Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 915-916  OF 2008

Kashmir Kaur & Anr.   …Appellants

VERSUS

State of Punjab                 … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. The  appellants  are  aggrieved  of  the  judgment  of  

the  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and   

Haryana  dated  06.04.2005.  At the  very outset  it is  

relevant  to  mention  that  the  second  appellant,   

namely,  Lakha  Singh  also  known  as  Lakhiwinder   

Singh  s/o  Gian  Singh  stated  to  have  died  on   

03.12.2005  as  per  the  death  certificate  enclosed   

along with the special leave  petition papers  and the   

application  filed  on  25.07.2006  in  this  Court.  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        1 of 26  

Page 2

Therefore,  the  special  leave  petition  itself,  which   

was  stated  to  have  been  filed  on  25.07.2006  on  

behalf  of  Lakha  Singh  alias  Lakhiwinder  Singh, has   

become  infructuous.  However,  in  the  criminal  

miscellaneous  petition  for  substitution  application,   

also  filed  on  25.07.2006,  the  first  appellant  has   

made  a  prayer  to  substitute  her  as  the  legal   

representative  of  the  deceased  Lakha  Singh  and   

pursue  his appeal  as  well  in order  to  enable  her to   

get  the  monitory benefits  from the  employer  of the   

deceased  Lakha  Singh  who  was  stated  to  have   

been  employed  in  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  

Board.  In  the  above-stated  background  we  heard   

learned  counsel  for the appellant  as  well as  counsel   

for the State  in these  appeals.

2. The  brief  facts  which  are  required  to  be  stated  are   

that the deceased  Darshana  alias  Darshan  Kaur d/o   

Joginder  Singh  - PW.2  was  married  to  one  Ravail  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        2 of 26  

Page 3

Singh  about  11  months  prior  to  the  date  of  

occurrence.  According  to  PW.2  at  the  time  of  

marriage  he  gave  sufficient  dowry  but  Jagir  Kaur,  

the  mother-in-law  of  the  deceased,  and  the   

accused  were  not  satisfied  with  the  amount  of  

dowry  given  in  marriage.  According  to  the   

prosecution,  there  was  a  demand  for cash  amount   

of Rs.30,000/- apart  from a  stereo  set  and  scooter   

by way of dowry which the deceased  Darshana  was   

compelled to ask and get from her parental house.  

3. Three  days  prior  to  the  occurrence,  the  deceased   

was  stated  to  have  gone  to  her  parental  house,   

met  PW.2  and  requested  him to  arrange  for  the   

cash  amount  of  Rs.30,000/-  in  order  to  fulfill  the   

demand,  when  she  stated  to  have  also  told  PW.2   

that  she  was  being  repeatedly  tortured  at  the   

instance  of  the  accused  in  her  matrimonial  home.  

PW.2 stated  to have  promised  his daughter  that  he   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        3 of 26  

Page 4

would  arrange  for the  money  in three  to  four days   

time  after  harvesting  the  crops  and  that  she  can  

return back to her matrimonial home.  

4. On  03.11.1987,  PW.3  Jagir  Singh  stated  to  have   

witnessed  the  torture  meted  out  to  the  deceased   

Darshana  at  the  hands  of  the  accused  in  the   

morning and  in the evening  he came to know  about   

the death  of the deceased  whose  body was  lying in  

the  Civil  Hospital  at  Taran  Taran.  PW.3  stated  to  

have  met Joginder  Singh (PW.2) at his village  called   

Nandpur  and  informed him about  the  torture  meted   

out  to  his  daughter  in  the  morning  and  the   

subsequent  death  in the  evening. Thereafter, PW.2   

went  to  the  hospital  along  with  PW.3  and  after   

identifying  the  body  of  his  daughter  he  lodged  a  

complaint with the Police Station  Jhabal which came   

to  be  registered  as  FIR No.246/87  Exhibit  PE/2  for  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        4 of 26  

Page 5

offences  under  Section  304B  read  with  34  IPC  as   

well as under Section 498A IPC.  

