Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.684  OF 2011

DAVINDER SINGH          … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB      … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

This appeal is directed against judgment dated 9th December,  

2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  

in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  471-SB  of  1999  whereby  the  High  Court  

confirmed the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1999 rendered by  

Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in Sessions Case No.14 of 12th May,  

1997.  The  Sessions  Court  by  the  said  judgment  convicted  the  

appellant  u/s  304-B  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-,  

in  default  of  payment  of  fine,  to  further  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a period of 2 months.  

2. Apart from the appellant other family members, namely, Kuldip  

Singh, Darshana Devi and Parveen kaur were also accused before the  

Trial Court. They were acquitted of the charges leveled against  

them against which no appeal was filed by the State. Paramjit Kaur  

and  Swaranjit  Kaur  were  two  other  accused  who  were  juvenile  

therefore their cases were separated.

1

Page 2

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Amarjit Kaur  

(deceased) was married to accused-Davinder Singh (appellant herein)  

6/7 months before the date of occurrence i.e. 3rd March, 1997. Teja  

Singh son of Bachittar Singh was the mediator in arranging the  

marriage. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by  

the parents of Amarjit Kaur as per their status, but after the  

marriage in-laws of Amarjit Kaur started torturing/coercing her to  

bring more dowry. Jaswinder Singh-complainant-brother of Amarjit  

Kaur and Teja Singh-mediator had requested the in-laws of Amarjit  

Kaur not to harass and torture her for dowry but they continued to  

maltreat and harass the deceased.

On  9.2.1997, marriage  of  Jaswinder  Singh,  complainant,  was  

solemnized. Deceased and her husband Davinder Singh had attended  

the marriage. After marriage, Davinder Singh demanded Rs.20,000/-  

from the complainant on the ground that Jaswinder Singh was given  

more dowry than him.  To settle deceased in her in-laws’ house,  

Jaswinder Singh borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- and gave the amount  

to the appellant. But in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied  

and they continued to demand more dowry.  

On 2.3.1997, deceased telephonically informed Jaswinder Singh  

that her in-laws were torturing and harassing her in connection  

with dowry. As per message, Jaswinder Singh and his maternal uncle  

Bhola  Singh  went  to  Budhlada  to  enquire  about  the  welfare  of  

deceased.  The deceased informed them that she was being harassed  

for more dowry by her in-laws.  They came back by saying that on  

2

Page 3

the next day, they will come back with some respectable person to  

settle the dispute.

On 3.3.1997 at about 5.30 PM, Jaswinder Singh, his maternal  

uncle Bhola Singh and Teja Singh went to the house of accused-

Davinder Singh. When they were near the gate of the house, then  

they heard shrieks and screams from the roof.  After entering the  

house when they were going to the roof of the house, they found  

Darshana Devi saying that Amarjit Kaur should not be spared. She  

should be finished.  All of them went to the roof of the house and  

then noticed Kuldip Singh, accused-Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi,  

Parveen Kaur, Paramjit Kaur and Swaranjit Kaur coming to the ground  

through staircase. The dead body of Amarjit Kaur was found in the  

bathroom in a burnt condition. Plastic cane and match box were  

found near the dead body. It is alleged that in-laws of Amarjit  

Kaur  has  murdered  her  by  setting  her  on  fire.  Teja  Singh  was  

deputed to guard the dead body, when Jaswinder Singh and Bhola  

Singh went to lodge report. Rupinder Singh, Sub Inspector met the  

complainant near the crossing of Civil Hospital, Budhalda, where  

statement of Jaswinder Singh (Ex.P.D.) was recorded. After making  

endorsement, statement was forwarded to the Police Station, on the  

basis of which, formal FIR was registered.   On  7.3.1997,  accused  were  arrested.  After  completion  of  

investigation, challans was presented. Accused were charged u/s  

304-B/149 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed  

trial.  

3

Page 4

4. The  prosecution,  in  support  of  its  case,  examined  four  

witnesses. Documentary evidences were also exhibited. Defence also  

examined  seven  witnesses.  After  closure  of  the  prosecution  

evidence, statements of accused were recoded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused  

denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.  

