“HARI OM Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA”

Submitted by:
Utkarsh Raj
BBA.LLB(Hons.)
2264
Submitted to:
Dr. Meeta Mohini
Assistant Professor
Law of Evidence
This final draft is submitted in the partial fulfilment for the
completion of BBA L.L.B course.

April 5, 2021

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

1
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the BBA.LLB (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“HARI OM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of our work carried out under the supervision
of Dr. Meeta Mohini Ma’am. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree
or diploma. We are fully responsible for the contents of our Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Utkarsh Raj (2264)

B.B.A. L.L.B., 2nd year

SEMESTER -4th

CNLU, Patna

Dated: April 5th , 2021

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show our gratitude towards our guide Ms. Preety Anand Ma’am, Asst.Prof.,
Criminal Law -II, under whose guidance, I structured my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of our project to our CNLU librarians, who helped me
immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed
it in the present way.

I would also like to extend our gratitude to my friends and all those unseen hands that helped
me out at every stage of our project.

THANK YOU,

SINCERELY

UTKARSH RAJ
SEMESTER -4th

3
Contents

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE ............................................................................ 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………5

DOWRY DEATH UNDER IPC…………………………………………………………….8

SECTION 113(B) OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT……………………………………….12

SOON BEFORE AND SUICIDE………………………………………………………….15

HARI OM V. STATE OF HARYANA…………………………………………………....17

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………….20

4
 I. INTRODUCTION

Marriage in India is steeped in traditions and deep-rooted cultural belief practices are passed
down by word of mouth and in some case, with the changing times. There is, however, one
custom that stubbornly resists change the dowry system in India, it has roots in medieval times
when a gift in case or kind was given to a pride by her family to maintain her independence
after marriage. During the colonial period, it became the only legal way to get married, with
the British making the practice of dowry mandatory.

A dowry is transfer of parental property, gifts or money at the marriage of a daughter. Dowry
contrasts with the related concepts of bride price and dower. While bride price or bride service
is a payment by the groom or his family to the bride's parent's dowry is the wealth transferred
from the bride's family to the room or his family, ostensibly for the bride. Similarly, dower is
the property settled on the bride herself, by the groom at the times of marriage and which
remains under her ownership and control. Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to prohibit
in giving or taking of dowry and related offences.1

The dowry system in India refers the bride's family gives to the bridegroom, his parents, or his
relatives as a condition of the marriage. Dowry stemmed from India's skewed inheritance laws,
and Hindu succession Act, needed to be amended to stop the routine disinheritance of
daughters. Dowry is essentially in the nature of payment in cash or some kind of gifts given to
the bridegroom's family along with the pride and includes cash, jewelry, electrical, furniture,
bedding, crockery and other household items that the newlywed’s setup their home.

The dowry system in thought to put great financial burden on the bride's family. In some case,
the dowry system leads to crime against women, ranging from emotional abuse and injury to
even deaths. The payment of dowry has long been prohibited under specific Indian laws
including the Dowry Prohibited under specific Indian law including the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 and subsequently by Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.

The Legal definition of dowry as “Dowry” in the sense of the expression contemplated by
dowry prohibition Act is a demand for property of valuable security having and inextricable

1
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1245-dowry-and-dowry-death.html

5
nexus with the marriage i.e. It is a consideration from the side of the bride's parents or relatives
to the groom or his parents or relative to the groom o his parents and guardian for the agreement
to wed the bride to be.2

Dowry is considered a major contributor towards observed violence against women in India.
Some of these offences include physical violence, emotional abuses, and even murder of brides
and young girls prior to marriage. The predominant types of dowry crimes relate to cruelty
(which includes torture and harassment), domestic violence (including physical, emotional and
sexual assault), abetment to suicide and dowry death (including, issues of bride burning and
murder).
Dowry deaths and dowry murder relate to a bride's suicide or killing committed by her husband
and his family soon after the marriage because of their dissatisfaction with the dowry. It is
typically the culmination of a series of prior domestic abuses by the husband's family.

Most dowry deaths occur when the young woman, unable to bear the harassment and torture,
commits suicide by hanging herself or consuming poison. Dowry deaths also include bride
burning where brides are doused in kerosene and set ablaze by the husband or his family.

