12011) 1 S.C.R. 724 ..... A BANSI LAL V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2004) . JANUARY 14, 2011 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C s.498A - Suicide by married woman - A/legation of maltreatment and cruelty against husband on account of demand of dowry - Victim-deceased had left matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stayed with her parents for 14 months continuously - She r.ejoined D matrimonial home only at the assurance givt;Jn in the panchayat by accused and his family members that she would not be humiliated and subjected to cruelty - Three years after marriage, she committed suicide - Conviction of husband u/ s.498A - Challenged - Held: While considering the case u/ E s.498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and should be continuous making life of the deceased miserable forcing her to commit suicide - Jn the instant case, there was demand of scooter by the accused in the close proximity of the death - The demand was consistent F and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else - Both these witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, however, nothing could be elicited from them to show that the a/legations made by G the prosecution could be false - Conviction upheld -Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113A and s. 1138 - Distinction between.

H 724 BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 725-s. 1138 - Necessary ingredients ...., Discussed. A Evidence: Suicide note - Evidentiary value of - On facts, held: The authorship of the suicide note was not proved by producing . 8 witnesses nor the said document was sent to handwriting expert along with the admitted signature of the deceased for comparison - Prosecution could not establish nexus of the deceased with the said note - Onus was on the accused to ·establish his defence by sufficient evidence to rebut presumption that he had caused the dowry death, which he C failed to discharge - Courts below were right iQ ignoring the said note - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048, 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was married to the appellant on 4th April, 1988. After one o year of marrii:tge, the deceased came and stayed with her parents for about 14 months and after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 25th June, 1991, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR that the deceased had E committed suicide, making allegations that the deceased was consistently harassed by the appellant and was . maltreated and harassed for bringing dowry. The trial court convicted the appellant and his Q'lOther under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC. The High Court acquitted appellant's mother but dismissed the appeal of F the appellant.

In the instant appeal, the defence raised by the appellant was that there was no demand of scooter or dowry and that the deceased wal!!ed to marry some other G person and her marriage with the appellant was .~gainst her will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note (Ex P-2) to that effect. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 726 SUPREME COURr REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R -A HELQ: 1. The theory of love affair of the deceased was disbelieved by the courts below. Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer was t~lly rejected from consideration in ev.idence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased could be B established with this document. There was no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence to indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of the deceased. The father and the brother of the deceased when stepped into the witness-box did c not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 was written in the hand of the deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that the Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The0 Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement could be termed as a hear E say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion was put to the father and the brother of the deceased to the effect that the deceased had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some o.ther F person. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some handwriting expert alongwith the admitted Writing of the deceased for comparison. Both the G situations were missing. Even the Investigating Officer did not say a word as to from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case t_his document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The H

BANSI LAL·v. STATE OF HARYANA 727 witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter were A not examined. The father and the brother of the deceased both had denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor th'e letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting of the deceased. More so, · there was nothing on record to show that she was . B educated. The lnvestigatin.g Officer had not stated ' anywhere that he knew the handwriting of the deceased ~or he has disclosed on whose information he ha~~:

inferred that the letter had been written by the deceased'. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to c be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body's case that the alleged suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased. Evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-2 purported to have been written by the deceased 0 had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section_ 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to estab'h~h his defence by leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed E to discharge that onus. The defence of the appellant, thus, was very weak and fragile. In view of that, there is no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 19] ] [734-H; 735-G-H; 736-A-H-; 737-A-F-H; 738-A-B] F

2.1. The demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as the father and. the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the derriand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation G been false, the said witnesses could have also mentioned other articles purported to have been demanded. by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the veracity of the evidence. of these two witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses were H 728 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2011] 1 S.C.R. 'A subjected to long cross- examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution co_uld be false. [Para 14) [737-G-H; 738-A-B]

2.2. While considering the case under Section 498- 8 A, IPC, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mentali by the accused should make life of the deceased miserable C which may force her to commit suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased to leave her matrimonial home just after one yGar of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family;members would D not humiliate or subject the deceased .~ith cruelty, that she rejoined: her matrimonial home· It was specific evidence of ttie brother of the decease(! that just few days before her death, when he went to see· his sister, there was a dema~d of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact E situation, it cannot said that there wali .no demand of scooter in fhe close proximity of the deatti./[Paras 15] [738-B-E]

