# SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1137
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-10-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2005
- **Bench:** Markandey Kat Ju, Gyan Sudha Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/satya-narayana-tiwari-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-26338
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 304-B and 498-A /PC and s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition c
Act - Dowry death - Circumstantial evidence - Bride died of
strangulation and burn injuries in her matrimonial home -
Husband and mother-in-law of deceased charged with the
offences - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court
- Held: Trial judge recorded acquittal adopting a superfluous
0
approach without in-depth analysis of the evidence and
circumstances established on record - He proceeded on
wrong premise and irrelevant considerations -The ingredients
of s. 304-B have been established - The presumption uls
113-B of Evidence Act is attracted and the accused could not
E
displace the same - The prosecution has established that the
accused committed the offences - Findings of High Court
upheld - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s. 4 - Evidence -
Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-B.
s. 304-B - Ingredients - Explained - Expression 'soon.
F
before her death' - Connotation of - Proximity Test.
Administration of criminatl justice -
Framing of
appropriate charge -Dowry death - Bride strangulated and
burnt to death by her husband and mother-in-law as their
G
demand for dowry was not fulfilled - Held: It was a case u/s
302 but no charge under that section was framed - Such
cases of bride burning fall in the category of rarest of rare
cases and, therefore, deserve death sentence - However,
1137
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A conviction and sentence ulss 304-8 and 498-A upheld - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Code of Crim1nal
Procedure, 1973 - Sentence/Sentencing.
B
Words and Phrases:
Expressions 'soon before her death' as occurring in s.3048 !PC; and 'rarest of rare cases' in the context of dowry deaths
- Connotation of
A bride, aged about 24 years, died of strangulation
c and burn injuries in her matrimonial home, within three
years of her marriage. The father of the deceased stated
in the FIR that dowry was being demanded from him and
it was insisted that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. The
trial court acquitted the accused, namely, the husband
0 and the mother-in-law of the deceased, but the High Court
convicted them u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC and s.4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the accused filed
the appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As has been held by the Apex Court in the
case of Kunhiabdulla*, in order to attract application of
s.3048 IPC, the essential ingredients are : (1) The death
of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury
F or otherwise than in normal circumstances; (2) such a
death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage; (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for
G or in connection with demand of dowry; (5) Such cruelty
or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman
soon before her death. [para 16] [1149-E-H; 1150-A]
H
*l<.unhiabdul/a Versus State of Kera/a 2004 (2 ) SCR 853
= 2004 (4) sec 13 - referred to.
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1139
U.P.
1.2 As generally happens in a crime of dowry death,
A
this case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As
regards ingredients No. 1 and 2, it is an admitted fact that
the deceased, as indicated in the post mortem report, died
otherwise than in normal circumstances, and that the
death had occurred within seven years of her marriage
B
in her 'Sasural' in her bedroom. [para 17] [1150-8-C]
1.3 As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant
testimony is contained in the statements of the deceasd's
father PW 1 and PW 2 (son-in law of PW-1 ). Their
testimony is quite credible regarding the illegal demand
C
of a Maruti Car in dowry by the two accused, namely, the
husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, since
after six months of the marriage and that they subjected
her to harassment, maltreatment and humiliation on nonfulfilment of the said demand. It goes wi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 54,836. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1137
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR.
A
V.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2005)
OCTOBER 28, 2010
B
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 304-B and 498-A /PC and s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition c
Act - Dowry death - Circumstantial evidence - Bride died of
strangulation and burn injuries in her matrimonial home -
Husband and mother-in-law of deceased charged with the
offences - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court
- Held: Trial judge recorded acquittal adopting a superfluous
0
approach without in-depth analysis of the evidence and
circumstances established on record - He proceeded on
wrong premise and irrelevant considerations -The ingredients
of s. 304-B have been established - The presumption uls
113-B of Evidence Act is attracted and the accused could not
E
displace the same - The prosecution has established that the
accused committed the offences - Findings of High Court
upheld - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s. 4 - Evidence -
Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-B.
s. 304-B - Ingredients - Explained - Expression 'soon.
F
before her death' - Connotation of - Proximity Test.