5. The  complaint  was  registered  as  against  the   

appellant,  her  husband  Lakha  Singh  s/o  of  Gian  

Singh  as  well  as  Jagir  Kaur  alias  Jagire,  mother-in-

law  of the  deceased,  who  in the  meantime  passed   

away.  PW.1  was  the  doctor  who  conducted  the   

postmortem  issued  Exhibit  ‘PA’  the  postmortem  

certificate  under  Exhibit  PA/1  PW.1  stated  to  have   

prepared  a  pictorial  diagram  showing  the  seat  of  

injuries.  He  also  stated  that  stomach  and  its   

contents  along  with a portion of small intestine  with   

its  contents,  a  portion  of  large  intestine  with  its   

contents,  a portion  of liver, spleen  and  kidney were   

handed  over  to  police  along  with  letter  dated   

04.11.1987  addressed  to  Chemical  Examiner,  

Patiala  in  five  Jars  sealed  with  the  seal  bearing   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        5 of 26  

Page 6

impression  ‘KS’ for its report. The Chemical Examiner  

Reports  were  marked as Exhibit ‘PF’ to Exhibit ‘PG’.  

6. PW.5,  the  Sub-Inspector  of  Police  stated  to  have   

recovered  a  letter  from  the  brassier  of  the   

deceased  which  was  marked  as  Exhibit  ‘PH’. There   

were  other  letters  produced  by PW.2  said  to  have   

been  written  by  the  deceased  addressed  to  him  

which were  marked as Exhibit ‘PH’ to ‘PK’.  

7. The  trial  Court  after  detailed  consideration  of  the   

evidence  placed  before  it,  both  oral  as  well  as   

documentary,  found  the  appellant  as  well  as  her   

husband  Lakha  Singh  guilty  of  the  offences  falling  

under  Section  304B read  along  with  34 IPC  as  well   

as  under  Section  498A  IPC.  The  trial  Court  after   

reaching  the  said  finding  convicted  them  for  the   

abovesaid  offences  and  imposed  the  sentence  of  

seven  years  rigorous  imprisonment  each  for  the   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        6 of 26  

Page 7

offence  under  Section  304B  IPC  and  two  years   

rigorous  imprisonment  for the offence  under  Section   

498A IPC apart  from a fine of Rs.1000/- each and  in  

default  to  undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment   

for  three  months.  The  sentences  were  directed  to   

run concurrently.  

8. On the appeal  preferred  by the appellant  as  well as   

her  husband  having  been  rejected  and  the   

conviction and sentence  having been  confirmed, the   

present  appeals  have been  preferred  before  us.  

9. We  heard  Mr. R.K. Kapoor,  learned  counsel  for  the   

appellant  and  Mr. Kuldip  Singh, learned  counsel  for  

the  respondent-State.  We  also  perused  the   

judgment  of  the  trial  Court,  as  well  as,  the  High  

Court  and  the  material  records  placed  before  us.  

Before  dealing  with  the  facts  involved  in  these   

appeals,  we  feel  it  appropriate  to  state  the   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        7 of 26  

Page 8

requirement  of  law  in  regard  to  offences  falling  

under  Sections  304B  and  498A  of  IPC  while   

convicting the  accused  for the  said  offences.  In this   

respect,  it will  be  worthwhile  to  deal  with  some  of   

the  earlier  decisions  of  this  Court  where  the  legal   

principles  in  regard  to  the  abovesaid  provisions   

have  been  dealt  with  and  the  principles  of law  laid  

down  therein.  As  we  are  concerned  with  Sections   

304B and  498A IPC, the  said  provisions  along  with   

Section  113B of the  Evidence  Act are  relevant.  The   

same are extracted  hereinunder:

“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   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        8 of 26  

Page 9

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.

498A.  Husband or  relative  of  husband of  a  woman subjecting 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, “cruelty” means-

(a) any  willful conduct  which  is of such  a  nature  as  is  likely  to  derive  the   woman  to  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  any unlawful  demand  for  any property or valuable  security or is  on  account  of  failure  by  her  or  any  person  related  to  her  to  meet  such  demand.

113B. 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  has  been  subjected  by such person  to   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        9 of 26  

Page 10

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 section  304B of the Indian Penal   Code  (45 of 1860).”

