State of Kerala Vs. Rajayyan - Court Judgment

K. Sreedharan, J.

1. Accused in this case, four in number, who are husband of deceased Sanal Kumari, her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law respectively, were charged with offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, who tried the case as S. C. 210 of 1989, acquitted all the accused as per his judgment dated 21-3-1991. State has preferred Crl. A. 382 of 1991 challeging the said acquittal. PW-3, mother of deceased Sanalkumari, has preferred Crl. R.P. 600 of 1991 questioning the correctness of the acquittal. We heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing in these cases in extenso. We are disposing of the appeal and the criminal revision petition by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : First accused is a graduate working as Police Constable. Second accused is his mother and accused 3 and 4 his sister. First accused married Sanalkumari, daughter of PWs. 1 and 2, on 7-6- 1984. At the time of the marriage, accused obtained by way of dowry 20 cents of land belonging to PWs. 1 and 2 and gold ornaments worth 20 sovereigns. The document for the 20 cents of land was executed in favour of the first accused on the date of betrothel. Marriage was performed in the Malankara Syrian Catholic Church Kanjiramkulam. Even on the third day after marriage, first accused started expressing dissatisfaction on the quantum of dowry. He started construction of a pucca building in his father's property, availing a loan. When the loan amount was exhaused, he, approached PWs. 1 and 2 for the balance dowry amount. PWs. 1 and 2 were unable to meet the demand. Accused sold almost all the ornaments of Sanalkumari and the amount was utilised for completing the building. Since PWs. 1 and 2 failed to pay the dowry amount, accuused harassed and behaved cruely towards Sanalkumari. In the meantime, she became pregnant. She was not allowed to remain in her parent's house immediately prior to the delivery. When she was admitted in the hospital in connection with the delivery, the fact was not intimated to her parents. Sanalkumari gave birth to a female child on 6-7-1985. As a result of the mental torture during pregnancy, she developed purpurel psychosis. She was under the treatment of PW-12. Finding the pitiable predicament of Sanalkumari, PWs. 1 and 2 gave Rs. 50,000/- in cash and obtained a release of the 20 cents trinferred in the name of the first accused. Thereafter first accused put forth a demand for an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 3 sovereigns. As that demand was not immediately conceded by PWs. 1 and 2, accused continued to torture and harass Sanalkumari. About two weeks prior to the death of Sanalkumari PWs 1 and 2 expressed their inability to pay anything more as Sthreedhanam. Thereafter accused behaved cruelly towards Sanalkumari. When the torture became unbearable, she committed suicide by jumping into the well in the house of the accused on 5-10-1987.

3. Body of Sanalkumari was lifted from the well by the Fire Force. PW. 11, brother-in-law of first accused and husband of the third accused, lodged First Information Statement about the incident at 3.00 a.m. on 6-10-1987. It was recorded by PW-15 On the basis of that, Crime 166/1987 of Vizhinjan) Police Station was registered as 'unnatural death'. PW-2 complained that the death of Sanalkumari was a dowry death. Thereupon the investigation of the case was entrusted with the Crime Branch C.I.D. PW-20, the Divisional Inspector of C.B. C.I.D.. conducted the investigation. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against accused 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. PW-2 moved this Court by filing Crl. M.O. 776/1989 questioning the action of PW-20 in removing accused 3 and 4 from the array of parties. This Court disposed of that Crl. M. C, by directing the Investigating Officer to file charge-sheet against all the accused persons under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, PW-20 laid charge sheet for the said offence against all the accused. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

4. On the said of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 20 were examined and Exts. P1 to P15 proved. Charge witness No. 8, Rev. Sister Veronica, was examined by Court as C.W.1. On the side of the defence, DWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. D1 to D4(a) proved. On an appreciation of these evidences, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence does not help to reach a definite conclusion that deceased Sanalkumari was harassad by a further demand for Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns as dowry. According to the learned Judge :

'the squabbles between the parties over allotment of the dowry could have caused mental pain to the deceased before September 1986. But there is no acceptable proof of demands for dowry thereafter and harassment on that account. The evidence about the incident in 1987 only indicate that the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law possibly could not get along well but there is no proof of a rift between the 1st accused and the deceased. Thus the prosecution has not succedeed in proving that the accused persons were guilty of cruelly or harassment as contemplated by Sections 304-B and 498A I P.C. and that the death of Sanalkumari was a dowry death'.

This conclusion of the learned Judge is under attack.