Administration of criminatl justice -
Framing of
appropriate charge -Dowry death - Bride strangulated and
burnt to death by her husband and mother-in-law as their
G
demand for dowry was not fulfilled - Held: It was a case u/s
302 but no charge under that section was framed - Such
cases of bride burning fall in the category of rarest of rare
cases and, therefore, deserve death sentence - However,
1137
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A conviction and sentence ulss 304-8 and 498-A upheld - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Code of Crim1nal
Procedure, 1973 - Sentence/Sentencing.
B
Words and Phrases:
Expressions 'soon before her death' as occurring in s.3048 !PC; and 'rarest of rare cases' in the context of dowry deaths
- Connotation of
A bride, aged about 24 years, died of strangulation
c and burn injuries in her matrimonial home, within three
years of her marriage. The father of the deceased stated
in the FIR that dowry was being demanded from him and
it was insisted that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. The
trial court acquitted the accused, namely, the husband
0 and the mother-in-law of the deceased, but the High Court
convicted them u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC and s.4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved, the accused filed
the appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As has been held by the Apex Court in the
case of Kunhiabdulla*, in order to attract application of
s.3048 IPC, the essential ingredients are : (1) The death
of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury
F or otherwise than in normal circumstances; (2) such a
death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage; (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for
G or in connection with demand of dowry; (5) Such cruelty
or harassment is shown to have meted out to the woman
soon before her death. [para 16] [1149-E-H; 1150-A]
H
*l<.unhiabdul/a Versus State of Kera/a 2004 (2 ) SCR 853
= 2004 (4) sec 13 - referred to.
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1139
U.P.
1.2 As generally happens in a crime of dowry death,
A
this case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As
regards ingredients No. 1 and 2, it is an admitted fact that
the deceased, as indicated in the post mortem report, died
otherwise than in normal circumstances, and that the
death had occurred within seven years of her marriage
B
in her 'Sasural' in her bedroom. [para 17] [1150-8-C]
1.3 As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant
testimony is contained in the statements of the deceasd's
father PW 1 and PW 2 (son-in law of PW-1 ). Their
testimony is quite credible regarding the illegal demand
C
of a Maruti Car in dowry by the two accused, namely, the
husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, since
after six months of the marriage and that they subjected
her to harassment, maltreatment and humiliation on nonfulfilment of the said demand. It goes without saying that
D
cruelty or harassment may not only be physical but also
mental. [para 18 and 20] [1150-E; 1152-A-C]
1.4 As has been held by this Court in Kunhiabdul/ah,
'soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon
E
the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket
formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a
period of 'soon before the occurrence'. It would be
hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in
the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of
F
an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
presumption u/s 113-8 of the Evidence Act. The instant
case fully answers the test of 'soon before'. There is the
testimony of demand of Maruti Car being pressed by the
two accused persons after about six months of the
marriage of the deceased (which took place about three
G
years before the incident) and of her being pestered,
nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of the
said demand which was conveyed by her to her parents
from time to time on her visits to her parental home and
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A on telephone. Things had reached to such a pass that on
getting a message from her about three months before
the incident, PW 1 accompanied by PW 2 had to go to her
'Sasural' in an attempt to dissuade the two accused from
pressing such demand, but they (the two accused)
8 humiliated and turned them out of the house with the
command not to enter their house again without meeting
the demand of a Maruti Car. PW-1 did not take any action
on the consolation offered by the father-in-law of his
daughter and also on the advice of his daughter which
C was quite natural. It, however, cannot be taken to mean
that the demand made by the two accused persons had
subsided or was given up by them. It can justifiably be
inferred from what happened subsequently that they
continued to torture the unfortunate lady because of nonfulfilment of the demand of Maruti Car. The test of 'soon
D before' is satisfied in the facts, evidence and
circumstances of the instant case. [para 24 and 26] [1153G-H; 1154-F-H; 1155-A-D]
Kunhiabdulla Versus State of Kera/a 2004 (2 ) S_CR 853
E = 2004 (4) SCC 13 - distinguished.
1.5 Indeed, the prosecution could not be expected to
bring forth any other evidence as to the persistent
demand of dowry in the form of Maruti Car by the two
accused after about six months of the marriage and
F maltreatment, harassment and torture heaped upon the
deceased by the two accused on non-fulfilment of the
said demand. The evidence on this aspect of the matter
as contained in the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 has the
natural aura of the truth. [para 22] [1153-8-C]
G
H
1.6 Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5 for attraction of
s. 3048 IPC, are also established by satisfactory evidence
adduced by the prosecution in the form of the testimony
of PW 1 corroborated by PW 2. [para 27] [1155-E]
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1141
U.P.
