# V. K. MISHRA&ANR v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND &ANR

- **Citation:** [2015] 8 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1247 OF 2012
- **Bench:** T. S. Thakur, R. K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-k-mishra-anr-v-state-of-utiarakhand-anr-30775
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

A
B
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3048, 498A - Dowry death -
c
Death by poisoning - Prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that soon before death the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and inlaws in connection with demand of dowry-Accused were not
successful in rebutting presumption raised uls. 1138 of the o
Evidence Act- Conviction upheld, however, sentence of life
imprisonment reduced in case of husband to 10 years and
in case of in-Jaws to 7 years each - Evidence Act, 1872 -
1138.
Evidence Act, 1872: 1138 - Presumption - Held: In a E
case where demand of dowry is alleged such demands are
confined within the four walls of the house and known only to
the members of both sides of the family - In such cases,
independent and direct evidence with regard to the F
occurrences is ordinarily not available - That is why the
Legislature introquced ss.113A and 1138 in the Evidence
Act by permitting presumption to be raised in certain
. circumstances - Penal Code, 1860- ss.3048, 498A.
FIR: Evidentiaryvalue of-Held: FIR is not meant to be G
an encyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details
of the prosecution case - It may be sufficient if the broad
facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FJR- lfyoung
daughter dies in unnatural circumstances within 6 weeks of
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] B S.C.R.
A marriage then father is expected to be disturbed and under
mental shock and, therefore, non mention of details of
payment of money and dowry harassment meted out to her
daughter in FIR would not make the prosecution version
incredulous.
B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 161, 162 - Police examination of witnesses -
Purpose and manner in which police statement recorded us.
161 can be used- Held: Police statement recorded uls. 161
C can be used for limited purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses - Court cannot suo moto make use of statements
to police not proved and a$k question with reference to them
which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the
court- In the instant case, PW-1 was not confronted with his
D statement recorded by the police u/s. 161 to prove the
contradiction nor his stateaient marked for the purpose of
contradiction was read out to the investigating officer - When
neither PW-1 nor the investigating officer were confronted
E with the statement and questioned about it, PW-1 's statement
recorded u/s. 161 cannot be looked into for any purpose much
less to discredit the testimony of PW-1 and the prosecution
version.
s. 162 -
Words 'if duly proved' used in s. 162 -
F Connotation of - Held: These words clearly show that the
record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in
evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they must
be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting
admission from the witness during cross-examination and
G also during the cross-examination of the investigation officer.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A conjoint reading of Section 1138 of the
Evidence Act and Section 3048 IPC shows that there
H must be material to show that soon before her death the
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
3
ANR.
victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In his A
complaint, PW-1 had cat~gc;irically stated that the
appellants had been torturing his daughter with their
cruel behaviour and she had complained the same to
him and that he advised her to compromise with the
situation and create a healthy atmosphere. In. the FIR,
B
though, there is no specific mention about the demand
of dowry, however, cruelty and torture alleged in the FIR
could have been only in connection with demand of
money or jewels. It was not the case of ti. 0 defence that
the alleged cruelty could only be ti. .. matrimonial C
skirmishes due to normal wear and tear of the
matrimonial house. The money was given by PW-1 both
prior to marriage and after the·marriage on 11.07.1997
also. Viewed in that context, the alleged cruelty and 0

## Text

_Characters 0–39,826 of 60,074. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39826 for what follows._

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 1
V. K. MISHRA&ANR.
v.
STATE OF UTIARAKHAND &ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 1247 OF 2012
JULY28, 2015
[T. S. THAKUR, R. K. AGRAWAL AND
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3048, 498A - Dowry death -
c
Death by poisoning - Prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that soon before death the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and inlaws in connection with demand of dowry-Accused were not
successful in rebutting presumption raised uls. 1138 of the o
Evidence Act- Conviction upheld, however, sentence of life
imprisonment reduced in case of husband to 10 years and
in case of in-Jaws to 7 years each - Evidence Act, 1872 -
1138.
