1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.911/2023 
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 4639 OF 2018
MUNSHI           .… Appellant
Versus
STATE OF  UTTAR PRADESH                       … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The   present   appeal   was   filed   by   three   convicts
namely   Kamlesh   Singh,   Vishwaraj   Singh   and   Munshi
Singh.   Vide   order   dated   17.05.2018,   the   appeal   qua
appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed and notice was issued
only qua appellant No.3, namely, Munshi.  He is the brother
of   husband   of   the   deceased.     The   other   two   appellants   are
husband and brother of the deceased.  
2. An FIR (Crime Case) No.30 of 1993 was registered
on   the   complaint   of   Chander   Singh   (PW­1)   son   of
Muneshwar Singh stating therein that marriage of his sister

2
Janki   Devi   (deceased)   was   solemnised   with   Kamlesh   Singh
about   four   years   ago.     Sufficient   dowry   was   given   as   per
their standard.  Immediately after the marriage, family of the
husband   started   demanding   a   buffalo   and   a   Vicky   and
pressurised   her.     She   was   even   beaten   up.     His   deceased
sister   had   talked   to   him   about   this   many   times.     When   he
talked   to   the   husband   and   her   in­laws   about   this,   he   was
abused   and   pushed   out   of   their   house.     They   threatened
that they will kill her sister.  
3. On   27.02.1993,   Vishwaraj   Singh   (brother­in­law
of   the   deceased)   said   to   his   brother   Shivraj   Singh   (PW­2)
that   in   case   the   demand   is   not   met,   it   will   not   be   good   for
them.     On   28.02.1993,   having   come   to   know   about   the
death of his sister, a complaint was made to the police that
she   had   been   killed   as   the   demand   of   dowry   was   not   met.
Charge­sheet was presented. After trial, Kamlesh Singh, the
husband,     Vishwaraj   Singh   and   the   present   appellant,
brothers­in­law of the  deceased, were held guilty  of charges
under   Sections   304B   and   498A   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,
1860   (for   short   “the   IPC),   and   Section   4   of   the   Dowry
Prohibition   Act,   1961.     They   were   convicted   and   sentenced

3
to   undergo   10   years   rigours   imprisonment   under   Section
304B,   2   years   under   Section   498A   of   the   IPC   and   2   years
rigorous   imprisonment   under   Section   4   of   the   Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.   In appeal filed before the High Court
at Allahabad, the judgment and order of the trial court was
upheld and the appeal was dismissed.  
4. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   No.3­
Munshi   submitted   that   no   case   was   made   out   against   him
as there are no direct allegations regarding his being party to
alleged   torture   of   the   deceased   for   demand   of   dowry.   The
allegations   in   the   complaint   or   the   evidence   led   are   quite
general   in   nature.     The   appellant   had   been   convicted   only
with   the   aid   of   Section   113B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,
1872   (for   short   “the   Evidence   Act”)   on   presumption.
However, that presumption  will  not be available in the case
in hand for the reason that there is no evidence of cruelty or
harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before
the   death   of   the   sister   of   the   complainant.     The   appellant
being the brother of husband of the deceased was not going
to receive anything, neither the buffalo nor the Vicky.   Even
Section   304B   IPC   also   provides   that   any   cruelty   or

4
harassment   by   the   husband   or   any   relative   has   to   be   soon
before   the   death.     In   fact,   the   deceased   died   of   consuming
poison   for   which   the   appellant   has   nothing   to   do   with   in
particular. 
5. On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   the
State   submitted   that   it   is   a   case   of   dowry   death   just   four
years after the marriage.  A young girl was killed on account
of   torture   for   not   meeting   the   demands   of   greedy   in­laws.
There   are   specific   allegations   in   the   complaint   and   the
evidence   led   by   the   prosecution.     The   appeal   qua   husband
and   one   of   the   brother­in­law   of   the   deceased   has   already
been   dismissed   by   this   Court   and   the   fate   of   the   present
appeal   also   has   to   be   in   the   same   line   as   his   role   is   also
similar.  
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the relevant referred record.  The cause of death as available
from the forensic report is poison.  The allegation in the FIR
lodged by the brother of the deceased is that the marriage of
his   sister   was   solemnised   with   Kamlesh   Singh   about   four
years   prior   to   the   incident.     They   were   not   happy   with   the
dowry and had been making repeated demand of buffalo and

5
a   Vicky.     As   the   same   was   not   fulfilled,   the   deceased   was
being   harassed.     They   had   even   misbehaved   with   the
complainant when he visited to resolve the issue.   They had
even threatened to kill her.  
7. It is not in dispute that there is no eye­witness to
the   crime.     The   entire   case   of   the   prosecution   rests   on
circumstantial   evidence   of   the   prosecution.     Total   four
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.  Chander
Singh   (PW­1)   had   stated   that   even   a   day   before   the
occurrence when his brother Shivraj Singh (PW­2) had gone
to   see   the   parikrama   mela,   Devgawan,   where   he   met   the
accused   Vishwaraj   Singh,   the   other   brother­in­law   of   the
deceased, who reiterated the demand of dowry.  In his entire
statement,   besides   the   general   allegations   that   the   sister   of
the   deceased   was   being   harassed   for   not   meeting   their
demand   of   buffalo   and   a   Vicky,   the   appellant   has   not   been
specifically   named.     To   put   the   record   straight,   it   is   added
here   that   Vishwaraj   Singh’s   conviction   has   been   upheld.
However, nothing specific has been stated by Chander Singh
(PW­1)­the   complainant   to   bring   home   the   guilt   of   the
appellant­Munshi   for   raising   presumption   as   contained   in

6
Section   304B   IPC   read   with   Section   113B   of   the   Evidence
Act.     In   his   cross­examination,   he   stated   that   he   had   seen
his sister 4/5 months before her death.  That means he had
not   even   visited   the   matrimonial   house   of   the   sister   on   the
birth of her daughter who was about two months old at the
time   of   incident.     Similarly,   in   the   statement   of   Shivraj
Singh,   brother   of   the  complainant,  the  allegations   are  quite
general   in   nature   with   no   specific   allegation   against   the
appellant soon before the incident, which is  sine qua non  for
invoking  presumption under  Section 304B  IPC  and 113B  of
the Evidence Act.  
8. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the
evidence   produced   on   record   by   the   prosecution   is   not
sufficient   to   uphold   the   conviction   of   the   appellant­Munshi
who   is   brother­in­law   of   the   deceased,   by   raising
presumption.  

7
9. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the
judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the
Trial   Court   are  set   aside   with   respect   to   the   conviction   and
sentence of the appellant­Munshi.   Bail bonds submitted by
him are cancelled.
…………………J.
                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]
.…………………J.
     [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi 
March 23, 2023.