1.7 There is an important feature of the case. Only the
A
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been
accused of the offences in question. Besides them, there
were three other family members i.e., the father of
accused No. 1 and husband of accused No. 2 and two
daughters. PW 1 has described father-in-law of the
B
deceased as a gentleman. He has all the respect and
regard for him. Even when he had been humiliated by the
two accused about three months before the incident on
expressing his inability to meet their demand of Maruti
Car in dowry, he (PW1) had gone to him at his c
employment place in State Bank and had not taken any
action on the consolation offered by him. He mentioned
this fact in the FIR too. The circumstance that only the
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been
made accused of the offence, sparing the other three, is
0
an indication that father of the deceased has not acted
out of malice, anger or to wreak vengeance. [para 22]
[1152-F-H; 1153-A-C]
1.8 The recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10 (with regard to
blood and blood stained bindia) and Ka-11 (regarding
E
broken bangles) were not challenged in the crossexamination of PW 5, (the Tehsildar Magistrate) or PW 6
(the SI), who prepared them. These recoveries amply
indicate that the deceased had been subjected to violence
in her bedroom and she had succeeded in coming out
F
on the 'Chhajja' (balcony) to save herself. Not only this,
the presence of burnt cordless phone stuck in the arm
and the burnt wire of phone with the dead body indicates
that she had tried to contact ~omeone on phone, but in
vain. There is nothing to cast a doubt on the said
G
recoveries. [para 30] [1156-F-H; 1157-A-B]
1.9 The theory of suicide put forth by the defence
completely falls through on careful analysis of the
evidence and the attending circumstances. Two different
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A types of injuries found on the dead body of the deceased,
i.e., the ligature mark of large dimension and the body
being badly burnt because of the ante mortem burns with
smell of kerosene coming out of the body, completely
rule out the theory of suicide. A half-burnt piece of cloth
B with a knot was also found tied around the neck. It is also
to be taken note of that her body was found by the
Investigating Officer in the lonely corner of the bedroom
where she was rendered immobile and in a helpless state.
[para 34] [1158-F-H; 1159-A-C]
c
1.10 This Court records with dismay that the trial
judge has taken it to be a ground against the prosecution
that the knot found around the neck of the deceased was
not produced before the court. It is obvious that he
completely misinterpreted the matter relating to the knot
D and took it as a circumstance against the prosecution.
While conducting the post mortem, the knot found
around the neck of the deceased was untied and
removed so as to facilitate the post mortem. Therefore,
there could be no question of the knot bring produced
E before the court. [para 37] [1160-8-E]
1.11 On a close scrutiny and careful appreciation of
the evidence, this Court is of the firm view that the trial
judge wrongly accepted the plea of alibi put forth by the
F two accused persons to get away from the
consequences of the serious crime committed by them.
Their conduct also voluminously spoke against them. As
a matter of fact, only these two accused had an
opportunity to commit the offence. The father-in-law of
G the deceased having gone to the place of his
employment and the two daughters, including DW 1,
having gone to their educational institution, the two
accused persons only (husband and mother-in-law of the
deceased) had the opportunity to commit this crime
H
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1143
U.P.
inside the bedroom of the deceased. The manner in
A
which the deceased was done to death, i.e., by first
strangulating her and then setting her afire, needed at
least two persons, because she was also a young lady
aged about 24 years. A single person could not have
possibly overpowered her to strangulate her and to set
B
her afire. As a natural instinct, she was bound to offer
resistance and having regard to the two types of the
injuries found on her person at the time of post mortem,
it was the handiwork of at least two persons, who
undoubtedly were the husband and the mother-in-law. c
The conduct of the mother-in-law of the deceased was
that she, in order to misguide the machinery of law
through false plea of alibi, lodged a false information at
the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. that her daughter-in-law had
committed suicide. She had taken a false excuse to
D
support her baseless plea of alibi of herself as also her
son, the husband of the deceased. [para 38) [1160-E-H;
1161-A-D-G]
1.12 The interested testimony of OW 1 also cannot
be believed that her brother accused No. 1, the husband
E
of the deceased, had gone to his shop at about 8 P.M.