Sometimes, due to their abetment to commit suicide, the bride may end up setting herself on
fire Dowry deaths can also include sex selective abortions and female feticide by parents who
do not want to pay for their daughter's dowry when she comes of age. Daughters are often seen
as economic liabilities due to the dowry system.

India by far accounts to highest number of deaths relating to dowry or cruelty by husband or
in-laws. According to National Crime record Bureau (NCRB), a total of 8,233 death caused by
lust of dowry were reported in 2012, which simply means every 90 minutes a bride was burned.
Indian police reported in 1996 that, every year they receive over 2,500 reports of bride-
burning.3

2
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961)

3
https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-records

6
 1. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

I. To study provisions related to dowry death.

II. To find out whether the provisions are justified or not.

III. To analyze the case of Hari Om V. State of Haryana

2. HYPOTHESIS

The researcher believes that the judgement in Hari Om case is fair to be modified.

3. SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

Primary –, Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act

Secondary- Books, Journals, News Articles, Websites etc.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will do doctrinal type of research in which he will go through the primary as
well secondary sources. The researcher through this methodology will be able to get an
accurate picture of the problem in question. The doctrinal method helps in doing a
comparative study of the topic. This helps in getting the bird’s eye view of the subject. This
methodology will be the most effective way in preparing the project.

5. LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

Since the researcher is a student of law, he has access to a limited area. The researcher has
limited time for the project. The historical need and background are also necessary for having
a bird’s eye view of the particular topic and it gets developed only by effective and extended
reading over a long period of time. But the required materials are not available in our library.
But still researcher with his hard work will manage to take out the best possible work.

7
 II. DOWRY DEATH UNDER IPC

Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code covers the offences affecting the human body. Section
304B under the said Chapter deals with ‘Dowry Death’. The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment)
Act, 1986 under section 10 amended the Indian Penal Code and inserted the provision of dowry
death under section 304B.

As per the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 which says that dowry is any property or valuable
security directly or indirectly agreed to be given by-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of the said parties.4

In the case of Shanti v. State of Haryana5, the Supreme Court observed that the introduction of
section 304B in the Indian Penal Code is done with a view to combat the increasing menace of
dowry deaths.

Section 304B of The Indian Penal Code states that:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called
“dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.6

4
Sec 2, Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
5
AIR 1991 SC 1226.
6
Sec 304B , THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ACT NO. 45 OF 1860

8
Essential Ingredients of dowry death:

Section 304B is a provision which is peculiar in its scope and applicability. The provision is
given wider scope as to cover all deaths of wives who are dead within seven years of marriage,
the presumption of offence provides this scope. Further, the provision is applicable if the
following essentials are present in the offence committed-

1. The death of a woman should have been caused by burns or bodily injury or it should occur
that the death is not caused under normal circumstances
2. Death should have occurred within 7 years of marriage
3. It should be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment by her husband or his relatives
4. The cruelty or harassment should have been in connection with any demand for dowry.

In the case of Shamnsaheb M Multtani v. State of Karnataka7, the Supreme Court held that,
the peculiar situation in respect of an offence under section 304B is that the Court has a
statutory compulsion on establishing that the death of wife has not occurred under normal
circumstances and the wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or his
relatives soon before her death, to presume that the offence under this provision is committed
by husband or his relatives. The Court shall act upon the presumption of commission of offence
unless and until it is disproved by the accused.

The significant aspect in establishing the dowry death is that death should be an unnatural
death. In the case of Akula Ravinder v. State of Andhra Pradesh8, the Supreme Court held that
where it is emphasized that death must be proved to be one out of the course of nature and the
mere fact that the deceased was young and death was not an accident is not sufficient to
establish that death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Therefore,
the fact of unnatural death must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, in the case of Shanti v. State of Haryana9, the Supreme Court held that if the actions
of husband or his relatives at the time of death of the wife is doubtful, then the Court shall act

7
AIR 2001 SC 921.
8
AIR 1991 SC 1142.
9
AIR 1991 SC 1226.

9
in accordance with the presumption that the offence under Section 304B is committed. In the
instant case, where husband and his relatives upon the death of the wife did not allow wife’s
father and brother to see her and cremated the body in a hurry, the Court presumed the
commission of offence under section 304B by the husband and his relatives.