Evidence Act, 1872: 1138 - Presumption - Held: In a E
case where demand of dowry is alleged such demands are
confined within the four walls of the house and known only to
the members of both sides of the family - In such cases,
independent and direct evidence with regard to the F
occurrences is ordinarily not available - That is why the
Legislature introquced ss.113A and 1138 in the Evidence
Act by permitting presumption to be raised in certain
. circumstances - Penal Code, 1860- ss.3048, 498A.
FIR: Evidentiaryvalue of-Held: FIR is not meant to be G
an encyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details
of the prosecution case - It may be sufficient if the broad
facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FJR- lfyoung
daughter dies in unnatural circumstances within 6 weeks of
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] B S.C.R.
A marriage then father is expected to be disturbed and under
mental shock and, therefore, non mention of details of
payment of money and dowry harassment meted out to her
daughter in FIR would not make the prosecution version
incredulous.
B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 161, 162 - Police examination of witnesses -
Purpose and manner in which police statement recorded us.
161 can be used- Held: Police statement recorded uls. 161
C can be used for limited purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses - Court cannot suo moto make use of statements
to police not proved and a$k question with reference to them
which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the
court- In the instant case, PW-1 was not confronted with his
D statement recorded by the police u/s. 161 to prove the
contradiction nor his stateaient marked for the purpose of
contradiction was read out to the investigating officer - When
neither PW-1 nor the investigating officer were confronted
E with the statement and questioned about it, PW-1 's statement
recorded u/s. 161 cannot be looked into for any purpose much
less to discredit the testimony of PW-1 and the prosecution
version.
s. 162 -
Words 'if duly proved' used in s. 162 -
F Connotation of - Held: These words clearly show that the
record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in
evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they must
be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting
admission from the witness during cross-examination and
G also during the cross-examination of the investigation officer.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A conjoint reading of Section 1138 of the
Evidence Act and Section 3048 IPC shows that there
H must be material to show that soon before her death the
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
3
ANR.
victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In his A
complaint, PW-1 had cat~gc;irically stated that the
appellants had been torturing his daughter with their
cruel behaviour and she had complained the same to
him and that he advised her to compromise with the
situation and create a healthy atmosphere. In. the FIR,
B
though, there is no specific mention about the demand
of dowry, however, cruelty and torture alleged in the FIR
could have been only in connection with demand of
money or jewels. It was not the case of ti. 0 defence that
the alleged cruelty could only be ti. .. matrimonial C
skirmishes due to normal wear and tear of the
matrimonial house. The money was given by PW-1 both
prior to marriage and after the·marriage on 11.07.1997
also. Viewed in that context, the alleged cruelty and 0
torture could have been only in the context of demand
of money or jewellery. FIR' is not meant to be an
encyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details
of the prosecution case. Complaint was lodged within
few hours after the tragic event. Death of a daughter E
within few days of the marriage, the effect on tire mind
of the father-PW1 cannot be measured by any yardstick.
While lodging the report, PW-1 must have been,in great
shock and mentally disturbed. Because of death of his
young daughter being grief stricken, it may not have F
occurred to PW-1 to narra!~. all the details of payment
of money and the dowry harassment meted out to his
daughter. Unless there are i!ldications of fabrication,
prosecution version cannot be doubted, merely. on the
ground that FIR does not contain the details. [Paras 7, G
11, 12] [12-C-D; 14-E-H; 15-A-D]
2. Section 161 Cr.P.C. titled "Examination of
witnesses by police" provides for oral examination of a
person by any investigating officer when such person H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case. The purpose for and the
manner in which the police statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used at any trial are indicated
in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of
B statement of witnesses recorded by the police except
for the limited purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses. Court cannot suo moto make use of
statements to police not proved and ask question with
reference to them which are inconsistent with the
c testimony of the witness in the court. The words in
Section 162 Cr.P.C. "if duly proved" clearly show that
the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be
admitted in evidence straightway nor can be locked into
0
but they must be duly proved for the purpose of
contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness
during cross-examination and also during the crossexamination of the investigating officer. Statement
before the investigating officer can be used for
E contradiction but only after strict compliance with
Section 145 of Evidence Act that is by drawing attention
to the parts intended for contradiction. Under Section
145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict
the witness by his previous statement reduced into
F writing, the attention of such witness must be called to
those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose
of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. If
the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it
stands proved and there is no need to further proof of
G contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the
evidence. If he denies having made that part of the
statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement
and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this
process the contradiction is merely brought on record,
H
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
5
ANR.