After committing the crime, the two accused vanished
from the scene, but before doing that, one of them, (the -
mother-in-law of the deceased) lodged a false report at
the police station that her daugther-in-law had committed
F
suicide. It is in the testimony of PW 7 (C.O/lnvestigating
Officer) that the accused-husband surrendered in court
on 7 .11.2000 and the mother-in-law on 13.11.2000. Earlier
thereto, the attempts to find and arrest them turned to be
futile. None of the two accused is witness of the inquest G
report or Fards. Absconding by both of them after the
incident cannot be termed to be normal conduct of
innocent persons. The report by the accused was given
at the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. on 3.11.2000. It was the
outcome of deliberation and consultation with legal
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A experts who had already gathered at the scene of
occurrence along with Advocate-uncle of the accused,
DW 2 - Advocate, and few other lawyers; whereas from
the testimony of DW 2, it is evident that the news of the
death of the victim was received in the District court at
B 11.30 A.M. itself, i.e., much before the lodging of the report
by the accused. [para 39] [1161-H; 1162-A-F]
1.13 The presumption of s.113-B of the Evidence Act
is attracted in this case and the facts and circumstances
of the case make it abundantly clear that the defence
C could not displace the said presumption. The culpability
of the two accused in committing the crime is established
to the hilt by the facts and circumstances proved by the
prosecution. They undoubtedly are the authors of this
crime. The irresistible conclusion is the demand of Maruti
D Car raised by the two accused after about six months of
the marriage persisted as it was not settled by the father
of the deceased by supplying the same. The prosecution
has successfully proved the persistent demand of Maruti
Car as a part of dowry by the two accused and
E continuous cruelty and harassment heaped upon the
deceased by them over this score. The accused are
established to have committed the offences punishable
u/ss. 498-A and 304 B IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Ac~ and the findings of the High Court are correct. [para
F 41 and 43] [1163-C-F; 1164-E-F]
2. Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes
committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social
crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they
G call for harsh punishment. In the instant case, as has
been established from the medical evidence, the death of
the victim was caused by strangulation and then by
burning. In fact, it was a case u/s 302 IPC and death
sentence should have been imposed in such a case, but
H
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1145
U.P.
since no charge u/s 302 IPC was levelled, this Court
A
cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning fall
in the category of rarest of rare cases, and deserve death
sentence. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases
have become common in our· country, the expression
"rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh's case*
B
does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that
the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride killing is certainly
barbaric. [para 7-10 and 12] [1147-A-G; 1148-D]
*Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 -
C
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
para 8
AIR 1980 SC 898
2004 (2) SCR 853
referred to
distinguished
para 16 and 24
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1168 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in State Appeal No. 5570. of
E
2003.
lndu Malhotra, Rajesh and Vivek Jain for the Appellants.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K. Gupta, Pradeep
Misra, Suraj Singh, Vandana Mishra, Anurag Dubey, Meenesh
Dube, Ravinder Singh and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows
to women.
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A
3. Indian society has become a sick society. This is
evident from the large number of cases coming up in this Court
(and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young
women are being killed by their husbands or by their in-laws
by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by
8 hanging/strangulating them. What is the level of civilsation of a
society in which a large number of women are treated in this
horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society
become - this is illustrated by this case.
C
4. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated
12.07.2005.
5. The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was
married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly
D on 9th December 1997. On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by
the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that dowry
was being demanded from him and the accused was insisting
that a Maruti car be part of the dowry. He further stated that
three months before the date of the incident the first informant
E along with his relative went to the house of the accused and
explained his financial difficulty in giving the Maruti car to the
accused but they were insulted by the accused and were told
to get out.
6. On 03.11.2000 at about 12 noon the first informant
F received information on telephone that his daughter had died.
The FIR was lodged as stated above and after investigation a
charge sheet was filed. The appellants - the husband and
mother-in-law of the deceased - were acquitted by the trial court
but the High Court convicted them under Sections 3048, 498G A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded
life sentence under Section 3048 IPC, 3 years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 498A, and six months rigorous
imprisonment under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The
sentences were to run concurrently.