The Court refuses to consider the plea of accident by the accused in cases under this provision
if there is sufficient proof to establish the unnatural circumstances of death in the post-mortem
report. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan10, the accused person’s sister deposed
before the Court stating that the death of the victim was caused due to an accident that occurred
while she was making tea. But the post-mortem report indicated that the smell of kerosene was
there in the body and even the burnt hair was smelling kerosene. This fact established the
unnatural circumstances of death as opposed to the depositions of the accused person’s sister
and hence the Court convicted the accused of an offence under section 304B of IPC.

Under section 304-B (2) of IPC, dowry death is classified as a cognizable, non-bailable offence,
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 yrs. but which may
extend to imprisonment for life.

Cruelty Relating to Dowry:

For safeguarding the interest of woman against the interest of woman against the cruelty they
face behind the four walls of their matrimonial home, the Indian Penal Code,1860(herein after
referred to as I.P.C.) was amended in 1983 and inserted S.498A which deals with ‘Matrimonial
Cruelty’ to a woman.

Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non-compoundable offence. It

is defined in Chapter XXA of I.P.C. under Sec. 498A as:
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to a fine.

10
AIR 1990 SC 2134.

10
Section 498-A of IPC can only be invoked by a married woman against the husband or his
relatives for cruelty. This section was added with the intention to protect women from dowry
harassment, domestic violence and to end the offences of cruelty by husband or in-laws of wife
and providing punishment to the husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting to
cruelty. section 498-A, manifests with four types of cruelty: Any conduct that is likely to drive
a woman to commit suicide; any conduct which is likely to cause serious injury to the life, limb
or health of the woman; harassment with the aim of forcing the woman or her relatives to give
some property; or harassment because the woman or her relatives are either incapable to yield
to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.11

The Supreme Court, stated that, Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical
of the woman is necessary to be established in order to bring home the application of section
498-A of IPC. Section 498-A, IPC, manifests that whoever being the husband or relative of the
husband of a woman subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Clause (b) of the
Explanation to that section shows that the harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
property or valuable security or is on account of the failure by her or any person related to her
to meet such demand would amount to cruelty for the purpose of section 498-A, IPC. To invoke
section 498-A, IPC one has to be a “relative” of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption.
So, by no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological
sense be a relative.12

In Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT13 of Delhi it was held that the word relative in section 498-A
IPC, would be limited only to the blood relations and relations by marriage. The term cruelty
of section 498-A, IPC, has been explained in the explanation to section 498-A which consist
of two clauses namely Clause (a) and (b). Cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to
cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide, or the harassment was to compel her

11
http://www.livelaw.in/dowry-death-ingredients-shall-proved-prosecution-beyond-reasonable-doubt-invoke-
presumption-sc/
12
https://smhttp-ssl-70271.nexcesscdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Presumption-as-to-Dowry-Death-
By-Divyansh-Hanu.pdf
13
AIR 2010 SLP (Crl) 6091

11
to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. Every type of harassment or cruelty that would not attract
section 498-A.14

Section 304-B and section 498-A are not mutually exclusive. these provisions deal with two
distinct offences. It is true that „cruelty‟ is a common essential to both the sections and that has
to be proved.15

III. SECTION 113(B) OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

The term "dowry death" and "dowry murder" first began to be used around 1977-78 when
investigations revealed that deaths of married women, which for years had been camouflaged
by the police as accidents or suicides, were actually murders or abetted suicides, preceded by
prolonged physical and mental torture by the husband and in-laws in connection with dowry
demand. Instead of describing them as "wife murders" or "abetted suicides" the women's
organizations began calling them "dowry deaths".16

Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, refers to

cruelty by husband or relatives of husband' and includes section 498-A.
Section 498-A states, that whoever being the husband or relative of the husband of woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with the imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and also be liable to fine. For the purpose of this section, cruelty means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of
thewoman;

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person
related to her meet any unlawful demand for any person related to her to meet such demand.

14

http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/17595/1/032_Dowery%20Deaths_Burden%20of%20Pr
15
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=presumption%20of%20dowry%20death&pagenum=3
16
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Presumption-of-dowry-death-between-6-and-7-years-of-
marriage-117657.asp

12
The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It was introduced in the code
by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). By the same Act section 113-A
has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide
by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a woman who is
being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.