but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating A
officer is examined in the court, his attention should be
drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of
contradiction, it will th·en be proved in the deposition of
the investigating officer who again by referring to the
police statement will depose about the witness having B
made that statement. The process again involves
referring to the.police statement and culling out that part
with which the maker of the statement was intended to
be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with
that part of the statement with which the defence wanted C
to contradict him, then the court cannot suo moto make
use of statements to police not proved in compliance
with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is, by drawing
attention to the parts intended for contradiction. [Paras 0
14to 16, 18] [16-A-B; 17-C, F-H; 18-C-H; 19-A-B]
3. In the case at hand, PW-1 was not confronted
with his statementrecorded by the police under Section
161 Cr.P.C. to prove the contradiction nor his statement
marked for the purpose of contradiction was read out to E
the investigating officer. When neither PW-1 nor the
investigating officer were confronted with the statement
and questioned about it, PW-1 's statement rece>rded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C~cannot be looked into for any
purpose much less to discredit the testimony of PW-1
F
and the· prosecution version.
Evidence of PW-1
regarding making payments to the appellants is cogent
and consistent and is amply strengthened by the bank
stat~ments. Non-mention of details of money paid to the G
appellants and the demand of dowry and cruelty and
harassment meted out to the deceased in the statement
of PW-1 does not affect the credibility of PW-1.
By
perusal of evidence of brother of the deceased (PW-2), it
is seen that he remained consistent throughout his H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 8 S.C.R.
A cross-examination and nothing substantial was elicited
to discredit his version. [Paras 19, 20, 23] (19-8-D, G-H;
20-A; 22-E]
4. PW-6, tenant-neighbour of the accused, has
B stated that he has never heard any shouting, screaming
from the house of the appellants and the couple was
living happily. In a case where demand of dowry is
alleged such demands are confined within the four walls
of the house and known only to the members of both
c sides of the family. In such cases, independent and direct
evidence with regard to the occurrences is ordinarily not
available.
Evidence of PW-6, therefore, does not in
anyway advance the case of the appellants. (Para 27] .
(24-D-G]
D
5. So far as the suicide note is concerned, the
deceased is said to have stated that she is taking the
step "suicide" because her mental condition is not good
and that nobody should be held responsible for her act.
E The suicide note was not discovered during
investigation but it was later produced by the appellants.
When PW-1 (father) was confronted with the suicide note,
he denied it to be in the hand writing of the deceased.
The appellants did not take steps to prove the suicide
F note to be in the hand writing.of the deceased. Another
document relied upon by the appellants was an inland
letter purportedly written by a person with whom the
deceased was said to have had love affair. Inland letter
was not discovered during investigation but the same
G was produced by the accused in a bail application filed
on 29.08.1997. The possibility of such an inland letter
being fabricated to create evidence to make a possible
defence cannot be ruled out and rightly the courts below
recorded concurrent findings rejecting the said letter.
H [Paras 30, 31, 33] (25-D-F, G; 27-G-H; 28-E]
V. K. MISHRA &ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
7
ANR.
6. Prosecution has established beyond reasonable A
doubts that 'soon before her death' the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband
and her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry.