10. As  regards  the  principles  concerning  the  above   

referred  to  provisions  we  wish  to  refer  to  the   

decisions  reported  in K. Prema S. Rao and another  

V. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others - (2003) 1 SCC  

217,  Kaliyaperumal and another V. State of Tamil  

Nadu –  (2004)  9  SCC  157,  Devilal V.  State  of  

Rajasthan – (2007) 14 SCC 176, and  Ashok Kumar  

V. State of Haryana – (2010) 12 SCC 350.  

11. In  K. Prema S.  Rao  (supra)  it  has  been  held  as   

under in paragraph  16:

“……To attract  the  provisions  of  Section  304-B  IPC, one  of the  main ingredients  of the  offence   which  is  required  to  be  established  is  that   “soon  before  her death”  she  was  subjected  to   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        10 of 26  

Page 11

cruelty and harassment  “in connection  with the   demand for dowry”.”……

12. In  Kaliyaperumal (supra)  paragraph  5  is  relevant   

for our purpose  which reads  as under:

5. 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 the “death  occurring otherwise  than   in  normal  circumstances”.  The  expression   “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 in 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   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        11 of 26  

Page 12

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  who  has   received  the goods  knowing  them to be stolen,   unless  he  can  account  for his  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  life  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.”

13. In  Devilal (supra) the  ingredients  of the  provisions   

of  Section  304B  as  laid  down  in  Harjit  Singh V.  

State  of  Punjab  –  (2006)  1  SCC  463  and  Ram  

Badan Sharma V.  State of Bihar  – (2006) 10  SCC  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        12 of 26  

Page 13

115  have  been  clearly  set  out  in  paragraph  20  

which reads  as under:

“The  question,  as  to  what  are  the  ingredients   of the  provisions  of Section  304-B of the  Penal   Code  is  no  longer  res  integra.  They  are:  (1)  that  the  death  of  the  woman  was  caused  by  any  burns  or  bodily  injury  or  in  some   circumstances  which were  not  normal; (2) such  death  occurs  within  7  years  from the  date  of  her marriage; (3) that the victim was  subjected   to  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband  or  any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or  harassment  should  be for or in connection  with   the  demand  of dowry; and  (5) it is established   that  such  cruelty  and  harassment  was  made   soon  before  her  death.  (See  Harjit  Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab  and  Ram  Badan  Sharma  v.  State  of Bihar).”

14. In  Ashok Kumar, to  which  one  of  us  was  a  party  

(Hon’ble  Dr. Justice  B.S. Chauhan),  paragraphs  19,  

20,  21  and  23  are  relevant  for  our  purpose  which   

read as under:

“19. We  have  already  referred  to  the   provisions  of  Section  304-B of  the  Code  and   the  most  significant  expression  used  in  the   section is “soon  before  her death”. In our view,   the expression  “soon  before  her death”  cannot   be  given  a  restricted  or  a  narrower  meaning.  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        13 of 26  

Page 14

They  must  be  understood  in  their  plain  language  and  with  reference  to  their  meaning   in common  parlance.  These  are  the  provisions   relating  to  human  behaviour  and,  therefore,   cannot  be  given  such  a  narrower  meaning,  which  would  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  the   provisions  of  the  Act.  Of  course,  these  are   penal  provisions  and  must  receive  strict  construction.  But,  even  the  rule  of  strict  construction  requires  that  the  provisions  have   to  be  read  in  conjunction  with  other  relevant   provisions  and  scheme  of the  Act. Further,  the   interpretation  given  should  be  one  which  would  avoid  absurd  results  on  the  one  hand   and  would  further  the  object  and  cause  of the   law so enacted  on the other.

20. We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the   concept  of  reasonable  time is the  best  criteria   to be  applied  for appreciation  and  examination   of  such  cases.  This  Court  in  Tarsem  Singh v.  State of Punjab, held  that  the  legislative  object   in providing such a radius  of time by employing   the  words  “soon  before  her  death”  is  to  emphasise  the  idea  that  her  death  should,  in  all  probabilities,  has  been  the  aftermath  of  such  cruelty  or  harassment.  In  other  words,   there  should  be  a  reasonable,  if  not  direct,  nexus  between  her  death  and  the  dowry- related  cruelty or harassment  inflicted on her.

21. Similar view was  expressed  by this Court in  Yashoda v.  State  of  M.P.,  where  this  Court   stated  that  determination  of  the  period  would   depend  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  a   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        14 of 26  

Page 15

given  case.  However,  the  expression  would   normally imply that  there  has  to be reasonable   time gap  between  the  cruelty inflicted  and  the   death  in question.  If this  is so,  the  legislature   in its  wisdom would  have  specified  any  period   which  would  attract  the  provisions  of  this   section.  However,  there  must  be  existence  of  proximate  link  between  the  acts  of  cruelty  along with the demand of dowry and the death   of  the  victim. For  want  of  any  specific  period,  the  concept  of  reasonable  period  would  be   applicable.  Thus,  the  cruelty,  harassment  and   demand  of  dowry  should  not  be  so  ancient,   whereafter, the couple and the family members   have  lived  happily  and  that  it  would  result  in  abuse  of  the  said  protection.  Such demand  or  harassment  may  not  strictly  and  squarely  fall  within  the  scope  of  these  provisions  unless   definite  evidence  was  led  to  show  to  the   contrary. These  matters, of course, will have  to   be examined  on the  facts  and  circumstances  of  a given case.

