LexBHOLA RAM versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 573 BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2008) NOVEMBER 11, 2013 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048 & 498A - Sister-in-law of appellant committed suicide within few years of marriage - C Allegations of dowry death - Conviction of appellant - Justification - Held: Not justified - Appellant deserves acquittal since no evidence inculpating him - No definite allegation made by any of the witnesses including PW-2 (deceased's father) or anybody from his family that appellant D had demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in his family or had treated the deceased with cruelty or in a humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry death - Appellant may have been a silent or a passively conniving participant, but nothing on record to suggest that E he had either actively made such a demand or that the demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his benefit either directly or indirectly - Presumption available u/s. 113- B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude that deceased's death was a dowry death cannot be stretched to implicate all F and sundry in the family of deceased's husband in demanding additional dowry from deceased's family and harassing her and treating her with such cruelty that she had to resort to taking her life - Mere fact that all family members of the deceased's husband were living together, did not alter the G factual situation - In absence of the prosecution proving the ingredients of s.304-B, initial burden cast on it not discharged - Therefore, presumption uls. 113-B of the Evidence Act 573 H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A cannot be attracted -· Appellant acquitted - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138. The sister-in-law of the appellant committed suicide by consuming poison within few years of marriage. The 8 appellant .was convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court urider Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC for causing dowry death, and there fore the instant appeal. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in fact there was no specific allegation against him; that the C statements of all the witnesses were omnibus or generic in nature; and that in the absence of any particular allegation, demands for dowry made by the deceased's husband cannot be attributed to the appellant and under these circumstances, there was really no evidence to D uphold his conviction. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence that the sister-in-law and the other brother- E in-law of the deceased made demands for additional dowry from PW-2, the deceased's father. Accordingly, they were acquitted at the trial stage itself. Therefore, the segregation process, based on the evidence on record, had begun at the trial stage. This is clearly because in a F dowry death, some actors play an active role while others play a passive role. Consequently, to sustain the conviction of the appellant, there must be some suggestive evidence and not generic evidence implicating him in the demand for additional dowry from G PW-2. [Para 22) [582-G-H; 583-A-B] H Law Commission of India (LC/) in its 91 st Report of 10th August, 1983 (in paragraph 1.8) - referred to. 2. So far as this case is concerned, no definite BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB 575 allegation has been made by any of the witnesses A including PW-2 or anybody from his family that the appellant had demanded any additional dowry from him or anybody in his family or had treated the deceased with cruelty or in a humiliating manner so as to make him complicit in the dowry death. It is true that there was a demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/- which was paid by PW- 2 by borrowing this amount from PW1, but that demand B was for the purchase of a car for use by the deceased's husband. Under the circumstances, it can safely be presumed that the deceased's husband made the C demand for additional dowry for his benefit. The appellant may have been a silent or a passively conniving participant, but there is nothing on record to suggest that he had either actively made such a demand or that the demanded amount was sought to be utilized for his D benefit either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the evidence on record does not show that the demand of another amount of Rs.30,000/- from PW1 just a fortnight before F the deceased took her life was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.