The accused were not successful in rebutting the
presumption raised under Section 1138 of the Evidence B
Act. Concurrent findings of the courts below convicting
the appellants under Section 3048 IPC was based upon
proper appreciation of evidence and convincing
reasons. For the offence under Section 3048 IPC, the
punishment is imprisonment for a term which shall not C
be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life. Section 3048 IPC thus prescribes
statutory minimum of seven years. As per prison records,
the accused-RM is in custody for more than five years D
which includes remission. Bearing in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case and the occurrence was of
the year 1997 and that the accused RM is in custody for
more than five years, interest of justice would be met if
life imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to E
imprisonment for a period of ten years. Appellants VKM
and NM, each of them have undergone imprisonment of
more than one year. They are aged about seventy and
sixty four years and are said to be suffering from various
ailments. Considering their age and ailments and facts F
and circumstances of the case, life imprisonment
imposed on them is also reduced to imprisonment of
seven years each. [Paras 39, 40, 41] [30-D-F, G; 31-B-E]
Sunil Kumar & Anr. vs. State of- Rajasthan (2005) 9 SCC
283: 2005 (1 ) SCR 612; Sher Singh@ Partapa vs. State of G
Haryana (2015) 1 SCR 29; Ramakant Mishra@ Lalu etc.
vs. State of U.P 2015 (3) SCALE 186; Ku/want Singh & Ors.
vs. State of Punjab (2013) 4 SCC 177: 2013 (5) SCR 604 -
relied on.
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2015) 1 SCALE 498;
Mussauddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam (2009) 14 SCC 541 ;
State ofKamataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy(1999) 8 SCC 715:
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 - referred to.
B
Case Law Reference
2005 (1 ) SCR 612
relied on.
Para 25
(2015) 1 SCALE 498
referred to.
Para 31
(2009) 14 sec 541
referred to.
Para 31
c 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359
referred to.
Para 32
(2015) 1 SCR 29
relied on.
Para 37
2015 (3) SCALE 186
relied on.
Para 37
D 2013 (5) SCR 604
relied on.
Para40
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1247 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2011 of the
E High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Crl. Appeal No. 42 of
2002.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of2012.
F
K. T. S. Tulsi, Siddharth Luthra, M. A. Chinnasamy, V.
Senthil Kumar, Satyawan Rathi for the Appellants.
R. K. Das, Mukesh Giri, AAG, Dinesh Kumar Garg,
G Deepak Mishra, Bhim Pratap Singh, Dr. AbhishekAtrey, Sumi!
Rajora, Raj Kamal for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the ·
H judgment dated 26.09.2011 passed by the High Court of
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
9
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2002, A
whereby High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants
under Section 304B, 498A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentence of imprisonment
for life was imposed on each of them.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as B
under:- Deceased-Archanawas given in marriage to accused
Rahul Mishra on 28.06.1997. Before marriage and after the
engagement; Dr. Hirday Narayan Tripathi, father of the
deceased, had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on three c
occasions and Rs.63,200/- on 11.07.1997 and also gifted
jewellery worth Rs.2,00,000/-toArchana. Archana, after return
from honeymoon, visited her parents house and complained
several times to her father, mother and brother about the
continuous harassment and torture meted out fo Archana by D
her in-laws and husband and that they used to abuse her in
connection with demand of dowry. Between 09.08.1997 to
10.08.1997, Archana visited her parents house. On
09.08: 1997, Archana informed her brother-Santosh (PW-2)
about the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the appellants and PWE
2 told Archana that he will talk to the appellants. On 10. 08.1997,
appellant Rahul came to Archana's house and had taken back
Archana to his house. On 10.08.1997, PW2-Santosh Kumar
visited the house of the accused and tried to pacify the
accused regarding their demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-; but the F
accused persisted in their demand. On 13.08.1997, PW1-Dr.
Hirday Narayan Tripathi visited various institutions to find job
for Archana. On the same day, Archana was admitted in the
hospital as a suspected case of poisoning and she died due G
to poisoning. Law was set in motion by PW1-Dr. Hirday
Narayan Tripathi and on the basis of the complaint, FIR was
registered against the accused in FIR Case No.571/1997
under Sections 306 and 498A IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
framed against the appellants-accused by the trial court under
Sections 3048, 498A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. To substantiate charges against the accused,
8
prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. When the accused
were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the
incriminating evidence and circumstances, the accused denied
demand of any dowry and pleaded that they are innocent. Upon
consideration of evidence, trial court-Additional Sessions
c Judge, Dehradun vide judgment dated 04.02.2002 convicted
the appellants under Section 3048 IPC and sentenced them
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellants were
also convicted under Section 498A IPC and each of them was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
D with a fine of Rs.2,000/-each with default clause. They were
also convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year with a fine of Rs.1, 000/- each with default clause.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved
E by the verdict of conviction, the appellants preferred an appeal
before the High Court which came to be dismissed confirming
the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the
trial court.
