SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.B. Shah and Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.

CRL. appeal No. 140 of 2002. D/d. 23.07.2002.

Sakharam - Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 34 - Dowry death - Dowry Demand - Cruelty - Burden of proof - For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or other relatives cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry who demand dowry and subjected her to cruelty is required to be established - In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to such persons are required to be proved reasonable doubt.

[Para 4]

Cases Referred :-

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2000 (5) SCC 207.

ORDER

M.B. Shah, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 8th August, 2001 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.320 of 1998, confirming the conviction of the appellants under sections 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Sessions Trial No.53 of 1998, the appellants Sakharam and Shashikalabai, father in law and mother in law of the deceased (Gangabai) have preferred this appeal.

2. Madhav, original accused No.1 (Husband) and Laxman original accused No.3 (brother of A-1) have not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and order rendered by the High Court, is on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous, as there is no evidence against the appellants that they demanded dowry or that they ill-treated their daughter-in-law (Gangabai) who committed suicide in the night between 9th May, 1998 and 10th May, 1998.

4. In our view, the afore said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is well-founded. There is no evidence on record that appellants demanded dowry or that they ill-treated their daughter-in-law who committed suicide. The evidence which is brought on record is that of Shankar (PW-1), Father of the deceased, who has vaguely stated that the accused were ill- treating his daughter for non payment of remaining dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/-. He has made the afore said statement on the basis of what his daughter Gangabai stated to him before one month of her death. There is no specific allegation made by the witness that present appellants were demanding dowry or were harassing his daughter. Similarly the evidence of Prabhu (PW- 2)who was the middle man, who settled the marriage of Gangabai with original accused No.1- Madhav is also equally vague. He has only stated that he was meeting Gangabai and she was telling him that accused were ill-treating her for non payment of dowry. In cross-examination, he has stated that he met Gangabai before the birth of daughter to Gangabai. Admittedly, Gangabai had given birth to her daughter 7 months prior to the date of incident. That would mean that this witness met Gangabai prior to 7 or 8 months prior to date of incident. Except the evidence of afore said two witnesses, there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution forest abolishing that the present appellants ill-treated their daughter-in-law Gangabai and were demanding dowry. On the basis of the so-called omnibus statement of these two witnesses, appellants cannot be convicted. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or other relatives cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry who demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty is required to be established. In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to such persons are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab Ors.,2000 (5) SCC 207. has specifically observed that a tendency has however developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased-wife in the matters of dowry deaths which could, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

6. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

.