2.3. In the provision of Section 1:138 of the Evidence F Act, 1872, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a mandatory application on the part •I of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with or demand of dowry. It is G unlike the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abatement of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 1138 relatable to Section 3048 IPC, the H

BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 729 onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the A accused. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband B or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, in case the essential t ~ ingredientS of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused· has caused the dowry c death. The expression shown before her death has not be'en defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death .of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the 0 demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. [Paras 16 to 18] (738-F-H; 739-A-G] T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H. 0., Rondicherry AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v, State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982; E Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of An'dhra Pradesh, AIR 2010- SC 0 · -+ 3708 - referred to. Case Law Reference:. F

AIR 2006 SC 2475 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 332 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 982 referred to Para 18 ....... AIR 2009 SC 2155 referred to Para 18 G AIR'2010 SC 3708 referred to Para 18 _ · CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal lilo. 1322 of 2004. H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2004 of the High Court of P~mjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998. Mahabir Singh, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.B Manjit Singh, AAG, Rao Ranjit, Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the -Respondent. _,4_ <

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 5th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998, by which the conviction of the appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide D judgment and order dated 22nd August, 1998 and 25th August, 1998 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') and awarding the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of E payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, has been upheld. However, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC sentence to undergo for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further ...... undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, has been F reduced to seven years with fine. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellant was married to Sarla (deceased) on 4th April, 1988. An FIR was lodged by Shyam Lal (PW.4) father of Sarla (deceased) on 25th June, 1991 making allegations that theG appellant, his mother, brother and sister-in-law had consistently >-harassed his daughter Sarla (deceased) by making dowry demand i.e. a scooter. She had been maltreated by them. After one year of marriage, Sarla (deceased) came and stayed with H BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 731

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] her family for about 14 months. It was only after convening a A panchayat of close relatives, she had returned to her matrimonial home. Again they maltreated and insisted for the demand of a scooter, thus, she had been subjected to cruelty, harassment by demand of dowry to the extent that she committed suicide on 25th June, 1991, at her matrimonial B home. ...... 3. After investigation of the case, the prosecution filed the. chargesheet against the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and charges were framed against them under Sections c 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC. The said two accused pleaded not guilty, thus, they were put on trial. It was on 17th May, 1995, that in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his. power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 D -.,,,.- (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) summoned the other two accused Ashok Kumar, brother and Smt. Shakuntala, sister-in-law of the appellant. and charges were reframed against all the four accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC vide order dated 6th July, 1995. E 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined several witnesses including complainant Shyam Lal ) ·~ (PW.4), Gulshan (PW:5), brother of Sarla (deceased), Dr. B.B. Agarwal (PW.1 ), Shri Arjun Singh Yadav, ASI, (PW.6), Constable Jai Pal (PW.2), Shri Mool Chand Punia, Draftsman· F (PW.3), and other formal witnesses.

5. While making their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied all the allegations against . them and set up the defence as under: G .... "Sarla was in love with some other person. She was forced to marry with accused Bansi Lal against het will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, ·leaving a suicide. note to that effect. There was no demand of Scooter.n H 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A Further, accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4) pleaded that they had been living separately from the appellant and his mother and they had no involvement so far as tihe demand of dowry was concerned. In defence only three witnesses i.e. Bal Kishan, an official of HSEB (DW.1 ), Vidya B Nand, an Inspector of Food and Supplies Department (DW.2) and Surender Singh, Sarpanch of the village Gram Panchayat (DW.3) were examined only to prove that accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4) were living separately from ,..._ • the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi. c 6. After considering the entire evidence on record and the submissions made by the prosecution as well as defence, the trial court convicted the appellant and.his mother Smt. Shanti Devi under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and awarded the sentences as referred to hereinabove. The court acquitted D Ashok Kumar and Shakuntala of all the charges against them. -r The Trial Court did not award any separate sentence under Section 306 IPC.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his mother Smt. E Shanti Devi preferred Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998 which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2004, acquitting Smt. Shanti Devi, -not ..... being beneficiary ofthe demand of dowry, as only scooter had been demanded but dismissed the appeal so far as the present F appellant is concerned. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence under Section 304-B IPC has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Hence, this appeal. 8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing G for the appellant, has submitted that no charge could be brought home against the appellant under any of the penal provisions as there was no demand of dowry by the appellant. The · harassment was not in close proximity of time of death. The prosecution itself had submitted that Sarla (deceased) wanted H to marry one Shiv Parkash Singh and thus, she was not happf' BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 733 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] with the appellant. She had left a suicide note to that effect and A the said note had been exhibited before the tri~I court as Ex.P2. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, Shri Rao Ranjit, learned advocate appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal 8 contending that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. The suicide note Ex.P2 has to • -i- be ignored as it has not been proved as per requirement of law. No witness has been examined for comparing the C hand~iting of the deceased nor it has been signed by the deceased. It had not even been shown to father of the deceased i.e. Shyam Lal (PW.4), complainant or her brother Gulshan (PW.5). More so,· it had been the defence of the appellant while making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, he should have led evidence to substantiate the D .....,.- defence. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material E · on record. · The admitted facts of the case remain as under: )_ ....!;. (i) There was no demand of scooter at the initial stage of marriage in 1988. F (ii) Complainant Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) had deposed that there had been consistent and persistent demand of scooter by the appellant. G (iii) After one year of the marriage, when Sarla _._ (deceased) came to the house of her parents, she stayed with them. for a period of 14 months.