F
4. The learned counsel for t~e appellants contended that
in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased or in his earlier
statement recorded by the police neither there was mention of
any dowry demand made by the appellants nor of any
harassment meted out to his daughter. It was contended that
G PW2-brother of the deceased made a false statement for the
firsttime on 18.08.1997 i.e. five days after the death of Archana
stating that the parents-in-laws of the deceased were raising
dowry demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and also made allegations
regarding cruelty and harassment in connection therewith. It
H was submitted that PW-2 kept silent for about eight days from
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
11
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
the date of the alleged dowry demand and the cruelty and while A
so, the trial court and the High Court erred in placing reliance
upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 to record the verdict of
conviction. It was contended that entire investigation was flawed
as regards the suicide note and the letter written by the
deceased to her brother-in-law and no detailed investigation
B
was carried out viz. the inland letter dated 10. 08.1997 received
by the deceased which according to the appellants contained
threats from a dejected lover and sample ofvomitus taken was
either changed or tampered. It was vehemently contended that
the courts below were not right in recording the conviction C
based on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 which were
purely hearsay and full of contradictions and thus lacked
credibility apart from being clearly an afterthought.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that D
the prosecution adduced cogent and consistent evidence to
prove the dowry demand and that deceased-Archana was
highly educated girl and very sensitive who ended her life only
due to the appellants' greed for dowry and the appellants
subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in connection with
E
the demand of dowry. It was submitted that upon proper
appraisal of evidence, the trial court as well as the High Court
rightly convicted the appellants and the verdict of conviction
and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants
warrant no interference.
F
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
contentions urged by the counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
7. In order to attract application of Section 3048 IPC, the G
essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance.
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
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.
8
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection
with demand of dowry.
5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted
out to the woman soon before her death.
C On proof of the essential ingredients mentioned above, it
becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that
the accused caused the dowry death. A conjoint reading of
Section 1138 of the Evidence Act and Section 3048 IPC
shows that there must be material to show that soon before
D her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon
circumstance of each case and no strait-jacket formula can
be laid down as to what would constitute a period 'soon before
the occurrence'. There must be inexistence a proximate live
E link between the facts of cruelty in connection with the demand
of dowry and the death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb
mental equilibrium of the woman concerned it would be of no
consequence. The evidence and material on record to be
F examined whether there is evidence to prove that 'soon before
the occurrence', deceased-Archana was subjected to torture
and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and
whether the courts below are right in convicting the appellants
G under Section 3048 IPC.
8. In his evidence, PW1-Dr. Hirday Narayan Tripathi,
father of the deceased, stated Archana was highly educated
girl i.e. M.Sc. 8.Ed and that the marriage was solemnized with
Rahul Mishra on 28.06.1997. He deposed that after the
H engagement of his daughter-Archana on 07 .02.1997,
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
13
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
demands of dowry started from the side of groom for a motorA
cycle, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- etc. In his evidence PW-1 stated
that amount was given to the accused persons both before
marriage and also after marriage-(a) Rs.50,000/- on
24.02.1997; (b) Rs. 50,000/- on 14.03.1997; (c) Rs.50,000/-
on 05.05.1997 and (d) Rs.63,200/-on 11.07.1997 and thathe B
raised. money by sale of his land and by drawing money from
his GPF. PW-1 further stated that the demands were raised
for TV, washing machine, dining table, chairs and almirah etc.
He has stated that his daughter came after three days of
'pagphera' and she told that the appellants are treating her C
cruelly demanding balance amount. PW-1 told his daughter
that as he has no money, he will be paying them Rs.10,000/-
from his salary. Archana asked her father to shut the mouth of
the appellants by throwing money on their face by withdrawing D
the amount from her own account and accordingly they paid
Rs.63,200/- to the appellants and the appellants still unsatisfied
made demand for money for starting the new business.