23. The  Court  cannot  ignore  one  of  the   cardinal principles  of criminal jurisprudence  that   a  suspect  in  the  Indian  law  is  entitled  to  the   protection  of  Article  20  of  the  Constitution  of  India  as  well  as  has  a  presumption  of  innocence  in  his  favour.  In  other  words,  the   rule of law  requires  a person  to be  innocent  till  proved  guilty. The concept  of deeming fiction is  hardly applicable  to  the  criminal jurisprudence.   In  contradistinction  to  this  aspect,  the   legislature  has  applied  the  concept  of deeming   fiction  to  the  provisions  of  Section  304-B.  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        15 of 26  

Page 16

Where  other  ingredients  of  Section  304-B are   satisfied,  in  that  event,  the  husband  or  all  relatives  shall  be  deemed to  have  caused  her  death.  In  other  words,  the  offence  shall  be   deemed  to  have  been  committed  by  fiction  of  law. Once  the  prosecution  proves  its case  with   regard  to the  basic ingredients  of Section  304- B, the  Court  will presume  by deemed  fiction  of  law  that  the  husband  or  the  relatives   complained  of,  has  caused  her  death.  Such  a   presumption  can  be  drawn  by  the  Court   keeping  in view  the  evidence  produced  by the   prosecution  in  support  of  the  substantive   charge  under Section 304-B of the Code.

15. The  decision  in  Ashok  Kumar (supra)  was   

subsequently  followed  in  Pathan Hussain Basha V.  

State of A.P. - JT 2012  (7) SC 432, to  which  again   

one  of  us  was  a  party  (Hon’ble  Mr. Justice  Fakkir  

Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla).

16. From  the  above  decisions  the  following  principles   

can be culled out:

(a) To attract the provisions  of Section 304B IPC   the  main  ingredient  of  the  offence  to  be   established  is that  soon  before  the  death  of  the  deceased  she  was  subjected  to  cruelty  

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        16 of 26  

Page 17

and  harassment  in  connection  with  the   demand of dowry.

(b) The  death  of  the  deceased  woman  was   caused  by any burn or bodily injury or some   other circumstance which was  not normal.

(c) Such  death  occurs  within  seven  years  from  the date  of her marriage.

(d) That  the  victim was  subjected  to  cruelty  or  harassment  by  her  husband  or  any  relative   of her husband.

(e) Such cruelty or harassment  should  be  for or  in connection with demand of dowry.

(f) It  should  be  established  that  such  cruelty  and  harassment  was  made  soon  before  her  death.

(g) The  expression  (soon  before)  is  a  relative   term  and  it  would  depend  upon   circumstances  of  each  case  and  no  straightjacket formula can be laid down  as to  what  would  constitute  a  period  of  soon   before  the occurrence.

(h) 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  113B  of  the   Evidence Act.  

(i) Therefore,  the  expression  “soon  before”   would  normally imply that  the interval should   not  be  much between  the  concerned  cruelty  or  harassment  and  the  death  in  question.   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        17 of 26  

Page 18

There  must  be  existence  of  a  proximate  or  life  link between  the  effect  of  cruelty  based   on dowry demand  and  the  concerned  death.   In  other  words,  it  should  not  be  remote  in  point  of  time  and  thereby  make  it  a  stale   one.

(j) However,  the  expression  “soon  before”   should not be given a narrow  meaning which  would  otherwise  defeat  the  very purpose  of  the provisions  of the Act and should  not lead   to absurd results.  

(k) Section  304B is an  exception  to  the  cardinal   principles  of  criminal  jurisprudence  that  a   suspect  in the  Indian  Law  is  entitled  to  the   protection  of  Article  20  of  the  Constitution,   as  well as, a presumption  of innocence  in his   favour.  The  concept  of  deeming  fiction  is  hardly  applicable  to  criminal  jurisprudence   but  in  contradistinction  to  this  aspect  of  criminal  law,  the  legislature  applied  the   concept  of  deeming  fiction  to  the  provisions   of Section 304B.

