Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1142/2011

BALJINDER KAUR        ..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB              ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J  .   

This  appeal  arises out of  judgment dated 11.08.2010  

passed  by  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Criminal  Appeal  

No.703-SB of 1999, in and by which, the High Court confirmed the  

conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC and sentence  

of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant-  

1

Page 2

Baljinder  Kaur  (sister-in-law)  and  second  accused-Pritam  Singh  

(husband) while acquitting father-in-law and mother-in-law.

2. Briefly  stated  case  of  the  prosecution  is  as  follows:  

Marriage  of  Sharanjit  Kaur  (deceased)  was  solemnized  with  

second  accused-Pritam  Singh  in  the  month  of  January  1997.  

Although PW-4  -  Joginder  Singh (father  of  the  deceased)  gave  

sufficient dowry at the time of his daughter’s marriage, after two  

months  of  her  marriage,  the  deceased  told  her  father  and  

Harbans Singh-the mediator of marriage that the second accused-

Pritam Singh and his family members were demanding dowry and  

harassing  her.   About  two  months  after  the  marriage,  the  

appellant-Baljinder Kaur (sister-in-law) demanded for a gold karra  

as dowry.  PW-4, the father of the deceased could not meet the  

demand of dowry, so he brought his daughter back to his house.  

After one month, at the request of her in-law’s, Sharanjit Kaur was  

sent back to her husband’s house; but again after one month, she  

returned to her maternal house with the same demand of karra.  

Two days prior to her death i.e. on 24.08.1997, second accused-

Pritam  Singh  took  her  back  to  the  matrimonial  house.  On  

25.08.1997 at about 6.00 P.M., first accused-Sohan Singh came to  

2

Page 3

the house of PW-4 and informed him about deceased’s illness.  

Immediately, PW-4 along with Darshan Singh (PW-5) and Harbans  

Singh rushed to the house of  the accused and found Sharanjit  

Kaur vomiting and in a critical condition.  The deceased stated  

that  the  accused  had  beaten  her  and  administered  some  

poisonous substance to her.  PW-4 and others took the deceased  

to the hospital at Raikot, but she died on the way to the hospital.

3. PW-4 set the law in motion by lodging complaint on the  

next  day  i.e.  26.08.1997  at  11.00  A.M.  with  sub-inspector  of  

police (PW-8) at Raikot.   On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 86  

was registered on 26.08.1997 under Section 304B IPC.  Board of  

Doctors consisting of PW-1-Dr. Varinder Singh, Medical Officer and  

two other doctors conducted autopsy on the body of deceased-

Sharanjit  Kaur,  and  opined  that  the  cause  of  death  of  the  

deceased  was  poisoning.   On  completion  of  the  investigation,  

charge sheet was filed against first accused-Sohan Singh (father-

in-law), accused     No.2 - Pritam Singh (Husband),  accused No.3-

Surjit  Kaur  (mother-in-law)  and  accused  No.4-Baljinder  Kaur  

(sister-in-law) under Section 304B IPC.

3

Page 4

4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has  

examined nine witnesses and exhibited documents and material  

objects.    To substantiate their  defence the accused examined  

two  defence  witnesses.   The  accused  were  questioned  under  

Section  313  Cr.P.C.  about  the  incriminating  evidence  and  

materials and the accused denied all of them.  Upon consideration  

of evidence, trial court found the accused guilty and convicted all  

the four accused under Section 304B IPC and sentenced each of  

them  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven  years.  

Aggrieved,  the  accused  filed  appeal  before  the  High  Court.  

Criminal Revision was also filed by PW-4, Joginder Singh, father of  

the deceased for enhancement of sentence.  The appeal and the  

revision were disposed of by an order dated 11.08.2010 whereby  

the High Court dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the  

conviction  of  the  appellant  and  Pritam  Singh  while  acquitting  

father-in-law and mother-in-law. This appeal assails  the legality  

and  correctness  of  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  affirming  

appellant’s conviction and the sentence of imprisonment imposed  

on her.   