5. Before dealing with the evidence in this case, we consider it appropriate to understand the provisions of law applicable to a case of this nature. Indian Penal Code was amended by introducing a new chapter as Chapter XXA by the Criminal Law Second Amendment Act of 1983. The chapter is given the title 'of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband'. Section 498-A, 'husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty', was introduced in the Penal Code. It is in the following terms :

'498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subject her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation--For the purpose of this section, 'cruelity' means--

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

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet and unlawful demand for property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand'.

Explanation to the above section provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as if likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty Such wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute harassment.

5. By the above mentioned amendment of 1983, Parliament inserted Section 113-A to the Indian Evidence Act. It is in the following terms :

'113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a marriage woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation--for the purposes of this Section, 'Cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'.

From the above Section, it is evident that if a wife is shown to have committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and there is evidence that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative, it would be permissible for the Court to presume that such suicide was abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The law underwent a further change when Parliament introduced Section 304-B at the Penal Code and Section 113-B in the Evidence Act by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. As per Section 304-B, where the death of a woman is caused by burns of bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage the evidence reveals that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative for or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' as per Section 304-B of the Penal Code. According to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the Court has to raise a presumption of dowry death if the same has taken place within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of the woman having been subjected to cruelty and or harassment. For a proper understanding of these provisions of the Penal Code and Evidence Act, we read the same :

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

Explanation.--For the purposes of this Sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the some meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (28 of 1961).

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

'113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such persons 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.

Explanation--For the purpose of this Section, 'dowry death, shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'.

The ingredients that are to be satisfied for establishing an offence under Section 304-B are :

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances :

(ii) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

(iii) Soon before her death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husbahd.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should have been for or in connection with demand for dowry.

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act creates a presumption of dowry death, when the question before the Court is whether the person has caused dowry death of a woman and it is proved by, evidence that soon before her death such woman bad been subjected to by such person to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. In order to raise the presumption of dowry death, it would appear that the presumption must show that soon before her death the woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In other words, only when the prosecution proves by cogent evidence that soon before the death the lady was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry can there be a presumption that the death is a 'dowry death'. As noted earlier, for establishing the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B the four essential factors mentioned above will have to be substantiated. When they are so substantiated, the offence will be 'dowry death'. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act also all these four essential ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution. An argument was advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the prosecution establishes that the death of a woman took place within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there was demand for dowry, then a presumption would arise that she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In support of this plea reliance was placed on Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. We do not find our way to agree with this argument Section 113-B of the Evidence Act simply states that the Court can presume the death of a lady to be dowry death when it is established that soon before death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, it is clear that prosecution can canvass for a conviction only if prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the lady was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon prior to her death Section 133-B of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its burden in establishing the above fact by cogent evidence. With this background, we will analyse the evidence in this case.

8. The evidence in this case regarding the demand of dowry by the accused is mainly of PWs. 1 and 2, the mother and father respectively of deceased Sanalkumari. This couple had ten children, six male and four female. Sanalkumari was the second daughter. The elder daughter was given away in marriage earlier. The marriage between Sanalkumari and first accused was fixed while Sanalkumari was studying for her IInd Year M.A. Degree Examination. She was at that time 23 years of age. The dowry demanded by the accused was Rs. 50,000/- and ornaments worth 20 sovereigns. As there was no cash for outright payment of Rs. 50,000/-, they executed Ext. PI document in relation to 20 cents of property on 16-11-1983. Thereafter betrothel took place on 17-11-1983. The marriage was to be solemnised after the final M.A. Examination. The last date of the examination was 3-6-1984. The marriage was therefore fixed to be held on 7-6-1984. Accused then wanted the jewellery to be purchased with intimation to them. Consequently, PW-9 was engaged for the said purpose. According to these witnesses, ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns were got prepared by PW-9. There is documentary evidence, as Ext. P4, to show that PW-2 raised a loan of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of gold ornaments and for meeting the expenses in connection with the marriage. Marriage was subsequently solemnised on 7-6-1984. After the marriage when Sanalkumari and first accused visited the house of PWs. 1 and 2, they were told by Sanalkumari that the gold ornaments were weighed by the accused and found to be deficient by three sovereigns.