Defence version of the accused-appellant was that he is impotent  

and on account of this reason, Amarjit Kaur was under depression.  

Amarjit Kaur was also harassed by her step mother. Because of these  

reasons, she has committed suicide. Similar plea has been taken by  

the counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment.

5. PW-2 – Jaswinder  Singh  brother  of  the  deceased  stated  that  Amarjit Kaur got married with appellant-Davinder Singh in  

July,  1996.   Kuldeep  Singh,  Darshana  Devi  and  Parveen  are  

respectively father,  mother and  sister of the appellant. Paramjit  

Kaur and Swaranjit  Kaur  are  also  sisters   of   the       appellant. Teja Singh was mediator of marriage of Amarjit Kaur with  

Davinder Singh.  They had spent on marriage of deceased more than  

their capacity.  The relations of deceased with her husband and in  

laws remained cordial for about two months.  Thereafter her in-laws  

started  ill-treating  her  on  one  pretext  or  the  other  that  her  

parents had not given scooter and cloths given were not upto mark.  

The accused were demanding more dowry.  He along with his maternal  

uncle PW-3 Bhola Singh had gone once or twice to house of her in-

laws and requested them that since they are poor people and they  

cannot afford more dowry. But appellant and his family did not  

agree. PW-2’s marriage took place on 9.2.1997 Davinder Singh and  

Amarjit Kaur attended his marriage. After his marriage accused-

4

Page 5

Davinder Singh stated that  complainant had been given more dowry  

than him and demanded money from complainant. The complainant took  

Rs.20,000/- from his uncle and gave it to accused-Davinder Singh.  

However,  the  appellant  was  not  satisfied  and  again  started  

demanding more dowry.  On 2.3.1997, he received telephone call from  

his sister that she is being maltreated by her in-laws on account  

of dowry.  Then PW-2 took his maternal uncle from Goniana and came  

to Budhlada in the house of the accused. The accused demanded more  

money from the complainant. Then PW-2 told the accused that he will  

meet them the next day. On 3.3.1997, PW-2 along with his maternal  

uncle Bhola Singh and mediator Teja Singh reached the house of the  

accused.  When they reached at the gate of the house, they heard  

shrieks upstairs.  When they were just entering the gate, mother-

in-law of the deceased shouted that deceased should be finished  

today.  Then they went upstairs.  When they went on roof Kuldeep  

Singh, Davinder Singh, Darshana Devi, Parveen Kaur, Swaranjit Kaur  

and Paramjit Kaur came down running. They found Amarjit Kaur lying  

dead with burns in bathroom. One plastic cane and match box were  

lying near to her dead body.  Teja Singh was left to guard dead  

body he and his uncle went to the Police Station. Police met them  

near  the  Hospital  where  his  statement  Ex.PD  was  recorded.  

Thereafter the Police came to the house of accused and took into  

possession plastic cane Ex.P3, match box Ex.P4, and ash wrapped in  

cloth Ex.P5 vide memo P.E. which was attested by him. During the  

cross  examination,  PW-2  denied  the  suggestion  that  after  his  

marriage he did not visit Budhlada. He stated that visited there  

5

Page 6

twice or thrice.  However, he could not give the exact date of  

telephone call but stated that she had given call on 10-11 AM and  

on the same day of receiving the telephone he and his uncle went to  

Budhlada.   He  denied  the  suggestion  that  the  accused  had  not  

demanded dowry prior to bhog ceremony of his father.   

6. PW-3 Bhola Singh maternal uncle of Amarjit Kaur stated that  

Amarjit Kaur was married with accused-Davinder Singh about seven  

months prior to her death. Accused-Davinder Singh used to demand  

motor cycle as dowry. The in-laws of deceased used to maltreat her.  

On 2.3.1997 he and his sister’s son (PW-2- complainant) came to the  

house of the accused at Budhlada to see Amarjit Kaur, She told them  

that her in-laws are maltreating her. They left the house telling  

that they will come again with some wise person. They again went on  

3.3.1997 along with Teja Singh to the house of the accused at  

Budhlada. At the gate, they heard shrieks from the roof of the  

house. Then they went running upstairs. When they went upwards,  

they saw Amarjit Kaur lying dead in bathroom with burns all over  

the body.  Plastic cane and match box were found lying near the  

dead-body. The matter was reported to the Police Station.  The  

Police met them in front of Hospital. During the cross-examination  

PW-3 was not in a position to given the exact details of the  

neighbours of the Devinder Singh.  However, for not giving such  

details of the neighbours, the statement of PW-3 cannot be held to  

be untrustworthy.

