LexMONJU ROY & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 275
MONJU ROY & ORS.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Criminal Appeal No.1797 of 2012)
APRIL 17, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3048, 498A and 306 - Dowry
death - Prosecution against husband, his mother and his c
siblings - Prosecution abated against mother due tn her
death - Conviction by courts below - Husband-accused
undergone the sentence awarded-Appeal by the accused-
siblings of husband- Held: Offence u/s 3048 can be said to
have been committed not only when 'demand of dowry' is D
made, but also when 'cruelty or harassment' for or in
connection with such demand, is made - There is no material
to show that the appellants-accused harassed the victim
resulting in her death -
Moreover, the possibility of
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all the
E
family members cannot be ruled out- Therefore, appellants-
accused acquitted uls 3048 giving them benefit of doubt -
Conviction under other offences is upheld.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Though, it is accepted that the deceased
was subjected to harassment on account of non-
F
fu lfillment of dowry demand, but possibility of
exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all G ·
the family members cannot be ruled out. Moreover,
ingredient of offence under Section 3048 IPC is not mere
demand of dowry but "cruelty or harassment" for or in
connection with demand of dowry.[para 7-8 and 1 O] [280-
B-D; 281-F-G]
H
275
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 6 S.C.R.
A Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000 (3) SCR 662 =
2000 (5) SCC 207; Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand
2007 (6) SCR 105 = 2007 (15) SCC 415; Amar Singh vs.
State of Rajasthan 2010 (9) SCR 526 = 2010 (9) SCC 64
- relied on.
B
2. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and
when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand
of dowry or harassment which follows, cannot be
weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus
C allegation against all family members particularly against
brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on
same footing as husband and parents. In such case,
apart from general allegation of demand 'f dowry, court
has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by
D all the named members. [para 11) [282-0-E]
3. In the facts and circumstances of the present
E case, even if it is accepted that the appellants who were
the siblings of the accused-husband were involved in
raising the demand for dowry, there is no material that
the appellants harassed the victim resulting in her death.
Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband
F who may be benefitted by the dowry and may be in a
position to harass and not all other relatives, though no
hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is
also true that till such an unfortunate event takes place,
the family members may not disclose the demand of
G dowry being a private matter and under the hope that
the relationship of the couple may improve. However,
having regard to the nature of their relationships, there
being possibility of the appellants' having been named
by way of exaggeration, the appellants deserve to be
H given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the
MONJU ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
277
present case. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the A
appellants under Section 3048 IPC is set aside, without
interfering with conviction and sentence under other
heads. [para 12-13] [282-F-H; 283-A-B]
Case Law Reference
2000 (3) SCR 662
2007 (6) SCR 105
2010 (9) SCR 526
relied on
relied on
relied on
para 5
para 9
para 10
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal C
Appeal No. 1797 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2011 of
the High Court at Calcutta in C. R. A.. No. 86 of 2005
D
Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for
the Appellants.
Kabir S. Bose, Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - 1. The appellants
stand convicted under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment ("RI") for 10 years and to pay fine of F
Rs.5000/c. In default, to undergo further imprisonment for
two years. They also stand sentenced to suffer RI for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer
further imprisonment for three months under Sections 498A
a~3001PC.
G
2. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.