(l) Such  deeming  fiction  resulting  in  a  presumption  is,  however,  a  rebuttable   presumption  and  the  husband  and  his   relatives, can, by leading their defence  prove   that  the  ingredients  of  Section  304B  were   not satisfied.

(m) The  specific significance  to  be  attached  is to   the  time  of  the  alleged  cruelty  and   harassment  to  which  the  victim  was   subjected  to,  the  time  of  her  death  and   whether  the  alleged  demand  of  dowry  was   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        18 of 26  

Page 19

in  connection  with  the  marriage.  Once  the   said  ingredients  were  satisfied  it  will  be   called  dowry death  and  by deemed  fiction of  law  the  husband  or  the  relatives  will  be   deemed  to have committed that offence.

17. Keeping  the  above  principles  in  mind,  when  we   

examine  the  case  on  hand,  we  find  the  following   

uncontroverted  facts:

(i) The death  of the deceased  occurred 11 months   after  her  marriage  thereby  the  main  condition   prescribed  under  Section  304B, namely, within   seven  years of the marriage  was  fulfilled.  

(ii) The  death  of  the  deceased  was  not  normal  as  evidenced  by  the  version  of  PW.1   postmortem  doctor,  the  postmortem  certificate  and  also  Exhibit ‘PG’, the  report  of  Chemical Examiner.

(iii) The  evidence  of  PWs.2  and  3  read  along   with  Exhibit  ‘PH’  to  ‘PK’  disclose  that  there   was  a  demand  for  payment  of  cash  of  Rs.30,000/-  apart  from a  stereo  set  and  a  scooter.

(iv) According  to PW.2, father  of the  deceased  3  to  4 days  prior  to  the  unfortunate  death  of  the  deceased  his  daughter  came  to  his  house  and  expressed  her  dire  need  for  payment  of Rs.30,000/- as  demanded  by her  in-laws  and  that  she  was  being  harassed  on   that score.

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        19 of 26  

Page 20

(v) The evidence  of PW.3  was  to the  effect  that   on  the  date  of  the  death  of  the  deceased,   namely, 03.11.1987 he happened  to witness   the  torture  meted  out  to  the  deceased  at   the hands  of her in-laws.

(vi) Though  on behalf of the  appellant  and  other   accused  certain  witnesses  were  examined   by  way  of  defence,  both  the  trial  Court  as   well  as  the  Appellate  Court  have  noted  that   nothing  concrete  was  brought  out  to  show   that  the  evidence  led  on  the  side  by  the   prosecution  through  PWs.1  to 3 were  in any   way contradicted.   

18. On  behalf  of  the  appellant,  it  was  contended  that   

Exhibit  ‘PK’  which  was  stated  to  have  been   

recovered  by  PW.5,  Sub-Inspector  of  Police,  from  

the brassier  of the deceased  was  not proved  to the   

satisfaction  of the  Court.  For the  sake  of argument   

even  if such  a  contention  can  be  accepted  and  the   

said  Exhibit  ‘PK’  is  eschewed  from  consideration   

there  were  other  exhibits  such  as  Exhibits  ‘PH’  to   

‘PK’ which  were  all letters  written  by the  deceased   

addressed  to  PW.2  her  father  which  were  written   

prior  to  her  death  and  were  sent  by post.  It is not   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        20 of 26  

Page 21

in  dispute  and  as  noted  by  the  trial  Court,  those   

exhibits  bore  the  postal  stamp  impressions  with   

relevant  dates  mentioned  therein.  Though  DW.3  a  

document  expert  was  examined  to show  that  there   

was  a variation in the hand-writing of the deceased   

as  between  the  admitted  one  and  those  found  in  

Exhibits ‘PH’, ‘PK’ and ‘PJ’, he himself admitted  in the   

cross-examination  that  some  variation  in the  hand-

writing can occur with the passage  of time after the   

learning  stage  and  also  at  the  old  age  or  due  to   

clinical  or  any  disease  or  accident  which  affect  the   

muscular control of the person  while writing a letter.  

To  yet  another  question,  he  also  admitted  that  it  

was  correct  that  the  portion  of  the  disputed   

signatures  ‘Q1’ to ‘Q3’ which may read  as  Darshana   

is  similar  to  the  corresponding  words  of  standard   

signature  ‘A1’. Therefore,  it will be  highly unsafe  to   

rely upon  the  evidence  of DW.3 in order  to  exclude   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        21 of 26  

Page 22

the  letters  said  to  have  been  written  by  the   

deceased  to her father.  

