1

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW-II

-I
I

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS: Monju Roy v. State of West Bengal

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. DIVYA SALIM KHUSHI SHARMA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 2018BALLB90
 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled – Case Analysis: Monju Roy v. State of West Bengal,
has been prepared and submitted by Khushi Sharma, who is pursuing her B.A.L.L.B (Hons) at
National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment Criminal Law-II Course. It is also
certified that this is project work has not been submitted to any other University, nor published
in any journal.
Signature of student:

Signature of Project Supervisor:

 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. DIVYA SALIM for guiding
me throughout the development of this project into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of Gyan
Mandir, National Law Institute University for their unreserved assistance throughout the
making this project. I am deeply indebted to my parent, seniors and friends for all the moral
support and encouragement.

Khushi Sharma
 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................................................... 2

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

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 7

APPELLANTS....................................................................................................................... 7

RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................... 7

INTERPRETATION OF LAW ................................................................................................. 8

SECTION 304B OF IPC ........................................................................................................ 8

INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................................. 8

JUDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9

ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 9

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 10
 5

INTRODUCTION

MONJU ROY V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CITATION: 2015(5)SCALE288

BENCH: T.S. Thakur and A.K. Goel, JJ.

APPELLANTS:
Monju Roy and Ors.

RESPONDENT:
State of West Bengal

ACTS/RULES/ORDERS:

Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the above case by way of criminal appeal. The case involved
application of Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of Code. The Apex court set aside the conviction
of the appellants under Section 304B giving them benefit of doubt hence allowed appeal. .
 6

MATERIAL FACTS

1. The deceased Shanti Roy was married to Sekhar Roy on 20th February, 1994.
According to the prosecution, Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters and brother raised a
demand of Rs. 5000/- and since the said demand was not fulfilled, Shanti Roy was
harassed and even kept without food.
2. On 31st July, 1995, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on
fire. She was pregnant carrying eight months' old foetus. The brother of the deceased
lodged First Information Report. After conducting investigation, Appellants - sisters of
Sekhar Roy, mother of Sekhar Roy and Sekhar Roy, husband of the deceased were sent
up for trial.
3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the three Appellants. The High Court upheld
the conviction and sentence with the modification that instead of life imprisonment
Under Section 304B awarded by the trial court, sentence of RI for ten years was
awarded.
 7

ISSUES

“Whether there was any possibility of exaggeration in prosecution version in implicating all
Appellants as family members”

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

APPELLANTS
1. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that omnibus allegation against all the
family members could not be taken at the face value, having regard to the well-known
tendency of naming all the family members by the family of an unfortunate victim. It
is therefore submitted that in such circumstances, the court may be cautious in accepting
such omnibus allegations against all the family members unless there is an independent
corroboration of such allegation.
2. In the present case, the allegation is that all the five family members raised a demand
of Rs. 5000/- and beyond stating that all the family members harassed her, no individual
role in harassment has been specified. The possibility of exaggeration about the number
of family members who raised demand of dowry cannot be ruled out.
3. It is further submitted that Even if demand was jointly made, the Appellants have not
been assigned any role in harassment in absence of which, presumption Under Section
113B of the Evidence Act could not be raised against them.
RESPONDENTS
1. On behalf of the respondent the counsel submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve
the version of close relatives of the deceased that dowry was demanded by all the family
members and the demand continued till her death. All the members have been
specifically named.
2. It is further submitted that the death having taken place within seven years of marriage
in circumstances other than normal, statutory presumption under Section 304B clearly
arises and the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the Appellants.
 8

INTERPRETATION OF LAW

SECTION 304B OF IPC

The present case involves the application of Section 304B of IPC.
“304B. 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 har-assment 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 purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprison-ment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

INTERPRETATION
Ingredient of offence Under Section 304B is not mere demand of dowry but "cruelty or
harassment" for or in connection with demand of dowry.1 What is punishable Section 304-B
Indian Penal Code is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the
husband on the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that only
when it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected by any 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 within the meaning of Section 304-B Indian Penal
Code. The act of subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be established by the prosecution for the
court to presume that the accused has caused the dowry death.

1
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 9 SCC 64
 9

JUDGEMENT

The court while allowing the appeals held:

(i) Omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and
sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents. In
such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry court has to be satisfied
that harassment was also caused by all the named members.
(ii) There being possibility of appellants' having been named by way of exaggeration,
they appellants deserved to be given benefit of doubt
(iii) The conviction and sentence of the appellants Under Section 304B Indian Penal
Code is set aside without interfering with conviction and sentence under other
heads.

ANALYSIS

Under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code only when it is shown that soon before her
death a woman has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.2 In such
case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry court has to be satisfied that
harassment was also caused by all the named members.
Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who may be benefited by the
dowry and may be in a position to harass and not all other relatives, unless there is
tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere
naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.3
In the present matter, even if it is accepted that the Appellants were involved in raising
the demand for dowry there is no material that the Appellants harassed the victim
resulting in her death.

2
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 9 SCC 64
3
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207; Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 15 SCC
415; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388
 10

In light of this the court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B
of IPC by way of giving benefit of doubt to the appellants who happens to be relatives
of the husband of the deceased.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion the omnibus allegation against all the family members could not be taken at the
face value, having regard to the well-known tendency of naming all the family members by the
family of an unfortunate victim. There being possibility of appellants' having been named by
way of exaggeration, the appellants deserved to be given benefit of doubt. Hence, the court
was correct in allowing the appeals and setting aside the convictions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS-

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 20th Edition, Lexis Nexis
2. Universal Publications, Criminal Law Manual.

INTERNET SOURCES-

• google.co.in
• manupatra.com
• http://criminallawyersindia.wordpress.com
• http://lex-warrier
• www.indiankanoon.com