Section 113B Penal Code has been added by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act No.43
of 1986 which was with effect from 19th November 1986. This was done in order to solve the
increasing problem of dowry death. The word dowry death has been defined in 304B Indian
Penal Code and the term dowry has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
1961.17

The Section 113B Indian Evidence Act,1872 deals with the dowry death. Section 113B states
that: “Presumption as to dowry death. -When the question is whether a person has committed
the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry; the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death”. meaning as in
Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code,1860.18

Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code states that “Dowry death - (1) where the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.19

Section 113B uses the word "shall" and not 'may' so it is a presumption of law. On proof of the
essentials mentioned above, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the
accused caused the "dowry death". The court has no discretion to draw the presumption under

17
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=dowry%20death
18
http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=9a6063d0-e59f-42f7-a8e8-
7aa6baef35bb&txtsearch=Subject:%20Women%20And%20Child%20Rights
19
https://scroll.in/latest/822012/dowry-death-cases-presumption-of-guilt-has-to-be-backed-by-cogent-
evidence-says-sc

13
this Section if the essential ingredients are proved then they are bound to draw this
presumption.20

The legislature has made this presumption a mandatory presumption of law, of course,
rebuttable, though this may sound to be a violent departure from the accepted norms of criminal
law. The legislature thought that the presumption under Section 113 B should be a mandatory
presumption if the evil of dowry deaths is to be eradicated from the roots of our society. If it is
proved that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in
connection of a dowry demand, then the presumption under s 113B can be raised. If the
prosecution has failed to prove the case under Sec304B, IPC, even then, no presumption can
be raised under Sec. 113B of the21 Indian Evidence Act. So 304B is an integral part of Sec
113B of the Indian Evidence Act Cruelty need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given
case would be a case of cruelty or harassment under 304B and 498A.

The presumption by the Court shall be raised as to the commission of offence by the husband
or his relatives only upon the proof that the above-mentioned essentials of the offence. It is also
necessary that all the essentials have to be present within seven years of marriage, as the rule
of presumption under this provision will not be enforced beyond the statutory time period.

In the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh22, the Court held that if the prosecution
fails to prove that the death did not occur within the prescribed period of seven years of
marriage, the provision under section 304B will not be applied.

Essential Elements for Section 113B:

In the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N23., four essentials were given based on which this
section can be applied:

20
https://sites.google.com/site/keralamedicolegalsociety/the-indian-evidence-act-1872/chapter-vii-
iea/presumption-as-to-dowry-death
21
https://sclaw.in/2017/07/12/presumption-dowry-death-distinction-section-113a-act-relates-offences-
sections-498-306-code-whereas-section-113b-relates-section-304-b/
22
1994 Cr LJ 1684
23
AIR 2003 SC 3828

14
1. The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death
of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried
for the offence under Section 304B, IPC).

2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.

3. Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

4. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

If anyone of the essentials of the section is not made out, the onus does not shift to the defence.
For the presumption to take place all of the essential ingredients will have to be satisfied. This
was observed in the case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab.24 However, merely because the
husband was acquitted under section 302 of IPC the presumption of dowry death will not be
presumed to be rebutted.25

IV. SOON BEFORE AND SUICIDE

The term ‘soon before’ is not defined anywhere. The section says that the cruelty or harassment
will have to happen soon before the death of the deceased in question only then we can presume
that the death was caused due to dowry. The term is relative and it is left in the court’s discretion
how soon is equivalent to ‘soon before’.

Along with the afore-mentioned aspect of unnatural death, the provision also requires proof of
cruelty and harassment soon before the death occurred by the husband or his relatives in
connection with any demand for dowry. In the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana26, the
Apex Court ruled that the Court has to analyze the facts and circumstances as leading to death
of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand for dowry
and the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.

24
(2011) 12 SCC 408
25
AIR 2003 SC 2108
26
AIR 2011 SC 691.

15
The cruelty or harassment and the death of the deceased in question should not be too remote
in time so that it can be safely considered that the effects of the cruelty or harassment are
dissipated.

In the case of Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra27, the Supreme Court held that
if the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become state enough not to disturb
mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, then such cruelty cannot be considered while
tracing the reasons for death of the victim.