(iv) During this period of 14 months, no attempt had been mad~ by the appellant to call her newly H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A wedded wife back to the matrimonial home. (v) A Pancha"yat of very close relatives was convened and they had assured the parents and family members of Sarla (deceased) that appellant and his other family members would behave properlyB with Sarla (deceased) and she would not be maltreated or humiliated or subjected to any kind of cruelty for demand of dowry. ...._ . (vi) It was on this assurance that Sarla (deceased) c came back to stay with the appellant at her matrimonial home. (vii) Sarla committed suicide by hanging herself on 25th June, 1991. D (viii) The appellant or any of his family members did not inform Shyam Lal, (PW.4), complainant or any of r his family members about the death of Sarla (deceased). E (ix) Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) reached her matrimonial home alongwith others getting information from other persons. (x) Shyam Lal (PW.4) immediately lodged the FIR ~-against the appellant and other family membersF and, set the law in motion. (xi) Sarla (deceased) was found dead at her matrimonial home when she stayed with the appellant and other family members. They had not G furnished any satisfactory explanation as for which reason and under what circumstances she had >- -committed suicide.

11. So far as the theory of love affair of Sarla (deceased) is concerned, it has been disbelieved by the courts below. TheH BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 735 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

; Trial Court dealt with the issued observing as under : . A "If the husband was doubting her fidelity towards him there was no reason for him to have come with his father and other relatives to the parents of the deceased to take her back after 14 months of her stay with her parents. It also B . cannot be said that the deceased was not having any liking for her husband and was frustrated because she allegedly ·+ circumstancescould not marryaretheotherwise.person ofHadhershechoice.developedRatherhatredthe for her husband, there was no reason for her to join him c after 14 months of her staying away from the matrimonial home. There was every reason for her to believe the husband and his relatives that demand of dowry and other torture and maltreatment would not be there. Better sense definitely, after such a lapse of time, was naturally to be D expected to have dawned on them. Parents of the deceased also did not create any hassles as they felt satisfied from the assurance of the accused on this score. At any rate melodramatic story -of her love affairs with some one and her frustration in her married life with .E accused Bansi Lal can hardly be taken as genuine. If it was so, she could not have continued to wait to die for her alleged lover for three long years, having consummated the '-< marriage with her husband and having cohabited with him all-through she was with him in the matrimonial home.• F

12. Again, the High Court has dealt with the issue _elaborately and recorded the following findings: "Much has be.en said by the learned counsel about Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer. ~ In my considered view, this document has to be totally G -rejected from conside_ration in evidence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased has been established with this document. There is no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence, which may _indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was •. H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A in fact, in the hand of Sarra deceased. Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs when stepped into the witness-box do not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 is written in the hand of Sarla deceased. Even the defence counsel did not putl any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses B about authorship of this document, knowing very well that ASI Arjun Singh Yadav, Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross examination has stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the +· c room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement can be termed as a hear say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion put to Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs to D the effect that Sari~ had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some other person, takes us no where. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some E handwriting expert alongwith the admitted writing of Sarla deceased for comparison. Both the situations are missing. Even the Investigating Officer does not say a word as to >- f from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case this document is taken to be a proved one,