9. Accused were not satisfied with the transfer deed, Ext. P1. They wanted Rs. 50,000/- which was agreed upon towards dowry. Since PWs. 1, and 2 knew that their daughter was being persistently harassed for payment of money, they decided to sell the property which was earlier mortgaged. Father of the first accused agreed to give 40 cents including the building newly constructed to the first accused and Sanalkumari PWs. 1 and 2 agreed to give cash if the 20 cents of property covered by Ext. P1 was returned and a document for another 20 cents was executed by the father of the first accused in favour of the couple. First accused's father prepared document assigning 40 cents of land in favour of the first accused and 20 cents of land in favour of first accused and the deceased. On the same day first accused and deceased released the property covered by Ext. P1 under Ext. P3. Thus on the date of Ext. P3, namely 10-9-1986, the claim of Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry was settled.

10. As stated earlier, towards dowry PWs. 1 and 2 were to give gold ornaments worth 20 sovereigns. According to them, the entire ornaments were got made through PW-9 and were given. It was the contention of the accused that those ornaments did not weigh 30 sovereigns. There was a deficiency of three sovereigns. PWs. 1 and 2 would state that the deficiency was only half a sovereign and that was the loss caused in its making. When the earlier demand of Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry was satisfied on 10.9-1986, the date of execution of Ext. P3, first accused came forward with a demand for another Rs. 10,000/- and jewellery worth three sovereigns. This demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made, according to the evidence before Court? to make up the amount given to the elder sister of Sanalkumari. Learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence before him, came to the conclusion :'If there had been such a demand for payment of Rs. 10,000/-or for 3 sovereigns gold ornaments and cruelty and harassment on that account till Sanalkumari's death, then it will be a 'dowry death'.

But, on this issue the learned Judge observed that the evidence does not help to reach a definite conclusion that deceased Sanalkumari was harassed by a further demand of Rs. 10,000/- or three sovereigns as dowry. So, the question now to be considered is whether the evidence in this case leads to the one and the only conclusion that deceased Sanalkumari was harassed by a further demand for Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns as dowry.

11. PWs. 1 and 2 have categorically stated that marriage between first accused and Sanalkumari was solemnised on 7-6-1984. First accused when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has even gone to the extent of denying the factum of marriage between him and Sanalkumari. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Sanalkumari was married to the first accused. Learned Counsel representing the accused/respondents has not succeeded in bringing out any circumstance or evidence in the case warranting an interference with the said finding. On the basis of the evidence now before Court, we have no doubt in our mind that first accused did marry Sanalkumari in accordance with the custom of the community to which they belong on 7-6-1984.

12. PWs. 1 and 2 have categorically stated that at the time of the marriage between first accused and Sanalkumari she was given gold ornaments worth 20 sovereigns. These might have been deficiency of half a soveign, which was lost as waste in the process of making. But according to the accused, these witnesses say, deficiency was to the tune of three sovereigns. Accused wanted this deficiency to be made good and also demanded a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-. When this demand was made, according to PWs. 1 and 2, even Sanalkumari had protested by saying that in case such a demand is conceded, her brothers and siscers, who are eight in number, will not be getting even ten cents of property each. According to these witnesses, Sanalkumari was being beaten by first accused to coerce them (these witnesses) to satisfy the above demand.

13. PW-5 is a first cousin of deceased Sanalkumari. He is the son of the brother of PW-2. When examined before Court, he stated that first accused and Sanalkumari went over to his house on 27-9-1987 seeking his good offices to get Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns from PWs. 1 and 2. According to this witness, he tried to convince first accused that his entire demand of 20 sovereigns and Rs. 5,0000/- towards dowry was satisfied. But he stated that he had given word to the first accused that he will get the present demand also satisfied though PWs. 1 and 2. For two or three days after the visit made by first accused and Sanalkumari, this witness did not find time to meet PWs. 1 and 2. Thereafter he met PWs. 1 and 2 persuaded them to agree to give the 10,000/- rupees and three sovereigns to the first accused towards dowry. But before that information could be conveyed to the first accused, Sanalkumari ended her life. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. For no justifiable reason the learned Sessions Judge refused to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness. According to us, the learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in discarding the evidence of this witness. We went through his testimony many a number of times and we are of the firm view that his evidence got a ring of truth. His evidence is corroborated by the other circumstances to which we will presently deal with.