4

Page 5

5. Pritam Singh, husband of the deceased, had undergone  

the  entire  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  on  him and  the  

appeal preferred by him was dismissed as infructuous by separate  

order dated 5.11.2014.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  Mr.  Dinesh  Kumar  

Garg contended that the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 ought to have  

been considered with care and caution and their evidence cannot  

form the basis  for  conviction.   It  was then contended that  the  

appellant was already married about six years ago prior to the  

occurrence and was having three children and she was residing  

with  her  in-laws  in  village  Diwana  at  a  distance  of  twenty  

kilometres away from her parental house and while so she could  

not have subjected the deceased to cruelty by demanding gold  

karra as  dowry  and  the  courts  below  erred  in  convicting  the  

appellant under Section 304B IPC.

7. Per  contra,  learned counsel  for  the respondent-State,  

Mr. Sanchar Anand contended that from the evidence of PWs 4  

and 5, prosecution has established the demand of gold  karra by  

the appellant and the courts below rightly convicted the appellant  

5

Page 6

under Section 304B IPC and the concurrent findings recorded by  

the courts below warrant no interference.

8. Before  adverting  to  the  merits  of  the  contentions  

advanced,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  alleged  ‘dying  

declaration’ of deceased Sharanjit Kaur as it emerges from the  

version of PWs 4 and 5 and lapse of investigation in this regard.  

In their evidence, PWs 4 and 5 stated that on 25.8.1997 when  

they reached the house of the accused, Sharanjit Kaur was in a  

semi-conscious condition and she told PWs 4 and 5 that she was  

beaten by the accused and the accused administered poison to  

her.  PW-4 had mentioned about the alleged ‘dying declaration’ in  

his complaint also.  

9. In his evidence, even though PW-4 had stated about the  

‘dying declaration’ of Sharanjit Kaur alleging that accused have  

beaten  her  and  administered  poison,  FIR  was  registered  only  

under Section 304B IPC.  Investigation was not focussed in the  

direction  of  the  alleged  ‘dying  declaration’.   The  investigating  

officer  had  not  investigated  whether  in  the  house  of  accused  

there  was  aluminium  phosphide  poison  which  is  stated  to  be  

‘pesticide’  and  whether  the  accused  could  have  administered  6

Page 7

poison to Sharanjit  Kaur.    In  our  view,  the investigation lacks  

credibility  as  the  same  was  not  focussed  in  the  light  of  the  

contents of the complaint.  

10. The  criminal  investigation  plays  an  important  and  

special  role  in  the  administration  of  criminal  justice.  The  

investigating  officer  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  the  dispensation  of  

criminal  justice and the maintenance of law and order.   Police  

investigation is therefore the foundation stone on which the entire  

edifice  of  the  criminal  law  rests.   It  is  by  the  action  of  the  

investigating  officer  that  the  criminal  law  becomes  an  actual  

positive force.  Proper investigation is  necessary for obtaining a  

complete picture of all the relevant issues because it will provide  

the  information  necessary  to  conduct  a  comprehensive  

investigation. Any omission and commission by the investigating  

officer may result in miscarriage of justice and prosecution results  

in acquittal.  Being the foundation stone of the prosecution, the  

investigating officer must be trained to adopt proper techniques  

of investigation and scientific temper must be inculcated in them.  

The investigation must be conducted in an unbiased manner and  

investigation must be with objectivity and dispassionate approach  

7

Page 8

to men and matters and the investigating officer must make a  

truthful  presentation  of  the  materials  collected.    As  noticed  

earlier, investigation of the case at hand lacks credibility.  Since  

occurrence was of the year 1997, we are not inclined to go into  

the details of the lapses in the investigation and issue any further  

direction.     

11. Be  that  as  it  may,  let  us  consider  the  case  of  the  

prosecution  and  the  evidence  as  projected.  Section  304B  IPC  

defines ‘dowry death’.  To convict an accused under Section 304B  

IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:-

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

(ii) Such a death must have occurred within seven years  of her marriage;

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

(iv) Such  cruelty  or  harassment  must  be  for  or  in  connection with demand of dowry;

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been  meted out to the woman soon before her death.

12. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the  

case in hand.   Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:-

8

Page 9

“113B.   Presumption  as  to  dowry  death-  When the question is whether a person has committed the  dowry death of a women and it is shown that soon before  her death such woman has 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.”

13. As per the definition of ‘dowry death’ in Section 304B  

IPC and the wording in Section 113B of the Evidence Act,  it  is  

necessary to show that ‘soon before death’ the woman concerned  

had been subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection  

with the demand of dowry”.  On proof of the essentials mentioned  

therein,  under  Section  113B  of  the  Evidence  Act,  it  becomes  

obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused  

caused the dowry death.       