H
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1147
U.P.
7. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and
A
order of the High Court and the judgment of the trial court and
other evidence on record. We see no reason to disagree with
the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the
appellants. In fact, it was really a case under Section 302 IPC
and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case,
B
but since no charge under Section 302 IPC was levelled, we
cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning, in our
opinion, fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence
deserve death sentence.
8. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases have
C
become common in our country, in our opinion, the expression
"rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is
uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride
killing is certainly barbaric.
D
9. Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes
committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social
crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call
for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our
E
society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding
dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill
the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder
of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total
commercialization of our society, and lust for money which
F
induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has
come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with
an iron hand.
10. In the present case, there was a post mortem done by
a committee of three Doctors. We have perused the post
G
mortem report. In that report ante mortem injuries were
mentioned as under :-
"1. Ligature mark around the neck, 31x7 ems. Base
slightly grooved with dark red. On cut section-tissue
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A
ecchymosed a tracheal ring compresses. Clotted blood
under soft tissue.
2. Superficial to deep burn all over body. Blistered
at places present. On cut section serus fluid present."
B
11. The cause of the death in that report was mentioned
in the following terms :-
"Opinion as to cause and manner of death : In my opinion
cause of death is suffocation with shock as a result of
c
strangulation with simultaneous A/M burn."
12. Thus, in this case the death of the deceased Geeta
was caused by strangulation and then by burning. It is
impossible for us to believe that this was a case of suicide. It
was a clear case of murder and hence charge under Section
D 302 IPC should have been levelled against the appellants but
surprisingly enough that has not been done in this case.
13. On the evidence on record which we are repeating
here again, we see no reason to disagree with the view taken
E by the High Court.
14. The deceased was aged about 24 years and about
Yi day had passed since she died when post mortem was
done. She was of average build. Eyes and mouth were partly
F open. Tongue was between the teeth. The body had pugilistic
appearance. Smell of kerosene was present. Rigor mortis was
also present. There was a half burnt cloth around the neck with
knot half burnt. Half burnt bed sheet and other clothes as also
a half burnt wire mingled with burnt clothes were found. A burnt
cordless phone was also found.
G
15. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was the father of the deceased and
maker of the F.l.R. who as well as his relative Jaideo Awasthi
PW 2 gave evidence about the demand of Maruti Car by the
H accused respondents since after six months of marriage and
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1149
U.P.
about the demand of Maruti Car being repeated and pressed
A
by both the accused, when both of them had gone to the
Sasural of the deceased and had been turned out by the two
accused after being insulted on their expressing inability to
meet the demand of a Maruti Car. Dr. R.K. Singh PW 3 stated
that he was included in the panel of doctors conducting the
B
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he proved the
post mortem report. Head Constable Mohar Pal Singh PW 4
had scribed the check report on the basis of the FIR lodged
by Surya Kant Dixit PW 1. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5, Tehsildar
of Tehsil Farrukhabad prepared the inquest report of the dead c
body of the deceased and other related papers. S. I.
Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 had collected bloodstains etc., from
the spot at the instance of Shiv Bahadur Singh PW 5 and Circle
Officer D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 was Investigating Officer of the
case. The defence also examined three witnesses. Vidushi
0
Tiwari OW 1 was the real sister of the husband of the deceased.
Devendra Misra OW 2 and Sushi! Kumar Misra OW 3 were
non-family members of the two accused.
16. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Kunhiabdulla
Versus State of Kerala, 2004 (4) SCC 13, in order to attract
E
application of Section 3048 IPC, the essential ingredients are
as follows:
1.
The death of a woman should be caused by
burns or bodily injury or otherwise than in
F
normal circumstances;
2.
such a death should have occurred within
seven years of her marriage;
3.
She must have been subjected to cruelty or G
harassment by her husband or any relative
4.
of her husband;
Such cruelty or harassment should be for or
in connection with demand of dowry;
H
A
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 12 S.C.R.
5.
Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have
meted out to the woman soon before her
death.