Deceased-Archana also told her parents over phone that her
in-laws were pressurizing her for money in order to start a new E
business. PW-1 stated that in the last week of July 1997, the
appellant V.K. Mishra telephonically demanded money for
starting new business and due to PW-1 's inability to fulfill the
demand, the accused persons' attitude towards Archana
worsened and they threatened her to throw out of the F
matrimonial house.
9. PW-1 further stated thatArchana feeling depressed
and being a determined girl decided to take up a job and two
or three days prior to 06.08.1997 in the night she came to her
parental house to collect her certificates of educational G
qualification and other materials. PW-1 stated that on
13.08.1997 in search of job for his daughter he went to Central
School and also Indian lnsmute of Petroleum and in the evening
he wanted to inform his daughter about his efforts and that H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 8 S.C.R.
A
there being no vacancy. But before that PW-1 made a phone
call to his wife who asked him to reach Doon Hospital
immediately asArchana was seriously ill and when he reached
the hospital, he was informed by the appellant V.K. Mishra that
Archana consumed poison and died. PW-1 stated that his elder
B son-Santosh Kumar (PW-2) returned from Bombay on
15.08.1997, who also informed him about the demand of
Rs.5,00,000/- by the accused persons fromArchana.
10. Evidence of PW-1-complainant is assailed by the
c appellants contending that in the complaint lodged by him it is
not mentioned that any kind of dowry demand was ever made
and that allegation of demand of dowry is flawed as the same
was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in his statement recorded
by the investigating officer. It was also submitted that the details
D of payment of dowry was also not made clear by PW-1 either
in the FIR or in his statement and evidence in the Court is only
an exaggeration and no weight could be attached to the same.
11. Of course, in the FIR, PW-1 had not given the details
E of the money paid to the accused. But in his complaint PW-1
had categorically stated that th~ appellants had been torturing
Archana with their cruel behaviour and Archana complained
the same to him and that he advised her to compromise with
the situation and create a t)ealthy atmosphere. In the FIR,
F though, there is no specific mention about the demand of dowry,
cruelty and torture alleged in the FIR could have been only in
connection with demand of money or jewels. Marriage of
Archana with accused-Rahul Mishra was solemnized only on
28.6.1997 and Archana was yetto settle down in the house of
G her in-laws. Both the families were almost of same social and
economic status. It is not the case of the defence that the
alleged cruelty could only be the matrimonial skirmishes due
to normal wear and tear of the matrimonial house. As noticed
earlier, money was given by PW-1 both prior to marriage and
H after the marriage on 11.07 .1997 also. Viewed in that context,
V. K. MISHRA &ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
15
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.)
the alleged cruelty and torture could have been only in the A
context of demand of money or jewellery.
12. FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia nor is it
expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It
~. r1r
may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case
8
are stated in the FIR. Complaint was lodged within few hours
after the tragic event. PW-1 has lost his young daughter just
married before six weeks in unnatural circumstances. Death
of a daughter within few days of the marriage, the effect on the
mind of the father-PW1 cannot be measured by any yardstick. c
While lodging the report; PW-1 must have been in grE;!at shock
and mentally disturbed. Because of death of his young daughter
being grief stricken, it may not have occurred to
PW-1 to
narrate all the details of payment of money and the dowry
harassment meted out to his daughter. Unless there are D
indications of fabrication, prosecution version cannot be
doubted, merely on the ground that FIR does not contain the
details.
13. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel for the E
appellants submitted that FIR contains only allegations of torture
and cruel behavior on the part of.the appellants towards the
deceased and in his statement recorded by the police under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-1 had-hot stated anything aboutthe
alleged dowry demand whereas in his statement recorded by F
the police, PW-1 had only stated about many restrictions
imposed on his daughter due to which Archana felt suffocated.