- F this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer cannot be all and all. The irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the document Ex.P-2, the so-called suicide note has to be taken out of . the zone of consideration. The defence of the Bansi Lal G appella)1t thus becomes very weak and fragile." ~ 13. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the coljrts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. It H ·aANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 737 '[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.] has Jightly been held by the courts below that it was to be A ~- ignored. Ext.P.2, the so-called suicide note disclosing that Sarla (deceased} committed suicide as she developed love affair with Shiv Parkash has been referred to by the Investigating B Officer Arjun Singh, ASI (PW.6} where in his cross~xamim:1tion he has stated a$ under:- , + •1'fle diary, letter, and ball pen were lying irr-a window of the room. He had enquired.about the author of the letter Ext.P.2 and it was revealed that it is written by Sar/a, c deceased.n

The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter had not been examined though they had been Mahabir Singh, Chowkidar of village Shiwari and Hoshiar Singh, Ex. Sarpanch D of Shiwari. Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) both have denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting . of Sarla (deceased}. More so, there is nothing on record to show that she was educated. Arjun Singh, ASI (PW.6} has not E stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of Sarla (deceased} nor he has disclosed on whose information ·he "--'._ had inferred that the letter had been written by Sarla (deceased}. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored F totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body's ease that the alleged suicide note is in th~ handwriting of Sarla (deceased}. 14. T~ demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as Shyam Lal (PW.4} and Gulshan (PW.5} had G ~- specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation be false, the sa.id witnesses could also mention other articles purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the v~racity of the evidence of these two H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses had been subjected to long cross examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false. B 1'5. While considering the case under Section 498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make +· life of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit C suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased Sarla to leave her matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family members would not D humiliate or subject the deceased Sarla with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home. It is specific evidence of Gulshan (PW.5) that just few days before her death, when he went to see her sister, there was a demand of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact situation, we do not find any foooe in E the submission made on behalf of the appellant that there was no demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death.

16. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 1138 . of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption F that accused is responsible for dowry death, have to be . pressed in service. The said provisions read as under:-"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 G woman had 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. n (emphasis supplied) H It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 739 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN" J.] wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a A mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with . or demand of dowry. It is unlike the provislOns of Section . 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been B conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abetment of suicide by a married • -+ woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 1138 relatable to Section 304 IPC, the onus to prove shifts c exclusively and heavily on the accused.

17. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or D harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. . 18. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death hav~been established by the. prosecution, it is the duty E of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention herein . '__,( that the expression shown before her death has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court·has to analyse ti-- facts and circumstances leading to F the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. (vide: T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry, AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. ~. Jaggu Ram, AIR 2008 SC 982; Anand Kumar v. State of G M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; and Undaval/i Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,. AIR 2010 SC,3708). 19. In the instant case, evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R.

/A 2 purported to have been written by Sarla (deceased) had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by leading sufficient evidence t'o rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellantmiserably failed to discharge that onus. 8 20. In view of the above, the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant ~re rejected. The appeal does nQt have + . any special features warranting interference by this court. The appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed. c D.G. Appeal dismissed. r, ,

12011) 1 S.C.R. 724 ..... A BANSI LAL V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2004) . JANUARY 14, 2011 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C s.498A - Suicide by married woman - A/legation of maltreatment and cruelty against husband on account of demand of dowry - Victim-deceased had left matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stayed with her parents for 14 months continuously - She r.ejoined D matrimonial home only at the assurance givt;Jn in the panchayat by accused and his family members that she would not be humiliated and subjected to cruelty - Three years after marriage, she committed suicide - Conviction of husband u/ s.498A - Challenged - Held: While considering the case u/ E s.498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and should be continuous making life of the deceased miserable forcing her to commit suicide - Jn the instant case, there was demand of scooter by the accused in the close proximity of the death - The demand was consistent F and persistent as the father and the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else - Both these witnesses were subjected to long cross-examination, however, nothing could be elicited from them to show that the a/legations made by G the prosecution could be false - Conviction upheld -Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 113A and s. 1138 - Distinction between.

H 724 BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 725-s. 1138 - Necessary ingredients ...., Discussed. A Evidence: Suicide note - Evidentiary value of - On facts, held: The authorship of the suicide note was not proved by producing . 8 witnesses nor the said document was sent to handwriting expert along with the admitted signature of the deceased for comparison - Prosecution could not establish nexus of the deceased with the said note - Onus was on the accused to ·establish his defence by sufficient evidence to rebut presumption that he had caused the dowry death, which he C failed to discharge - Courts below were right iQ ignoring the said note - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048, 498A. The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was married to the appellant on 4th April, 1988. After one o year of marrii:tge, the deceased came and stayed with her parents for about 14 months and after convening a panchayat of close relatives, she returned to her matrimonial home. On 25th June, 1991, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR that the deceased had E committed suicide, making allegations that the deceased was consistently harassed by the appellant and was . maltreated and harassed for bringing dowry. The trial court convicted the appellant and his Q'lOther under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306, IPC. The High Court acquitted appellant's mother but dismissed the appeal of F the appellant.