17. As generally happens in a crime of dowry death, this
B case is also based on circumstantial evidence. As regards
ingredients No. 1 and 2 of a crime of dowry death detailed
above, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Geeta died
otherwise than in normal circumstances vide her post mortem
report and that the death had occurred within seven years of
her marriage in her Sasural in the bedroom. As per the
C prosecution case, she had been married to the accused
respondent No. 1- Satya Narain Tewari alias Jolly about three
years before this incident occurring on 3.11.2000. Even Vidushi
Tiwari DW 1, sister of the husband of the deceased in
paragraph 2 of her statement said that the deceased Geeta
D was married to her brother Satya Narain Tiwari alias Jolly on
9.12.1997. Thus, her unnatural death in her Sasural occurred
within three years of her marriage.
18. As regards ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant
E testimony is contained in the statement of the deceasd's father
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 (son-in law
of Bua of Surya Kant). Both of them have deposed about the
persistent demand of Maruti Car in dowry by the accused
persons (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased) since
F after six months of the marriage and harassment/maltreatment
of the deceased over the score of non-fulfilment of the said
demand. The gist of the testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1
was that he had performed a decent marriage spending Rs. 4
Lacs giving household goods in dowry but after six months of
the marriage, the two accused started torturing his daughter
G Geeta pressing for the demand of a Maruti Car. On her visits
to her parental house, she (deceased) used to narrate to him
(this witness) her torture and maltreatment. She had also
informed him in this behalf on telephone. About three months
H
before the incident, he and Jaideo Awasthi had gone to
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1151
U.P.
Geeta's Sasural at Farrukhabad on getting message from
A
Geeta about the atrocities of the two accused heaped upon her
rendering her life miserable because of non-fulfilment of the
I
demand of Maruti Car. Both the accused were there at their
home at Farrukhabaa and repeated the demand of Maruti car.
On his expressing inability to meet this demand, he and Jaideo
B
Awasthi were insulted and humiliated and turned out of the
house. Both the accused told them not to visit their house again
without meeting their demand of a Maruti Car. Surya Kant Dixit
PW 1 then went to Geeeta's father-in-law at the place of his
employment-State Bank because he was a gentleman. He c
apprised him of the conduct of his wife and son (accused)
pressing the demand of Maruti Car. He, however, offered
consolation, Geeta, daughter of Surya Kant Dixit OW 1, also
advised him not to take any action and he went away. The
victim might have thought that making of FIR by her father at 0
that juncture would ruin her matrimonial life and so she advised
him not to take any legal step at that time.
19. Then heueceived a telephonic message from someone
at about 12 O'clock in the noon on the day of incident about
the death of his daughter Geeta in her Sasural at Farrukhabad,
E
he at once rushed from Mainpuri to Farrukhabad covering a
distance of about 80-85 km. Reaching the Sasural of his
daughter he found her dead in the bedroom of the first floor of
the house.
F
20. Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has corroborated the statement
of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 in all the essential particulars. He had
accompanied Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 about three months
before the incident to the Sasural of Geeta as related above
while giving the gist of testimony of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and
G
thereafter on the day of the incident on the receipt of telephonic
message at about 12 O'clock at noon. It is pertinent to state
that this witness used to reside in Mainpuri in a separate
portion of the house of PW 1. He being a close relative of Surya
Kant Dixit PW 1, it is quite believable that he had acquired
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A knowledge of the persistent demand of Maruti Car by the
accused on Geeta's visits to her parental house and he had
also accompanied PW 1 to her Sasural three months before
the incident as also on the day of the incident. The testimony
of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 is thus
B quite credible regarding the illegal demand of a Maruti Car as
in dowry by the two accused since after six months of the
marriage and that they subjected her to harassment,
maltreatment and humiliation on non-fulfilment of the said
demand. It goes without saying that cruelty or harassment may
C not only be physical but also mental.
21. There is an important feature of the case. In the present
case, Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 has described Ghanshyam Tiwari
(father-in-law of his daughter) as a gentleman. He has all the
respect and regard for him. Even when he was humiliated by
D the two accused about three months before the incident on his
expressing inability to meet their demand of Maruti Car in dowry,
he (PW1) had gone to him at his employment place in State
Bank and had not taken any action on the consolation offered
by him. He mentioned this fact in the FIR too. It appears that
E Ghanshyam could not control the disposition of his wife and son
(the two accused) and they continued to pursue their greed by
tormenting and maltreating the young lady (deceased) to get a
Maruti Car in dowry from her parents. She (Geeta) had to pay
the price of non-fulfilment of this demand of theirs, losing her
F life at their hands.