14. The expression “soon before death” in Section 304B IPC  

and Section  113B of  the  Evidence Act  was  considered by  this  

Court in Hira  Lal  vs. State (Govt. of NCT)  Delhi;   2003  (8) SCC  

80 and this Court in paragraph (9) observed as under:-

“9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act  and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material  to  show  that  soon  before  her  death  the  victim  was  subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to  rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so  as  to  bring  it  within  the  purview  of  “death  occurring  otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The expression  

9

Page 10

“soon before” is very relevant where Section 113-B of the  Evidence  Act  and  Section  304-B  IPC  are  pressed  into  service.  The  prosecution  is  obliged  to  show  that  soon  before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and  only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that  regard has to be led by the prosecution. “Soon before” is a  relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances  of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down  as to what would constitute a period of soon before the  occurrence.  It  would  be  hazardous  to  indicate  any fixed  period,  and that brings in the importance of a proximity  test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well  as for  raising a presumption under Section 113-B of  the  Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used  in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of  the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.  No definite period has been indicated and the expression  “soon before” is not defined. A reference to the expression  “soon before”  used in  Section 114 Illustration  (a)  of  the  Evidence Act  is  relevant.  It  lays  down that  a  court  may  presume that  a  man who is  in  the  possession  of  goods  “soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the  goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account  for  their  possession”.  The  determination  of  the  period  which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be  determined  by  the  courts,  depending  upon  facts  and  circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate  that  the  expression “soon  before”  would  normally  imply  that the interval should not be much between the cruelty  or harassment concerned and the death in question. There  must be existence of a proximate and live link between the  effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death  concerned. If  the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in  time  and  has  become  stale  enough  not  to  disturb  the  mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of  no consequence.”

15. In  Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyar vs.  State of  

Bihar,  (2005) 2  SCC 388,  this  Court  considered the expression  

“soon before death” and held as under:-

10

Page 11

“……The expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC  are pressed into  service.  Prosecution  is  obliged  to  show  that  soon  before  the  occurrence  there  was  cruelty  or  harassment and only in that case presumption operates.  Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. ‘Soon  before’  is  a relative term and it  would depend upon the  circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can  be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon  before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate  any fixed period,  and that brings in the importance of a  proximity  test both for the proof  of  an offence of  dowry  death as well as for raising a presumption under Section  113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression ‘soon before her  death’  used  in  the  substantive  Section  304-B  IPC  and  Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea  of proximity test……”  

The same view was expressed in Thakkan Jha & Ors. vs. State of  

Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 348 and  Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab,  

(2008) 13 SCC 233.   

16. The  above  decisions  of  this  Court  laid  down  the  

proximity  test  i.e.  there  must  be  material  to  show that  “soon  

before  her  death”  the  woman  was  subjected  to  cruelty  or  

harassment “for or in connection with dowry”.  The facts must  

show the existence of a proximate live link between the effect of  

cruelty  based  on  dowry  demand and  the  death  of  the  victim.  

“Soon  before  death”  is  a  relative  term  and  no  strait-jacket  

formula   can  be  laid  down  fixing  any  time-limit.   The  

11

Page 12

determination  of  the  period  which  can  come  within  the  term  

“soon  before  death”  is  left  to  be  determined  by  the  Courts  

depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  

17.  In the light of the above principles, let us consider the  

evidence adduced by the prosecution and examine whether the  

courts below were right in convicting the appellant under Section  

304B IPC.  PW-4 father of the deceased has deposed that after the  

marriage,  Sharanjit Kaur lived happily for about two months and  

thereafter the appellant-Baljinder Kaur asked PW-4 to give gold  

karra as  additional  dowry  and  the  same was  intended  for  the  

husband of the appellant.   PW-4 could not give gold  karra and  

had  taken  back  his  daughter  to  his  house.   After  about  one  

month,  at the request of the in-laws, Sharanjit  Kaur was again  

sent back to the matrimonial house and after about one month  

Sharanjit Kaur again came back with the same demand of gold  

karra.   On 24.8.1997, accused Pritam Singh came and took back  

Sharanjit Kaur to the matrimonial house and the next day i.e. on  

25.8.1997, Sharanjit Kaur died of poisoning. PW-5 Darshan Singh  

had also spoken about the demand of  dowry by the appellant  

after two months of the marriage.  On 25.8.1997, PWs 4 and 5  

12

Page 13

went to the house of the accused and Sharanjit Kaur was found in  

a  critical  condition  and she told  them she was  beaten  by  the  

accused.   