In the instant appeal, the defence raised by the appellant was that there was no demand of scooter or dowry and that the deceased wal!!ed to marry some other G person and her marriage with the appellant was .~gainst her will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, leaving a suicide note (Ex P-2) to that effect. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 726 SUPREME COURr REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R -A HELQ: 1. The theory of love affair of the deceased was disbelieved by the courts below. Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer was t~lly rejected from consideration in ev.idence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased could be B established with this document. There was no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence to indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was, in fact, in the hand of the deceased. The father and the brother of the deceased when stepped into the witness-box did c not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 was written in the hand of the deceased. Even the defence counsel did not put any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses about authorship of this document, knowing very well that the Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The0 Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross-examination stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement could be termed as a hear E say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion was put to the father and the brother of the deceased to the effect that the deceased had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some o.ther F person. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some handwriting expert alongwith the admitted Writing of the deceased for comparison. Both the G situations were missing. Even the Investigating Officer did not say a word as to from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case t_his document is taken to be a proved one, this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The H

BANSI LAL·v. STATE OF HARYANA 727 witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter were A not examined. The father and the brother of the deceased both had denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor th'e letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting of the deceased. More so, · there was nothing on record to show that she was . B educated. The lnvestigatin.g Officer had not stated ' anywhere that he knew the handwriting of the deceased ~or he has disclosed on whose information he ha~~:

inferred that the letter had been written by the deceased'. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to c be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body's case that the alleged suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased. Evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-2 purported to have been written by the deceased 0 had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section_ 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to estab'h~h his defence by leading sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellant miserably failed E to discharge that onus. The defence of the appellant, thus, was very weak and fragile. In view of that, there is no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 19] ] [734-H; 735-G-H; 736-A-H-; 737-A-F-H; 738-A-B] F

2.1. The demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as the father and. the brother of the deceased had specifically deposed that the derriand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation G been false, the said witnesses could have also mentioned other articles purported to have been demanded. by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the veracity of the evidence. of these two witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses were H 728 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2011] 1 S.C.R. 'A subjected to long cross- examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution co_uld be false. [Para 14) [737-G-H; 738-A-B]

2.2. While considering the case under Section 498- 8 A, IPC, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mentali by the accused should make life of the deceased miserable C which may force her to commit suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased to leave her matrimonial home just after one yGar of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family;members would D not humiliate or subject the deceased .~ith cruelty, that she rejoined: her matrimonial home· It was specific evidence of ttie brother of the decease(! that just few days before her death, when he went to see· his sister, there was a dema~d of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact E situation, it cannot said that there wali .no demand of scooter in fhe close proximity of the deatti./[Paras 15] [738-B-E]

2.3. In the provision of Section 1:138 of the Evidence F Act, 1872, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a mandatory application on the part •I of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with or demand of dowry. It is G unlike the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abatement of suicide by a married woman. Therefore, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 1138 relatable to Section 3048 IPC, the H

BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 729 onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the A accused. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7 years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband B or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, in case the essential t ~ ingredientS of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused· has caused the dowry c death. The expression shown before her death has not be'en defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death .of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the 0 demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. [Paras 16 to 18] (738-F-H; 739-A-G] T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H. 0., Rondicherry AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v, State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982; E Anand Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; Undavalli Narayana Rao v. State of An'dhra Pradesh, AIR 2010- SC 0 · -+ 3708 - referred to. Case Law Reference:. F

AIR 2006 SC 2475 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 332 referred to Para 18 AIR 2008 SC 982 referred to Para 18 ....... AIR 2009 SC 2155 referred to Para 18 G AIR'2010 SC 3708 referred to Para 18 _ · CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal lilo. 1322 of 2004. H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2004 of the High Court of P~mjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998. Mahabir Singh, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.B Manjit Singh, AAG, Rao Ranjit, Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the -Respondent. _,4_ <