22. Only the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased
have been accused of the offences in question. Besides them,
there were three other family members i.e., Ghanshyam Tiwari
(father of accused No. 1 and husband of accused No. 2), Km.
G Vidushi OW 1 (sister of the accused No. 1) and Km. Shalini,
another unmarried sister of accused No. 2. Such composition
of the family has been related by Vidushi DW1. The
circumstance that only the husband and mother-in-law of the
deceased have been made accused of the offence, sparing the
H
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1153
U.P.
other three, is an indication that Surya Kant Dixit (father of the
A
deceased) has not acted out of malice, anger or to wreak
vengeance, as otherwise he would have implicated the entire
family including the father-in-law of the deceased and two
unmarried sisters of the husband of the deceased as is often
done by the parental side of the bride in a dowry death case.
B
Indeed, the prosecution could not be expected to bring forth any
other evidence as to the persistent demand of dowry in the form
of Maruti Car by the two accused after about six months of the
marriage and maltreatment, harassment and torture heaped
upon her (deceased) by the two accused on non-fulfilment of c
the said demand. The evidence on this aspect of the matter
as contained in the statements of Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and
Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 has the natural aura of the truth.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
alleged demand of Maruti Car made after about six months of D
marriage does not answer the test of 'soon before' the death
of the deceased. She reasoned that as per the own case of
the prosecution, there was no interaction between the two sides
since before three mnonths of the death of the deceased when
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 and Jaideo Awasthi PW 2 had allegdly
E
been humiliated and turned out by the two accused from their
house with the direction not to come there again without a Maruti
Car and that there was no evidence that any such demand was
made during the period of three months intervening between
the alleged incident of turning them out of the house by the
F
accused and the death of the deceased. The counsel for
accused made reference to the case of Ba/want and another
Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2005 SC 1504 to stress the point that
proximity test has to be applied. The argument; in our opinion,
cannot be accepted.
G
24. As held by this Court in Kunhiabdullah and another
Vs. State of Kera/a, 2004 (4) SCC 13, 'soon before' is a
relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.'
A
each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to
what would constitute a period of 'soon before the occurrence'.
It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that
brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof
of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
B
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The
determination of the period which can come within the term
'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending
upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however,
to indicate that the expression, 'soon before' would normally
c imply that the interval should not be much between the
concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.
There must be existence of a proximate and live link between
the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned
death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
0
has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium
of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
25. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the
proximity test has to be applied keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of each case. Regarding the aforesaid decision,
E
the facts were somewhat different in that the deceased was not
shown to have been subjected to cruelty by her husband for at
least 15 months prior to her death. On the fact of that case, it
was held that Section 3048 IPC was not attracted.
F
26. On the other hand, the present case fully answers the
test of 'soon' before'. There is the testimony of demand of
Maruti Car being pressed by the two accused persons after
about six months of the marriage of the deceased (which took
place about three years before the incident) and of her being
G pestered, nagged, tortured and maltreated on non-fulfilment of
the said demand which was conveyed by her to her parents
from time to time on her visits to her parental home and on
telephone. Things had reached to such a pass that on getting
a message from her about three months before the incident,
H
Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 accompanied by Jaideo Awasthi PW
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1155
U.P.
2 had to go to her Sasural in Farrukhabad in an attempt to
A
dissuade the two accused from pressing such demand, but they
(the two accused) humiliated them and turned them out of the
house with the command not to enter their house again without
meeting the demand of a Maruti Car. He did not take any action
on the consolation offered by the father-in-law of his daughter
B
and also on the advice of his daughter. It was natural that the
victim also did not want her father to take any extreme step
against the two accused. She might have thought that things
would improve with the passage of timebut it seems that that
did not happen. Surya Kant Dixit PW 1 was in a helpless state
C
after suffering humiliation at the hands of the accused persons
about three months before the actual incident. He could simply
wait and watch in the hope of things to improve, but the situation
did not improve at all. It, however, \cannot be taken to mean that
the demand made by the two accused persons had subsided
0
or was given up by them. It can justifiably be inferred from what
happened subsequently that they continued to torture the
unfortunate lady because of non-fulfilment of the demand of
Maruti Car. In our opinion, the test of 'soon before' is satisfied
in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the present case.