In the case of Premchand Mahto v. State of Jharkhand28, the deceased wife told her parents
before returning to her in-laws that she is being ill-treated by them, then she died after one
month of return. The court, in this case, said that the cruelty or harassment met to the lady can
be safely considered to have occurred ‘soon before’ her death.

In the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana29, it was written in the suicide note that no
one was responsible for her that and also, she wrote that all doors were closed on her and she
had no other way. The court held that when all the available evidence categorically shows that
there was a demand for dowry and ill-treatment by the husband and his relatives than just
because it is written in the suicide note that no one was responsible cannot be taken as a
conclusive proof that there was, in fact, no one responsible.

V. HARI OM VS STATE OF HARYANA

The given case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana deals with section 113(b) of the Evidence Act
that is Presumption to Dowry Death.

FACTS:

Poonam-a young girl having post-graduate degree to her credit, was married to A-1 on
04.07.2002. At the relevant time, A-1 was working as sub-inspector in Delhi Police. In the
marriage, Poonam's parents spent around Rs. 6.50 lacs. An amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs were paid

27
AIR 2013 SC 851.
28
2005 Crlj 3672, 3675 (para 14) (Jhar)
29
(2015) 1 SCC 797

16
in cash to the Appellant (A-1) for purchasing a car and the remaining amount was spent on
gifts and other expenses.

After a few weeks of marriage, A-1 demanded several items - such as furniture etc. from
Poonam’s parents During that time, the Appellant(A-1) also complained to them that Sarris
given to his relatives in the marriage were of inferior quality and, therefore, they should pay a
sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash in lieu thereof. Though Poonam's parents tried their best to convince
A-1 that they did their best looking to their financial capacity in the marriage and now it may
not be possible for them to satisfy his demands but A-1 did not agree and threatened that if they
do not satisfy his demands, he will not keep Poonam with him.30

After sometime, Poonam's parents (complainant) went to the house of A-1 and tried to persuade
him and his parents to give up new demands, which included money for purchasing a flat in
Delhi. However, out of sheer compulsion, Poonam's parents agreed to pay the amount as
demanded at the earliest. On this assurance, A-1 said that they can take Poonam with them and
when money is sent, she can come to matrimonial home. Then Poonam returned to parental
home with her parents. Due to persistent illegal demands by A-1, Poonam became tense and
committed suicide in her room by consuming poison. She was taken to civil hospital in an
unconscious condition where doctor declared her dead.31

This led to taking up of investigation on the basis of FIR lodged by the parents of the deceased
against the Appellant and her parents for commission of the offence punishable Under Sections
304B/498B/34 Indian Penal Code. This event led to arrest of the Appellant (A-1) and her family
members (A-2 to A-5) followed by recovery of dowry articles from the house of the Appellant
by the police and then filing of challan against him and his parents for the offences punishable
Under Sections 304B and 498B of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty
and claimed trial.32

A-1 to A-5 were convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 304B and 498A Indian
Penal Code.

30
MANU/SC/0987/2014
31
Ibid
32
Ibid

17
All five accused (A-1 to A-5) filed criminal appeals before the High Court out of which this
appeal arises. The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal in respect of the
Appellant (A-1) and upheld the conviction and sentences awarded to A-1 and allowed the
appeal in respect of A-2 to A-5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, A-1 has filed
this appeal by way of SLP against the impugned judgment.

Counsel appearing for the Appellant (A-1) confined his submission only to one ground. He
expressly gave up his challenge to concurrent finding of the courts below so far as the
conviction of the Appellant Under Section 304B read with Section 498A is concerned. In other
words, learned senior Counsel accepted the finding of conviction on merits, apparently, finding
no merit therein and challenged the quantum of punishment. Appellant has already undergone
9 years of imprisonment till date and still continues to remain in jail, this Court should alter the
award of life sentence to that of the one already undergone by the Appellant. Learned senior
Counsel urged that though Section 304B (2) prescribes award of imprisonment for a term,
which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend for life, yet according to him,
this is not a case where the courts should have awarded life sentence to the Appellant. Learned
Counsel urged that any term more than seven years would meet the ends of justice and since in
this case, 9 years of imprisonment has already been undergone by the Appellant, this Court
should allow the appeal to this extent and by modifying the impugned judgment in so far as the
quantum of sentence is concerned, reduce the same from life imprisonment to that of 9 years.33

Counsel for the State and the complainant while countering the submission made by the learned
senior Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that having regard to the totality of circumstances
emerging from the evidence and the fact that young girl ended her life in dramatic condition
within few days of her marriage, the award of sentence of life imprisonment to the Appellant
is fully justified and hence, this Court should not interfere in quantum of sentence.