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 5th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998, by which the conviction of the appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide D judgment and order dated 22nd August, 1998 and 25th August, 1998 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') and awarding the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of E payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, has been upheld. However, for the offence under Section 304-B IPC sentence to undergo for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further ...... undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, has been F reduced to seven years with fine. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellant was married to Sarla (deceased) on 4th April, 1988. An FIR was lodged by Shyam Lal (PW.4) father of Sarla (deceased) on 25th June, 1991 making allegations that theG appellant, his mother, brother and sister-in-law had consistently >-harassed his daughter Sarla (deceased) by making dowry demand i.e. a scooter. She had been maltreated by them. After one year of marriage, Sarla (deceased) came and stayed with H BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 731

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] her family for about 14 months. It was only after convening a A panchayat of close relatives, she had returned to her matrimonial home. Again they maltreated and insisted for the demand of a scooter, thus, she had been subjected to cruelty, harassment by demand of dowry to the extent that she committed suicide on 25th June, 1991, at her matrimonial B home. ...... 3. After investigation of the case, the prosecution filed the. chargesheet against the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and charges were framed against them under Sections c 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC. The said two accused pleaded not guilty, thus, they were put on trial. It was on 17th May, 1995, that in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his. power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 D -.,,,.- (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) summoned the other two accused Ashok Kumar, brother and Smt. Shakuntala, sister-in-law of the appellant. and charges were reframed against all the four accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC vide order dated 6th July, 1995. E 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined several witnesses including complainant Shyam Lal ) ·~ (PW.4), Gulshan (PW:5), brother of Sarla (deceased), Dr. B.B. Agarwal (PW.1 ), Shri Arjun Singh Yadav, ASI, (PW.6), Constable Jai Pal (PW.2), Shri Mool Chand Punia, Draftsman· F (PW.3), and other formal witnesses.

5. While making their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied all the allegations against . them and set up the defence as under: G .... "Sarla was in love with some other person. She was forced to marry with accused Bansi Lal against het will, due to which she felt suffocated and committed suicide, ·leaving a suicide. note to that effect. There was no demand of Scooter.n H 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A Further, accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4) pleaded that they had been living separately from the appellant and his mother and they had no involvement so far as tihe demand of dowry was concerned. In defence only three witnesses i.e. Bal Kishan, an official of HSEB (DW.1 ), Vidya B Nand, an Inspector of Food and Supplies Department (DW.2) and Surender Singh, Sarpanch of the village Gram Panchayat (DW.3) were examined only to prove that accused Ashok Kumar (A.3) and Shakuntala (A.4) were living separately from ,..._ • the appellant and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi. c 6. After considering the entire evidence on record and the submissions made by the prosecution as well as defence, the trial court convicted the appellant and.his mother Smt. Shanti Devi under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and awarded the sentences as referred to hereinabove. The court acquitted D Ashok Kumar and Shakuntala of all the charges against them. -r The Trial Court did not award any separate sentence under Section 306 IPC.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his mother Smt. E Shanti Devi preferred Criminal Appeal No. 708-SB of 1998 which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2004, acquitting Smt. Shanti Devi, -not ..... being beneficiary ofthe demand of dowry, as only scooter had been demanded but dismissed the appeal so far as the present F appellant is concerned. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence under Section 304-B IPC has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Hence, this appeal. 8. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing G for the appellant, has submitted that no charge could be brought home against the appellant under any of the penal provisions as there was no demand of dowry by the appellant. The · harassment was not in close proximity of time of death. The prosecution itself had submitted that Sarla (deceased) wanted H to marry one Shiv Parkash Singh and thus, she was not happf' BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 733 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] with the appellant. She had left a suicide note to that effect and A the said note had been exhibited before the tri~I court as Ex.P2. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, Shri Rao Ranjit, learned advocate appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the appeal 8 contending that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. The suicide note Ex.P2 has to • -i- be ignored as it has not been proved as per requirement of law. No witness has been examined for comparing the C hand~iting of the deceased nor it has been signed by the deceased. It had not even been shown to father of the deceased i.e. Shyam Lal (PW.4), complainant or her brother Gulshan (PW.5). More so,· it had been the defence of the appellant while making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, he should have led evidence to substantiate the D .....,.- defence. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material E · on record. · The admitted facts of the case remain as under: )_ ....!;. (i) There was no demand of scooter at the initial stage of marriage in 1988. F (ii) Complainant Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) had deposed that there had been consistent and persistent demand of scooter by the appellant. G (iii) After one year of the marriage, when Sarla _._ (deceased) came to the house of her parents, she stayed with them. for a period of 14 months.