27. Thus, ingredients No. 3, 4 and 5 for attraction of Section
3048 IPC, are also established by satisfactory evidence
adduced by the prosecution in the form of the testimony of Surya
Kant Dixit PW 1 corroborated by Jaideo Awasthi PW 2.
28. As regards the important question whether the death
E
F
of Geeta was homicidal as alleged by the prosecution or
suicidal as claimed by the defence, there is a popular adage
that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances will not. In the
present case, certain recoveries made from the spot strongly
indicate that the death of Geeta was homicidal. There are two
G
important recovery memoes Ex. Ka-1 O and Ka-11. The recovery
memo Ex.Ka-10 relates to the recovery of blood and
bloodstained Bindia from the Chhajja (balcony) situated outside
the room in which the dead body of the deceased was found
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 12 S.C.R.
A
lying. The said recovery is a pointer that the deceased had
been subjected to violence there and there was struggle
btween her and her captors. Such recovery leads to the
justifiable inference that she had received injuries, and blood
had oozed in drops found at the Chhajja. She was a young lady
8
of about 24 years of age. The instinct of self preservation is
strongest in all human beings. Seemingly, violence had first
been applied to her inside the bedroom by the accused and
offering resistance she had somehow run out to the Chajja
(balcony) adjoining the room and the blood dropped there.
C
Another recovery memo Ex.Ka-11 related to the findings inside
the room in which the dead body was found. Amongst them,
there were broken pieces of bangles also. With the application
of force and violence, she was brought back from the Chajja
(balcony) to the bedroom where she was done to death. It is
noted from the Panchnama Ex.Ka-6 that the receiver of the
D
telephone was stuck under the left arm of the deceased and
burnt telephone wire was found stuck with the dead body.
29. The post mortem report also makes mention of the
burnt wire and burnt cordless phone being found stuck with the
E
dead body along with a half burnt scarf around the neck.
F
30. The recovery memoes Ex.Ka-10 and Ka-11 had been
prepared by S.I. Ghanshyam Gaur PW 6 at the dictationof
ShirBahadur singh PW 5. Shir Bahadur Singh PW 5 (Tehsildar
Magistrate) is a witness to the recovery memoes. Inquest report
(Panchayatnama) was prepared by himself. One of the
witnesses of the recovery memoes and Panchnama is Keshav
Tiwari, advocate uncle of accused No. 1. These recoveries
were not challenged in the cross-examination of Shiv Bahadur
Singh (Tehsildar Magisttrate) PW 5 or SI Ghanshyam Gaur PW
G
6. These recoveries amply indicate that the deceased had been
subjected to violence in the bedroom and she had succeeded
in coming out on the Chhajja (balcony) to save herself. The signs
of struggle and application of violence in the form of broken
bangles inside the room and the blood and bloodstained Bindia
H
SATYA NARAYANA TIWARI AND ANR v. STATE OF 1157
U.P.
on the Chhajja were found. Not only this, it appears that the
A
deceased had even tried to make use of the phone to inform
someone about what was happening with her but she could not
succeed. The presence of burnt cordless phone stuck in the arm
and the burnt wire of phone with the dead body indicates that
she had tried to contact someone on phone, but in vain. There
B
is nothing to cast doubt on the said recoveries.
31. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused,
however, ignores other important aspects of the matter. We
have dealt with the above that there was struggle and
application of violence on the deceased on the Chhajja
C
(balcony) and in the bed room where she was forcibly taken
for being done to death. To incapacitate her of any meaningful
resistance, the accused persons interfered with her breqthing
process with the compression of the windpipe of her neck
before burning her. Respiration had not completely stopped. In
D
other words, the air passage was not completely blocked by
the ligature pressed by the accused around the neck of the
deceased. She was strangulated, but not to death.
Strangulating her half way to overpower her and to render her
incapable of offering any meaningful resistance, the two
E
accused then poured kerosene over her and burnt her. This
explains the presence of sooty particles in her larynx, trachea
and bronchi. A half burnt cloth around her neck with a knot had
been found by the panel of doctors conducting post mortem on
her dead body. Her tongue was between the teeth. Ligature
mark of large dimension measuring 31 x 7 cm all around the
neck had been found by the doctors.