand
established a presumption arises under Section 304-B IPC that it is a case of
dowry death, & that her husband or relatives who subjected her to cruelty &
harassment shall be deemed to have caused her death. Undoubtedly, it is a
rebuttable presumption, but in the absence of amy evidence in rebuttal, the
Court may, with the aid of the presumption convict the accused of that charge.

5  SpotLaw
In the present case, the defence has not proved by way of evidence, that, the
death was not caused by them, or that the death took place in the normal course
on account of any accident or ailment suffered by the deceased or the death took
place in a manner with which they were not at all connected &, thereby, failed
to rebut the presumption that arises under Section 304-B of IPC.

18. In Yahsoda v. State of M.P. (2004) 3 SCC 98, this Court has observed the
once the ingredients or conditions of Section 304-B are satisfied or stand
established in view of the facts of the matter, then the presumption will operate
against the accused that they have caused the death. Thereafter, it is for the
defence to rebut the presumption that arise under Section 304-B of IPC, by
adducing the evidence. This Court has held thus:

"13. Once the prosecution proves the facts which give rise to the presumption
under Section 304-B IPC, the onus shift to the defence & it is for the defence to
produce evidence to rebut that presumption. The defence may adduce evidence
in support of its defence or may make suggestions to the prosecution witnesses
to elicit facts which may support their defence. The evidence produced by the
defence amy disclose that the death was not caused by them, or that the death
took palace in the normal course on account of any ailment or disease suffered
by the deceased or that the death took place in a manner with which they were
not at all connected. It the instant case if the defence wanted to proved that the
deceased had suffered from diarrhoea & vomiting & that result in her death, it
was for the defence to adduce evidence & rebut the presumption that arose
under Section 304-B IPC. The defence could have examined the doctor
concerned or even summoned the record from the hospital to prove that in fact
the deceased has suffered such ailment & had also been treated for such
ailment."

19. As we have noticed above, the deceased was a young girl & there is no
evidence even to suggest that she was suffering from any aliment. Fifteen days
before her death she had gone to her matrimonial home in good health.
Suddenly one day her parents came to know that she had died. Her death was
therefore, clearly in circumstances which cannot be considered to be normal. If
she had really died a natural or accidental death, the appellants were that best
persons to disclose the relevant facts which were solely within their knowledge.
Indeed when all the conditions of Section 304-B were fulfilled & a presumption

6  SpotLaw
arose against the appellants they were require to rebut that presumption in order
to successfully defend themselves. They did not do so. The evidence of DW 1
has been rightly discarded by the Courts below. In these circumstance & in the
absence of any acceptable evidence whatsoever, to suspect that the death may
have been accidental or on account of the natural causes, will be speculative.
Law does not permit a Court to speculate or conjecture so as to imagine events
about which there is absolutely no evidence on record. The manner in which the
dead body was disposed of as night has further added to the incriminating
circumstances proved against the appellants."

19. Shri. Sharma has laid emphasis on the unnatural conduct of father of
deceased (PW 9) of sending his brother, instead of going himself, to enquire
about the incident, though we find this conduct may not be nature for a father,
yet in the light of overwhelming evidence, we do not propose to engage
ourselves to explain this conduct. Perhaps the reason for this was the illness of
the mother of the deceased (PW 10) which has come in the statement under
Section 161.

20. Let us now look at the case cited by Shri. Sharma in aid of his arguments
canvassed before us. Shri. Sharma relies on Sunil Bajaj v. State of MP. (2001) 9
SCC 417, in support of his argument that the ingredients of Section 304 are not
satisfied in the facts of present case. It would be revellent to note the
observation of this Court.

"5. In order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the
following essentials must be satisfied:

(1) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or
other wise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death must have occurred
within 7 years of her marriage; (3) soon before her death, the woman must have
been death, the woman must have been subject to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or by relatives of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment must be
for or in connection with demand of dowry."

7  SpotLaw
21. We are afraid, that judgment relied on would assist Shri, Sharma, for the
reason that it has come on the record in the instant case, the deceased had died
in abnormal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage. Soon before her
death she was subject to cruelty & this cruelty was in connection to the demand
for dowry. In the case cited, there was no evidence of demand of dowry or
subjecting the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with dowry.

22. Shri. Sharma also relied on Subhash v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 715,
in support of his argument that the case was improved in Court during the Trial.
In that case the Court found that the significant or material facts had been
omitted from the statements, recorded under Section 161, of the witness which
came out later, during the evidence in the trial. However, we have perused the
Statements under Section 161 in the present case & there is no such
discrepancy.

23. Shri. Sharma also relies on Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab. (2009) 16 SCC
487, in aid of his submission that the presumption under Section 113-B is not
applicable as it stands rebutted in view of evidence on the record that there was
no demand of dowry. In that case, this Court has held:

16. Having regard to the evidence on record, the question arises as to whether
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section
304-B IPC the prosecution is required to establish that the death was caused by
any burn or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances, that such death took pace within seven years of he marriage, &
that it is shown hat soon before her death the woman was subject to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection
with any demand for dowry. If these facts are established by the prosecution,
the presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act, 1872, arises & the Court
shall presume that such person who had subjected the woman to cruelty or
harassment in connection with any demand for dowry shall be presumed to have
caused the dowry death. The presumption that in such cases may be rebutted by
the accused.

17. If the accused successfully rebuts the presumption by pleading & proving a
probable defence, the presumption under Section 113-B stands rebutted & the
prosecution must prove its case without the aid of such presumption. It must
logically follow that in a case where such presumption arises, the evidence, oral,

8  SpotLaw
circumstantial or documentary, adduced in defence be examined by the Court
with a view to find whether the presumption stands rebutted. It is essentially a
matter or rebutted. It is essentially a matter of appreciation of evidence.

In the decision cited, there was no case made out for the demand of dowry in
view of evidence. Therefore, we are afraid, that case would not come to the
afraid, the case would not come to the rescue of he appellants.

24. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment & order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, appeals are
dismissed. Let the appellants herein be taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the remaining period of he sentence imposed by the High Court.

25. Ordered accordingly.

26. Appeal dismissed.

9  SpotLaw