18. From the evidence of  PWs  4  and 5,  it  emerges  that  

about two months after the marriage there was demand of gold  

karra by the appellant and other in-laws.  Learned counsel for the  

appellant  submitted that  excepting this  stray  demand for  gold  

karra,  there  is  no  other  evidence  to  show  that  the  deceased  

Sharanjit  Kaur  was  subjected  to  cruelty  in  connection  with  

demand of  dowry  by the appellant.   It  was submitted  that  an  

isolated instance of demand of dowry about four months prior to  

death cannot be said to constitute proximate live link to the death  

to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC.  

19. In  our  view,  there  is  force  in  the  submission  of  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant.   In  cases  related  to  dowry  

death, the circumstances showing the cruelty or harassment are  

not  restricted  to  a  particular  instance,  but  normally  refer  to  a  

course of conduct.  Such conduct of cruelty or dowry harassment  

must be “soon before death”.    There should be a perceptible  

13

Page 14

nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or  

cruelty inflicted on her.

20. From  the  testimony  of  PW-4,  it  is  evident  that  the  

appellant  demanded  gold  karra two  months  after  the  

solemnization   of  marriage  of  the  deceased  and  the   demand  

was   not   “soon before her death”.  Excepting one stray instance  

of demand of          dowry, there is no material on record to  

connect  the  appellant  with  the  persistent  demand  for  dowry.  

Admittedly, the appellant was married to Jugraj Singh of village  

Diwana about six years prior to the solemnization of marriage of  

Sharanjit  Kaur  with  Pritam Singh.  The  appellant  has  got  three  

children and she lives  in  her  in-law’s  house in  village Diwana.  

DW-2 Nirmal Singh, a resident of village Diwana and neighbour of  

the appellant had stated that the appellant resides in her in-law’s  

house at village Diwana and denied that appellant Baljinder Kaur  

often lives in village Burj Naklian in her father’s house.    

21. There  is  no  evidence  showing  any  persistent  dowry  

demand or the conduct of the appellant subjecting Sharanjit Kaur  

to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry.  About  

twenty days prior to the occurrence, when Sharanjit Kaur went to  14

Page 15

her  father’s  house,  she only  generally  stated  about  the dowry  

demand.   She had not specifically stated about the demand of  

dowry by the appellant.   In  their  evidence PWs 4 and 5 have  

stated that on 25.8.1997, they went to the house of Pritam Singh  

in village Burj Naklian, all the accused except appellant-Baljinder  

Kaur were in the house.  After the alleged demand of gold karra  

two months after the marriage, Sharanjit Kaur went to her house,  

again  came back  to  the  marital  house and again  went  to  her  

father’s house and again came back to the marital house.  In our  

considered  view,  the  alleged demand of  gold  karra about  two  

months  after  the    marriage  cannot  be  said  to  constitute  a  

proximate live link with the death of deceased Sharanjit Kaur and  

the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC cannot be  

sustained.                         

22. Even though there is  no evidence that  the deceased  

was treated with cruelty or  harassment in  connection with the  

demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellant, in our  

view,  evidence on record makes  out  an offence under  Section  

498A IPC. So far as the sentence, the occurrence was of the year  

1997.   The  appellant  is  having  three  grown  up  children.  The  

15

Page 16

appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of about  

fifteen months.   In the facts and circumstances of the case,  for  

the conviction under Section 498A, she is sentenced to undergo  

imprisonment already undergone.

23. In the result, conviction of the appellant under Section  

304B IPC is set aside.  The appellant is convicted under Section  

498A IPC and sentenced to undergo the period already undergone  

by  her.   The  appeal  is  partly  allowed  to  the  extent  indicated  

above.   The  appellant  is  on  bail.   The  bail  bond  shall  stand  

discharged.            

…………………………..J. (T.S. Thakur)

…………………………..J. (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; November 19, 2014  

16