(iv) During this period of 14 months, no attempt had been mad~ by the appellant to call her newly H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A wedded wife back to the matrimonial home. (v) A Pancha"yat of very close relatives was convened and they had assured the parents and family members of Sarla (deceased) that appellant and his other family members would behave properlyB with Sarla (deceased) and she would not be maltreated or humiliated or subjected to any kind of cruelty for demand of dowry. ...._ . (vi) It was on this assurance that Sarla (deceased) c came back to stay with the appellant at her matrimonial home. (vii) Sarla committed suicide by hanging herself on 25th June, 1991. D (viii) The appellant or any of his family members did not inform Shyam Lal, (PW.4), complainant or any of r his family members about the death of Sarla (deceased). E (ix) Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) reached her matrimonial home alongwith others getting information from other persons. (x) Shyam Lal (PW.4) immediately lodged the FIR ~-against the appellant and other family membersF and, set the law in motion. (xi) Sarla (deceased) was found dead at her matrimonial home when she stayed with the appellant and other family members. They had not G furnished any satisfactory explanation as for which reason and under what circumstances she had >- -committed suicide.

11. So far as the theory of love affair of Sarla (deceased) is concerned, it has been disbelieved by the courts below. TheH BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 735 [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

; Trial Court dealt with the issued observing as under : . A "If the husband was doubting her fidelity towards him there was no reason for him to have come with his father and other relatives to the parents of the deceased to take her back after 14 months of her stay with her parents. It also B . cannot be said that the deceased was not having any liking for her husband and was frustrated because she allegedly ·+ circumstancescould not marryaretheotherwise.person ofHadhershechoice.developedRatherhatredthe for her husband, there was no reason for her to join him c after 14 months of her staying away from the matrimonial home. There was every reason for her to believe the husband and his relatives that demand of dowry and other torture and maltreatment would not be there. Better sense definitely, after such a lapse of time, was naturally to be D expected to have dawned on them. Parents of the deceased also did not create any hassles as they felt satisfied from the assurance of the accused on this score. At any rate melodramatic story -of her love affairs with some one and her frustration in her married life with .E accused Bansi Lal can hardly be taken as genuine. If it was so, she could not have continued to wait to die for her alleged lover for three long years, having consummated the '-< marriage with her husband and having cohabited with him all-through she was with him in the matrimonial home.• F

12. Again, the High Court has dealt with the issue _elaborately and recorded the following findings: "Much has be.en said by the learned counsel about Ex.P-2, the note allegedly recovered by the Investigating Officer. ~ In my considered view, this document has to be totally G -rejected from conside_ration in evidence for the simple reason that no nexus of the deceased has been established with this document. There is no evidence worth the name from the side of the prosecution or from the defence, which may _indicate that the writing Ex.P-2 was •. H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A in fact, in the hand of Sarra deceased. Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs when stepped into the witness-box do not say even a word that the document Ex.P-2 is written in the hand of Sarla deceased. Even the defence counsel did not putl any specific question/suggestion to these witnesses B about authorship of this document, knowing very well that ASI Arjun Singh Yadav, Investigating Officer had taken it into possession from the almirah of their house. The Investigating Officer (PW6) in his cross examination has stated that the diary, letter and ball-pen were lying in the +· c room and he enquired about the author of the said letter Ex.P-2 and it was revealed that the same was written by the deceased. This statement can be termed as a hear say evidence, having no legal sanctity when the main witnesses were not asked about the authorship thereof. A mere suggestion put to Shyam Lal and Gulshan PWs to D the effect that Sari~ had left a suicide note regarding her relations with some other person, takes us no where. The authorship of this letter could be proved either by producing some witness who had seen the deceased writing and signing or the said document could be sent to some E handwriting expert alongwith the admitted writing of Sarla deceased for comparison. Both the situations are missing. Even the Investigating Officer does not say a word as to >- f from whom he had verified about authorship of the said letter. In case this document is taken to be a proved one,