Contending that there were no allegations of crueity in
connection with dowry demarl'd'or any such conduct of the
appellants which could have driven Archana to commit suicide G
either in the FIR or in the statement of PW-1 recorded on the
next day by the investigating officer, the learned Senior Counsel
urged and tried to persuade us to look into the statement of
PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
14. Section 161 Cr.P.C. titled "Examination of witnesses
by police" provides for oral examination of a person by any
investigating officer when such person is supposed to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The
purpose for and the manner in which the police statement
B recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used at any trial
are indicated in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Section 162 Cr.P.C. reads
as under:
c
D
E
F
G
H
162. Statements to police not to be signed-Use of
statements in evidence.-(1) No statement made by
any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to
writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any
such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police
diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or
record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter
provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence
under investigation at the time when such statement was
made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the
prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has
been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his
statement, if duly proved; may be used by the accused,
and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution,
to contradict such witness in the manner provided by
section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1of1872);
and when any part of such statement is so used, any part
thereof may also be used fn the re-examination of such
witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter
referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to
any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1)
of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1of1872),
or to affect the provisions of section 27 ofthatAct.
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
17
. ,
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Explanation.-An omission to state a fact or circumstance
A
in the statement referred to in s.ub-section ( 1) may amount
to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and
otherw!se relevant having regard to the context in which
such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts
to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a
B
question of fact.
15. Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of statement of
witnesses recorded by the police exceptforthe limited purpose
of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated there. The c
statement made by a witness before the police under Section
161(1) Cr.PC. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting
such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in
the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. The statements under
Section 161 Cr.PC. recorded during the investigation are not D
substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for
the liinited purpose:- (if of contradicting such witness by an
accused under Section 145 of Evidence Act; (ii) the
contradiction. of such witness also by the prosecution but with ·
the leave of the Court and (iii) the re-examination of the witness E
if necessary.
• V'
• '111
16. Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to
police not proved and ask qu"estion with reference to them
which are inconsistent with the.te~timony of the witness in the
F
court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. "if duly proved" clearly
show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be
admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but
they must be duly proved for. the purpose of contradiction by
eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination G
and also during the cross-examination of the investigating
officer. Statement before the investigating officer can be used
for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section
145 of Evidence Act that is by drawing attention to the parts
intended for contradiction.
H
18
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
17. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
145. Cross-examination as to previous statements
in writing.- A witness may be cross-examined as to
previous statements made by him in writing or reduced
into writing, and relevantto matters in question, without
such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if
it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention
must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him.
18. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is
intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement
reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be
called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose
D of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While
recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of
the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement
with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to
the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The attention
E of witness is drawn to that part'and this must reflect in his crossexamination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part
intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no
need to further proof of contradiction and it will be read while
F appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part
of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement
and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the
contradiction is merely brought on record, but it"is yet to be
proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in
G the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked
for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the
deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring
to the police statement will depose about the witness having
made that statement. The process again involves referring to
H the police statement and culling out that part with which the
V. K MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND &
19
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If A
the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement
,,_
with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court
cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved
in compliance with Section 1.lf5"6f Evidence Act that is, by
drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.
B
19. In the case at hand, PW-1 was not confronted with
his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
to prove the contradiction nor his statement marked for the
purpose of contradiction was read out to the investigating c
officer. When neither PW-1 nor the investigating officer were
confronted with the statement and questioned about it, PW1 's statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be
looked into for any purpose much less to discredit the
testimony of PW-1 and the prosec.ution version.
D
20. PW-1 in his evidence clearly stated that one year
before the marriage he had sold his land for Rs.2,50,000/-
and he has stated that he withdrew the money from the banks
three-four months prior to marriage. PW-1 further st~!ed that E
he withdrew Rs.1,00,000/- from his G.P.F account one year
before the marriage and deposi.ted the money in his Central
Bank Account, D.B.S. College Branch and whenever he
needed, he used to withdraw meney from his account. In his
evidence, PW-1 has clearly narrated about the details of money F
paid to the appellants i.e. payment of amount of Rs.11,000/-
and Rs.15,000,/- was given .on the occasion._of 'Tika'
ceremony', Rs. 50,000/- each paid on three different dates;
fixed deposit amount of Rs.63,000/- left in the account of
Archana which was matured was also withdrawn and paid to G
the appellants on 11.07.1997... Evidence of PW-1 regarding
making payments to the appellants is cogent and consistent
and is amply strengthened by the bank statements. Nonmention of details of money paid to the appellants and the
demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment meted out to H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 8 S.C.R.