7. PW-1  Dr.  Kashmir  Singh,  had  conducted  the  post  mortem  

examination. He reported that death was due to asphyxia as a result  

6

Page 7

of 95% to 100% burns which were ante mortem in nature and was  

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The  

probable duration of time that elapsed between the injuries and  

death was immediate and between death and the postmortem was within  

24 hours.  The Ex. P.A. is the copy of the Post Mortem Report.

8. PW-4  Rupinder  Kumar,  Sub  Inspector  is  the  investigating  

officer. He also deposed about recovery of plastic cane and match  

box from the house of the accused.

9. Section 304B IPC relates to dowry death and reads as follows:

“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  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 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 imprisonment for a term  which  shall not be  less  than  seven  years  but  which  may  extend  to  imprisonment for life.”

10. For the purpose of the said Section, a presumption can be  

raised only on proof of the following essentials:

(a) Death of woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury  or not under normal circumstances.

(b) The said death  have occurred within  seven years of her  marriage

7

Page 8

 (c) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by  her husband or his   relatives.

 (d) Such cruelty or harassment was  for, or in  connection with, any demand for dowry and

 (e) She was  meted out with such cruelty or harassment was  soon before her death.

In this connection, we may refer this Court decision in  Kaliaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.

11. In the case of Hira Lal  & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT),  

Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, this Court considered the expression  

“before death” used in the Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B  

of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:

“8. Section 304-B IPC which deals with dowry death,  reads as follows:

“304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a wo- man 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 imprisonment for a term which shall not be less  than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment  for life.”

The provision has application when 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 relatives of her hus- band for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.  In order to attract application of Section 304-B IPC,  the essential ingredients are as follows:

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

8

Page 9

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

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or  harassment by her husband or any relative of her hus- band.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should 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.

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant  for the case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Sec- tion 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted  earlier by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of  1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of  dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows:

“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 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.

Explanation.—For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in Sec- tion 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has  been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in  its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on “Dowry Deaths and  Law Reform”. Keeping in view the impediment in the  pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry- related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to  insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry  death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this  background  that  presumptive  Section  113-B  in  the  Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition  of “dowry death” in Section 304-B IPC and the wording  in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act,  one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in  both the provisions is that the woman concerned must  have  been  “soon  before  her  death”  subjected  to  cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the  demand of dowry”. Presumption under Section 113-B is  a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials men- tioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to  raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry  death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof  of the following essentials:

(1) The question before the court must be whether  the accused has committed the dowry death of the wo- man. (This means that the presumption can be raised  

9

Page 10

only if the accused is being tried for the offence  under Section 304-B IPC.)

(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harass- ment by her husband or his relatives.

(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for or in con- nection with any demand for dowry.

(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her  death.”

12. In the present case, from the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it  

is clear that the death took place within seven months of marriage.  

Admittedly, death of the deceased was due to burn i.e. not in nor-

mal circumstances.  We have to see now whether the remaining ingre-

dients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record.  

13. The statements of the PW-2 and PW-3 are specific as they were  

eye witnesses. In their statements they specifically stated about  

the harassment in connection with demand of dowry.  Deceased died  

within seven months of marriage. She also telephonically complained  

about harassment. The Prosecution thus proved that there was ha-

rassment in connection with dowry soon before death of the victim.  

14. In view of the evidence on record, as discussed above, we hold  

that the prosecution was successful to prove the ingredients of  

Section 304-B IPC. The Trial Court rightly presumed that the  

accused had caused the dowry death of the victim.  

15. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly  

dismissed. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody  

forthwith to serve remainder period of sentence. His bail bonds  

stand cancelled.

………………………………………………………………………J.

10

Page 11

             (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………………………………………J. (S.A. BOBDE)    

NEW DELHI, JULY 2, 2014.

11