14. PWs. 1 and 2 stated that they approached CW-1 to bring about approachment between accused and Sanalkumari. From the evidence of CW-1, it is crystal clear that first accused was very close to her. First accused was very close to her. First accused was a resident of the convent during the period when CW-1 functioned as the Mother Superior. It was on account of this closeness that PWs. 1 and 2 sought her good offices to bring harmony into the life of Sanalkumari. The fact that PWs. 1 and 2 went to CW-1 requesting her to take this mission is admitted by CW-1. She vent to the house of the accused in the car brought by PW-1. PW-6 is an advocate practising in the Courts at Neyyattinkara. His daughter was a student in the convent school where CW-1 was the Mother Superior. He had taken his daughter to the school on the school day since she was participating in one of the variety entertainment programmes. Then he saw PW2 in the convent to meet CW-1. CW-1 also admitted before Court that she was approached by PWs. 1 and 2 on the school day for setting the demand of dowry made by first accused and the consequent harassment on Sanalkumari. According to PW-6, when he met PW-2 at the convent he was told that first accused was harassing Sanalkumari for getting more dowry.

15. CW-1 stated before Court that PW-1 told her that first accused was quarrelling with Sanalkumari for getting more money as dowry. She also admitted that Sanalkumari had told her that she was having no peace of mind ia the house of the accused. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness stated that PW-2 had approached her on school day to bring about peace in the family of Sanalkumari. She could realise that Sanalkumari's parents were very much worried about the miserable plight of Sanalkumari. She also stated that she went to the house of the accused in the car brought by PW-1 and on reaching there, she found that the situation there was not happy. She made enquiries regarding the reason for the differences of opinion and suggested them to live peacefully. When asked as to whether she enquired into the reason for the unhappiness in the family, she pleaded ignorance. To the Court's question as to whether Sanalkumari had divulged to her anything in secrecy from the accused she pretended ignorance. The mission undertaken by CW-i was long subsequent to 109-1986 when the dowry claimed earlier was settled. Thereafter the cause for the unpleasantness in the family of the accused could only have been on account of the subsequent demand of Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns. That demand was the only cause for worry to Sanalkumari and her parents PWs. 1 and 2.

16. The evidence discussed above shows that even after the settlement of the original demand of Rs. 50,000/- on the date of the execution of Ext. P3 document (10-9-1986), Sanalkumari was being harassed by the first accused for getting an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- and ornaments worth three sovereigns? PWs. 1 and 2 wanted to have the said harassment settled at the intervention of CW-1. PWs. 1 and 2 approached CW-1 to take up that mission PW-2 met CW-1 on the school day. PW-6 corroborates PW-1 and CW-1 in this regard. Persuant to that request of PWs. 1 and 2, CW-1 went to the house of first accused in the car brought by PW-1. On reaching the house, CW-1 realised that all was not well in that house. She directed accused and Sanalkumari to live happily. If there was no harassment of Sanalkumari, there was no need for PWs. 1 and 2 to seek the help of CW-1 to go over to the house of the accused. CW-1 has virtually conceded before Court that she was told about the harassment meted out by Sanalkumari. On 27-9-1987 first accused and Sanalkumari went to the house of PW-5 and requested him to use his good offices to get Rs. 10,000/-and three sovereigns from PWs. 1 and 2. PW-5 gave word to the first accused that he will try to get that demand satisfied. Three or four days thereafter he went to the house of PWs. 1 and 2. PWs. 1 and 2 were persuaded to meet the above demands made by the first accused. But, unfortunately before the said information could be passed on the first accused, Sanalkumari committed suicide by jumping into the well. These circumstances, according to us, lead to the one and the only conclusion that soon before the date of death Sanalkumari was being harassed for extracting a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns from her parents. Even according to the learned Sessions Judge, if such a demand and harassment of Sanalkumari is established, the case on hand will be a 'dowry death.'

17. In analysing the evidence of cases relating to dowry death, the Court must be aware of the fact that cruelty towards the wife or harassment of the lady are generally committed in the privacy of residential homes and in secrecy. Independent and direct evidence is not easy to be produced before Court. In cases of this nature, harassment can be established by the prosecution only from circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and these circumstances must be conclusive in nature. The established circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap in the chain of evidence. The circumstances so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused alone. It should be totally inconsistent with his innocence. According to their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SC 684, cases relating to dowry death are to be dealt with in such a manner as to give effect to the intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions contained in Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Penal Code and Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act. Their Lordships observed :

'The role of Courts, under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the Courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunae in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.'