A Archana in the statement of PW-1 does not affect the credibility
of PW-1. As rightly observed by the High Court, it cannot be
expected from a father to narrate everything when he himself
was in agony due to death of his own daughter.
B
21. PW2-Santosh Kumar, brother of deceased-Archana
is a Geologist working as a Surveyor in Tehri Dam. In Tehri,
PW-2 has a quarter and his family resides with him at Tehri
and sometimes at Dehradun. In August, as PW-2 has to go to
Bombay for treatment of his wife, PW-2 took leave for four
c days from 11.08.1997 and he went to Dehradun on
07.08.1997. In his evidence, PW-2 stated that on 09.08.1997
his sister Archana came to the parental house and told him
that she is continuously tortured by the appellants and that they
are demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and asked him not to
D tell it to the parents as they will not be in a position to arrange
such a big amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and will be worried. PW-2
further stated that in order to settle the matter amicably, on the
evening of 10.08.1997 he went to the matrimonial house of
his sister where he saw mother-in-law, father-in-law and
E husband of Archana scolding.her for not bringing the amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appellant-Neelima Mishra (mother-inlaw), told PW-2 " ... Santosh open your ears and listen if you
do not return back immediately after arranging Rs. 5, 00, 0001
-, you keep your sister at your home .... ". PW-2 deposed that
F the appellant V.K. Mishra asked him about the saving details
of PW-2 and all other brothers and their father. PW-2 tried to
convince them politely and touched their feet but in vain. PW2 stated that as he had to go to Delhi and then to Bombay and
it was raining heavily and he rushed to the hotel, and stayed in
G the hotel for the whole night and next day in the night he took
bus from Dehradun to Delhi and then reached Bombay by train
on 13.08.1997. On 14.08.1997, PW-2 gotthe information that
Archana died and on 15.08.1997, PW-2 came to Delhi by air
H and from Delhi to Dehradun by taxi. PW-2 stated that due to
V. K. MISHRA&ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND &
21
ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
VIP visit he was not immediately examined by the police and A
that his statement was recorded only on 18.08.1997.
22. Evidence of PW-2 is assailed contending that PW-2
did not allege any dowry demand prior to 09.08.1997 and the
alleged demand of dowry is clearly an afterthought. It was B
contended that the stay of PW-2 in hotel at Dehradun on the
night of 10.08.1997 and till his departure to Delhi on
11.08.1997, despite his parents' house being situated at
Dehradun is unnatural and PW~2 is not a reliable witness. PW2's evidence is further assailed contending that PW-2 could c
not have met his sister on 09.08.1997 nor he visited Archana 's
matrimonial house on 10.08.1997 as he was granted leave
·only from 11.08.1997 to 14.08.1997 and his presence in
•
Dehradun on 09.08.1997 and 10.08.1997 is highly doubtful.
•
Evidence of PW-2 is further assailed contending that his D
parental house situated at Dehradun, it is quite unnatural that
PW-2 claims to have stayed in a hotel at Dehradun and
strangely afterthe alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/-, strangely
PW-2 did not choose to contact his parents and informed them
about the alleged demand even though PW-2 stayed in hotel E
at Dehradun till 11.08.1997. It was submitted that PW-2 had
not taken written permission from his department to leave the
project station atTehri prior to 11.08.1997 and stay of PW-2 in
hotel which is only 4-5 kms. away from his parental house raises
F
serious doubt about his testimony. It was further submitted that
statement of PW-2 that there was a dowry demand of
Rs.5,00,000/-was recorded only on 18.08.1997 whereas PW2 returned to Dehradun even on 15.08.1997.
23. Contentions urged assailing credibility of PW-2 do G
not merit acceptance. PW-2 in his evidence had clearly stated
that he had come to Dehradun fromTehri on 7.08.1997 and
was in his parents house till 3.00 pm on 10.08.1997when he
left for the hotel.