Poonam committed suicide and died within one month of her marriage. This event attracted
rigor of Section 304B read with Section 498A Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the
Evidence Act, 1872. Secondly, her death was due to persistent illegal demands of dowry made
by the Appellant one after the other to Poonam and to her parents. Thirdly, the death of Poonam
had a direct nexus with demand of dowry duly proved by evidence and Poonam's suicide note

33
Ibid

18
34
(EX-PA) mentioning therein the reasons, which compelled her to end her life. Fourthly, the
suicide note was duly proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased; fifthly, defence
witnesses were not able to demolish or weaken the prosecution case on any of these material
issues and lastly, in the light of these established facts, a clear case Under Section 304B read
with Section 498B of Indian Penal Code and Section 113B of the Evidence Act for drawing
presumption as to dowry death Under Section 304B was made out against the Appellant.

The question arises as to whether the court should reduce the Appellant's sentence and if so, to
what extent, as urged by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant.

In the case of Hem Chand v. State of Haryana35, the courts below had awarded life term to the
accused Under Section 304B read with Section 498A but this Court reduced it to 10 years. This
was also a case where the accused was a police officer who had suffered life imprisonment.
This Court held as under:
“The Accused-Appellant was a police employee and instead of checking the crime, he himself
indulged therein and precipitated in it and that bride-killing cases are on the increase and
therefore a serious view has to be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304B Indian Penal Code
only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it
may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore, awarding extreme punishment of
imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. 8. Hence, we are of the
view that a sentence of 10 years' RI would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly while
confirming the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, reduce the
sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years”.

Similarly, this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Anr.36 while
convicting the accused Under Section 304B awarded 10 years imprisonment in somewhat
similar facts.

Applying the principle of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and having regard to the
totality of facts and circumstances of this case, the court was of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would meet, if it reduced the sentence of the Appellant from life imprisonment

34
Ibid
35
MANU/SC/0026/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 727
36
MANU/SC/0005/2003 : (2003) 2 SCC 188,

19
to that of 10 years. This case does not fall in the category of a "rare case" as envisaged by this
Court so as to award to the Appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, we also notice that
while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below did not assign any reasons. Learned
Counsel for the State and the complainant were not able to cite any authority in support of their
submission except to oppose the prayer made by the Appellant.

In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The conviction
of the Appellant-Hari Om (A-1) Under Sections 304B read with Section 498A Indian Penal
Code is upheld. However, the sentence (life imprisonment) awarded to the Appellant is altered
and accordingly, is reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. To this extent, the impugned
judgment stands modified.

V. CONCLUSION

The legislative intent is clear to curb the menace of dowry deaths, etc. with a firm hand. It must
be remembered that since crimes are generally committed in privacy of residential houses and
in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not easy to get. That is why the legislature has
by introducing Section 113-B in the Evidence Act tried to strengthen the prosecution hands by
permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundation facts are established and the
unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of marriage. This period of seven years
is considered to be the turbulent one after which the legislature assumes that the couple would
have settled down in life. When the question at issue is whether a person is guilty of dowry
death of a woman and the evidence discloses that immediately before her death she was
subjected by such person to cruelty and/or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry. Section 113-B, Evidence Act provides that the court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death. Under S. 113-B, when the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that, soon before her death she had
been subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death. (The term
“dowry death” has the same meaning as in S. 504-B of the Indian Penal Code.) S. 113-B raises
a presumption of guilt against any person who has been proved to have subjected the deceased
woman, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment, in connection with dowry. Needless

20
to state, it is a presumption intended to be raised against the husband and his relatives in the
case of dowry deaths, which have become increasingly common in India.

21
BIBLIOGRAPY:

1. Indian Penal Code 1960

2. Indian Evidence Act 1872
3. Constitution of India

Websites;
1. Manupatra.com
2.ssc-online.com
3. oecd.org
4. IndianKanoon.org
5. iPleaders.com

22