BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 08-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 627 
BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME 
DEPARTMENT 
..,.-
(Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 8, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048: 
Offence of Dowry death - Ingredients required to be 
proved by the prosecution - Stated. 
A 
B 
c 
Dowry - Meaning of - Held: For purposes of s. 3048 /PC, 
'dowry' has the same meaning as in s.2 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act - Mere demand for 'dowry' before marriage, D 
at the time of marriage or any time after the marriage is an 
offence - The term 'dowry' is defined comprehensively to 
include properties of all sorts as it takes within its fold 'any 
property or valuable security' given or agreed to be given jn 
connection with marriage either directly or indirectly - If a E 
demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, 
has a nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute 
'demand for dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand 
being immaterial - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.2 
F 
Dowry death - Wife of appellant no.2 died within 3 months 
of her marriage - She was found dead by hanging from a 
ceiling fan in the appellants' house - Allegation that deceased 
was subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant no. 1 
(mother-in~law) and appellant no.2 in connection with demand G 
of motorcycle - Conviction of the appellants u/s.304-8 IPC-
Challenge to - Held: That the deceased was subjected to 
harassment and ill-treatment by the appellants after PW-8 
(father of the deceased) refused to accede to their demand 
627 
H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A for purchase of motorcycle is established by the evidence of 
PW-8 and PW-9- Then there is evidence of PW-10 that PW-
8 had called him and DW-1 to his house where appellant no.1 
had made demand of motorcycle - PW-10 stated that he 
sought to reason to appellant no. 1 about inability of PW-8 to 
B give motorcycle at which appellant ho. 1 got angry and warned 
that the deceased would not be allowed to stay in her 
matrimonial home - It was established that unlawful demand 
of motorcycle was made by the appellants from PW-8 and the 
deceased was harassed on account of his failure to provide 
c the motorcycle and that led the deceased to commit suicide 
by hanging - The demand of motorcycle by appellant no. 1 
from PW-8 was for the appellant no.2 and when PW-8 showed 
his inability to meet that demand, the appellant no.2 started 
harassing and ill-treating the deceased - In this view of the 
0 
matter, it cannot be said that there was no demand by the 
appellant no.2 - No merit in the contention of the appellants 
that the demand of motorcycle does not qualify as a 'demand 
for dowry' - All the essential ingredients to bring home the 
guilt under s. 3048 /PC were established against the · 
E 
appellants by the prosecution evidence -Presumption under 
s. 1138 of the Evidence Act was fully attracted -
The 
appellants failed to rebut such presumption - Evidence Act, 
1872 - s.1138. 
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Enactment of - Purpose 
stated. 
The wife of appellant no.2/(A-2) died within 3 months 
of her marriage. She was found dead by hanging from a 
ceiling fan in the appellants' house. PW-8, the father of 
the deceased, is a Rikshawpuller. 
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to 
establish that the death was within seven years of her 
marriage 
and 
otherwise 
than 
under 
normal 
circumstances; that before her death, the deceased was 
BACHNI DEVI AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 629 
SECY. HOME DEPTT. 
subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant no.1/ 
A 
(A-1) (mother-in-law) and appellant no.2 in connection 
with the demand of motorcycle and that the appellants 
were guilty of causing dowry death. The appellants were 
convicted by the trial court under Section 304-B IPC and 
sentenced to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment. 
B 
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In the instant appeal, the appellants submitted that it 
was highly improbable that a demand for a motorcycle 
would be made from PW-8 knowing well that it could not C 
be fulfilled by him as he was a Rikshawpuller earning Rs. 
20/- per day. The appellants contended that the evidence 
let in by the prosecution was not trustworthy at all and 
the demand for dowry is not established. They submitted 
that the only independent witness of demand was DW-1 
but he was not examined by the prosecution, though, OW-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.