19. The trial Court  having  examined  Exhibits  ‘PH’ to  ‘PJ’  

found  that  the  alleged  harassment  at  the  hands  of  

the  in-laws  of the  deceased  immediately before  her   

death  was  true. Before  us nothing  was  pointed  out   

to  hold  that  the  said  conclusion  was  perverse  or  

was  there  any illegality or irregularity. The evidence   

of  PW.1  doctor,  who  conducted  the  postmortem,  

has  stated  in  his  evidence  that  as  per  his  report   

Exhibit  ‘PA’  the  following  antemortem  injuries  and   

other  abnormalities  were  found  on  the  body  of the   

deceased:

“Six  abrasions  varying  from  0.5  cm to  1  cm  were  present  on  the  left  side  of  the  cheek,  2  cm away  from the  angle  of  the  mouth.  Larynx  and  trachea  showed  congestion  and  blood   stained  froth was  present.  Right and  left lungs   were  congested  and  frothy  material  was   coming out  of lung after  squeezing.  Blood  from  the  heart  was  sent  for  chemical  examination.   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        22 of 26  

Page 23

Mouth pharynx and essofigus  did not show  any  abnormality.  But  blood  stained  froth  was   present.  Stomach  and  its  contents  were  sent   to  the  C/Examiner  for  the  Chemical  Examination”

20. In  the  cross-examination,  PW.3  stated  that  the   

mouth  of the  deceased  girl was  swollen  and  there   

were  other  injuries  on  other  parts  of  her  body.  

Along  with  Exhibit  ‘PF’  the  Chemical  Examiner   

covering  letter  Exhibit  ‘PG’  made  it  clear  that   

although  no poison  was  found  in the  viscera, there   

were  causes  or reasons  for non-detection  of poison   

such  as  the  poison  having  been  excreted  from the   

body,  detoxicated,  matabolised  by  the  system  or  

the  poison  being  such  as  test  for the  same  do  not   

exist  in  view  of  countless  number  of  poisons.  He  

also  opined  “the  circumstantial  evidence  goes  a  

long  way  to  prove  the  facts  of the  case  regardless   

of  the  report  indicating  that  the  no  poison  was   

found”.  “From  postmortem  findings  and  police   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        23 of 26  

Page 24

history  it  appears  that  death  has  occurred  due  to  

some poison”.  

21. In  Exhibits  ‘PH’  and  ‘PJ’  it  was  clearly  mentioned   

that  the  deceased  was  harassed  from last  night,  

namely,  02.11.1987  and  her  miserable  condition   

was  created  at  the  instance  of  her  mother-in-law,   

wife  of her husband’s  brother, the  appellant  herein   

and  the  brother  himself,  namely,  second  accused,   

who  is no more. In Exhibit ‘PJ’ she  while referring to   

such  harassment  meted  out  to  her  by her  mother-

in-law,  brother-in-law  and  his  wife  also  mentioned   

about  the  demands  made  by  them,  namely,  cash,   

scooter  and other articles.  

22. All the  above  factors  clearly  established  the  legal   

requirements  for  an  offence  falling  under  Sections   

304B  and  498A  IPC  with  the  aid  of  Section  113B  

were  conclusively  proved  and  the  conviction  and   

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        24 of 26  

Page 25

sentence  imposed,  therefore,  do  not  call  for  

interference.  

23. The appellant  Kashmir Kaur is on bail.  The bail bond   

stands  cancelled  and  she  shall  be  taken  into  custody   

forthwith  to serve  out  the  remaining  part  of sentence,  if  

any.  The  appeal  so  far  as  appellant  No.1  is  concerned   

stands  dismissed.

24. The  appeal  so  far  as  appellant  No.2  i.e.  accused   

Lakha  Singh  @ Lakhiwinder  Singh  is concerned,  as  held   

by  us  in  the  opening  part  of  this  judgment  stands   

dismissed  as  having  become  infructuous  even  at  the   

time it came to  be  filed.  Accordingly, the  application  for  

substitution also  stands  dismissed.

     …..……….……………………………..J.

                 [Dr.B.S. Chauhan]

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        25 of 26  

Page 26

  …………….………………………………J.            [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; December 12, 2012

  Criminal Appeal No(s).915-916 of 2008                                                                                        26 of 26