- F this would amount to bye-passing the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer cannot be all and all. The irresistible conclusion, thus, is that the document Ex.P-2, the so-called suicide note has to be taken out of . the zone of consideration. The defence of the Bansi Lal G appella)1t thus becomes very weak and fragile." ~ 13. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the coljrts below that Ex.P2, the suicide note was not worth consideration. It H ·aANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 737 '[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.] has Jightly been held by the courts below that it was to be A ~- ignored. Ext.P.2, the so-called suicide note disclosing that Sarla (deceased} committed suicide as she developed love affair with Shiv Parkash has been referred to by the Investigating B Officer Arjun Singh, ASI (PW.6} where in his cross~xamim:1tion he has stated a$ under:- , + •1'fle diary, letter, and ball pen were lying irr-a window of the room. He had enquired.about the author of the letter Ext.P.2 and it was revealed that it is written by Sar/a, c deceased.n

The witnesses of panchnama of recovery of this letter had not been examined though they had been Mahabir Singh, Chowkidar of village Shiwari and Hoshiar Singh, Ex. Sarpanch D of Shiwari. Shyam Lal (PW.4) and Gulshan (PW.5) both have denied the suggestion of recovery of any such letter nor the letters had been shown to them for identifying the handwriting . of Sarla (deceased}. More so, there is nothing on record to show that she was educated. Arjun Singh, ASI (PW.6} has not E stated anywhere that he knew the handwriting of Sarla (deceased} nor he has disclosed on whose information ·he "--'._ had inferred that the letter had been written by Sarla (deceased}. In such a fact situation, the recovery of such letter is to be disbelieved and the letter is required to be ignored F totally. More so, it has no probative value because it is no body's ease that the alleged suicide note is in th~ handwriting of Sarla (deceased}. 14. T~ demand of scooter had been consistent and persistent as Shyam Lal (PW.4} and Gulshan (PW.5} had G ~- specifically deposed that the demand was only in respect of scooter and nothing else. Had this allegation be false, the sa.id witnesses could also mention other articles purported to have been demanded by the appellant or his other family members. Therefore, the v~racity of the evidence of these two H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A witnesses on this issue cannot be doubted. Both the witnesses had been subjected to long cross examination at the behest of the appellant, however, nothing could be elicited from them to the extent that the allegations made by the prosecution could be false. B 1'5. While considering the case under Section 498-A, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make +· life of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit C suicide. In the instant case, the conduct of the accused forced the deceased Sarla to leave her matrimonial home just after one year of marriage and stay with her parents for 14 months continuously. It was only at the assurance given by the panchayat that the accused or his family members would not D humiliate or subject the deceased Sarla with cruelty, that she rejoined her matrimonial home. It is specific evidence of Gulshan (PW.5) that just few days before her death, when he went to see her sister, there was a demand of scooter by the appellant. In such a fact situation, we do not find any foooe in E the submission made on behalf of the appellant that there was no demand of scooter in the close proximity of the death.

16. In such a fact situation, the provisions of Section 1138 . of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing for presumption F that accused is responsible for dowry death, have to be . pressed in service. The said provisions read as under:-"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 G woman had 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. n (emphasis supplied) H It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its BANSI LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 739 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN" J.] wisdom has used the word "shall" thus, making a A mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with . or demand of dowry. It is unlike the provislOns of Section . 113A of the Evidence Act where a discretion has been B conferred upon the court wherein it had been provided that court may presume to abetment of suicide by a married • -+ woman. Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 1138 relatable to Section 304 IPC, the onus to prove shifts c exclusively and heavily on the accused.

17. The only requirement is that death of a woman has been caused by means other than any natural circumstances; that death has been caused or occurred within 7years of her marriage; and such woman had been subjected to cruelty or D harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. . 18. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death hav~been established by the. prosecution, it is the duty E of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death. It may also be pertinent to mention herein . '__,( that the expression shown before her death has not been defined in either of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court·has to analyse ti-- facts and circumstances leading to F the death of the victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and the death. (vide: T. Aruntperunjothi v. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry, AIR 2006 SC 2475; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 332; State of Rajasthan v. ~. Jaggu Ram, AIR 2008 SC 982; Anand Kumar v. State of G M.P., AIR 2009 SC 2155; and Undaval/i Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,. AIR 2010 SC,3708). 19. In the instant case, evidently, the suicide note, Ext.P-H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R.

/A 2 purported to have been written by Sarla (deceased) had been taken by appellant as his defence while making his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the onus was on him to establish his defence by leading sufficient evidence t'o rebut the presumption that he has caused the dowry death. The appellantmiserably failed to discharge that onus. 8 20. In view of the above, the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant ~re rejected. The appeal does nQt have + . any special features warranting interference by this court. The appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed. c D.G. Appeal dismissed. r, ,