18. Learned Counsel representing the accused advanced an argument relying on the evidence of PW-12 that deceased Sanalkumari was not having a sound mind and her death should be treated as a suicide on account of that illness. PW-12 is the Psychiatrist attached to Sree Ramakrishna Mission Hospital, Sasthamangalam. He had treated Sanalkumari during the period between 16-7-1983 and 2-8-1985 for purpurel psychosis. This illness, according to the Doctor, occurs in ladies after delivery. To the question whether the disease will occur if the lady is subjected to cruelty during pregnancy, he gave the answer in the affirmative. The doctor has stated that she never showed any tendency to commit suicide while she was in the hospital and that she was discharged as the illness was cured. In cross-examination he said that insanity due to pregnancy can occur at any time from the beginning of the pregnancy to the end of lactation. This evidence of the Doctor can never lead to the conclusion that Sanalkumari was affected by any mental illness at or about the time of her death. PW-12 stated that she was discharged from the hospital as the illness was cured. There is no evidence to show that she was put on medicine for the mental ailment. So, we have no hesitation in overruling the defence of the accused that Sanalkumari committed suicide as a result of her mental illness.

19. Accused had a case that Sanalkumari fell into the well by accident. It is his alternate case that while Sanalkumari was trying to disentangle the rope which well out of the groove to the pulley while drawing water from the well, she had a fall into it. This happened while, it is stated by him, his mother--the second accused--was sitting by the side of the well. Accused had no case that second accused made a hue and cry on seeing the fall of Sanalkumari. This case of accidental falls has been rightly found against the learned Sessions Judge. We do not find out way take a different view on this issue.

20. The evidence above establishes the following facts :

1. Death of Sanalkumari occurred within seven years of her marriage. The marriage was on 7-6-1984 and the death on 5-10-1987.

2. The death of Sanalkumari happened by a fall into the well. That is otherwise than under normal circumstances.

3. Till the time of her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, as denied in the Explanation to Section 498-A of the Penal Code.

4. The harassment and cruelty was in connection with demand of Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns by way of dowry.

When the prosecution succeeded in proving the above ingredients, the offence that is committed by the accused can only be 'dowry death', as defined in Section 304-B of the Penal Code.

21. Learned Counsel representing the accused/respondents submitted that evidence in this case would only go to show that there was harassment, if at all there was any, of Sanalkumari from the second accused, her mother-in-law. Second accused is now no more. The evidence of DWs. 1 to 6 would go to show that first accused was having happy married life with Sanalkumari. Since he had not harassed Sanalkumari, it was argued, he cannot be made liable for offence of 'dowry death'. We are not impressed with this argument. We have categorically come to the conclusion that Sanalkumari was being harassed by first accused for getting Rs. 10,000/-and three sovereigns by way of dowry. The evidence discussed above in the earlier part of this judgment shows that first accused was behaving cruelty towards Sanalkumari. If there was any harassment from the side of the second accused as is now contended, first accused had not taken any action to protect Sanalkumari from such harassment. He was only a willing and consenting party to those harassments. As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar 1986 SCC (Crl.) 2, he should have stood as a mountain of support ready to protect her and spouse her cause where she was on the right. Not only that he did not try to protect her from the harassment by his mother, he was trying his level best to get the additional dowry. This is crystal clear from the testimony of PW-S, in whose evidence we find a ring of truth. So, first accused is not to get himself absolved from the liability on the ground that harassment was only from the side of his mother and not from him. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that neither the first accused nor any of his relations informed PWs. 1 and 2 of the death of their daughter Sanalkumari. PWs. 1 and 2 reached the Morchery only on coming to know of the death from strangers. First accused was not present in the hospital where Sanalkumari's body was subjected to post-mortem examination. This circumstance also would go to show the complicity of the first accused in the commission of the offence.

22. Second accused, the mother of the first accused, is now no more Accused 3 and 4 are the sisters of the first accused. The evidence now before Court is not sufficient enough to establish their investment beyond reasonable doubt. Since the evidence falls short of proof beyond reasonable doubt, we see no reason to interfere with their acquittal.

In view of what has been stated above, we set aside the order of acquittal of the first accused entered by the Court below and convict him for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. For the offence under this Section, the statute prescribes a minimum punishment of imprisonment of seven years. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any ground to award a sentence above the said minimum. Since we are imposing only the minimum sentence prescribed by the Section, we do not think it necessary to hear the accused on the question of sentence. Accordingly we sentence first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years.

In the result, appeal and the revision petition are disposed of as follows. First accused is connected of the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the said offence. Acquittal of accused 3 and 4 is sustained. Trial Court is directed to take steps to execute the sentence passed against the first accused.