MAJOR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI,AMITAVA ROY
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001145-001145 / 2012
Diary number: 3000 / 2012
Advocates: CHANDER SHEKHAR ASHRI Vs
KULDIP SINGH
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145/2012
MAJOR SINGH & ANR. ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.S-1029-SB of 1998
whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction of the
appellants under Section 304B IPC and the sentence of
imprisonment of seven years imposed on each of them.
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as
under: PW1–Sukhdev Singh’s daughter Karamjit Kaur was
married to accused Jagsir Singh son of Major Singh Jatt
appellant No.1, resident of Badiala about 21/2 years back. Case
Page 2
2
of the prosecution is that Karamjit Kaur’s husband and her in-
laws harassed his daughter in connection with demand of
dowry. Deceased Karamjit Kaur informed PW1-Sukhdev Singh
several times about the ill-treatment and harassment meted
out to her and the demand of scooter raised by the accused.
PW1–Sukhdev Singh reported that on 10.8.1996 at about 10.00
a.m., he went to village Badiala to enquire about the well-
being of his daughter and when he reached there he
witnessed that Jagsir Singh, his father-Major Singh, his mother–
Mohinder Kaur and his sister–Golo @ Jaspal Kaur all were
dragging his daughter Karamjit Kaur towards the ‘subat’ while
she was struggling to breathe. On seeing PW1–Sukhdev Singh
and his son PW3-Manga Singh, the accused persons ran away
and Karamjit Kaur breathed her last. PW1 informed Panchayat
that accused persons gave poison to his daughter in greed of
getting more dowry. Complainant left PW3–Manga Singh to
guard the dead body of his daughter and went back to his
village Balianwali and gave information about the unnatural
death of his daughter to his family and Panchayat. He gave
his statement to Kirpal Singh Sub Inspector of Police -PW6. On
the basis of statement of PW1–Sukhdev Singh, F.I.R No.81
Page 3
3
dated 14.8.1996 was registered under Section 304B and 498A
IPC against the accused persons. PW6 had taken up the
investigation and conducted inquest and recorded statement
of witnesses. He sent the body of deceased–Karamjit Kaur for
autopsy. After investigation, the accused persons were charge-
sheeted for offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A
IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
3. To bring home the guilt of the accused in the trial
court, prosecution has examined nine witnesses and three
defence witnesses. The accused were questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and
the evidence and the accused denied all of them. In his
statement, appellant–Major Singh stated that none of them
knew how to drive a scooter and therefore question of demand
of the scooter did not arise. He further stated that PW1–
Sukhdev Singh owned only 2 acres of land and having a large
family of eight members, he was not in a position to give
anything and therefore there was no question of demand of
dowry.
4. The trial court vide judgment dated 27.11.1998
Page 4
4
convicted and sentenced the accused Jagsir Singh (husband),
Major Singh (father-in-law), Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law)
under Section 304B IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.500/- each with default clause. The trial court, however,
gave benefit of doubt to accused Golo @ Jaspal Kaur (sister of
Jagsir Singh) and acquitted her and also acquitted all the
accused under Section 498A IPC.
5. Aggrieved by their conviction, appellants
approached the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal
before the High Court, Jagsir Singh (husband of the deceased)
died and appeal against Jagsir Singh abated and appeal
survived qua the appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in-
law. High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2010
confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B
IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed on each of them.
Aggrieved by the same, appellants who are father-in-law and
mother-in-law are before this Court assailing the correctness of
the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 father and brother of the
Page 5
5
deceased cannot be relied upon as both are interested
witnesses. It was submitted that absolutely there is no
evidence to establish that the deceased was subjected to
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and
in the absence of proof of essential ingredients of Section 304B
IPC, courts below erred in convicting the appellants. It was
further submitted that the daughter of the deceased who is
now 18 years of age is under the care and protection of the
appellants and that they are the only persons to take care of
the daughter of the deceased.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
contended that deceased–Karamjit Kaur died in connection
with demand of dowry within 21/2 years of marriage. It was
contended that even though PWs 1 and 3 are father and
brother of the deceased, their evidence is consistent and
credible and amply establishes that she was subjected to
harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry
and based on their evidence, courts below rightly convicted
the appellants under Section 304B IPC and the concurrent
findings cannot be interfered with.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions
Page 6
6
and perused the evidence on record and the impugned
judgment.
9. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the
following essential ingredients are to be established:-
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’
(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 husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
10. If any death is caused in connection with dowry
demand, Section 113B of the Evidence Act also comes into
play. Both these Sections 304B IPC and Section 113B of the
Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition
(Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the
increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B reads as
follows:-
“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 cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
Page 7
7
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).”
It is imperative to note that both these sections set out a
common point of reference for establishing guilt of the
accused person under Section 304B, which is “the woman
must have been ‘soon before her death’ subjected to cruelty or
harassment ‘for or in connection with the demand of dowry’”.
11. It is not disputed that Karamjit Kaur died on
14.8.1996. Further fact that she died due to organo
phosphorus poisoning is also not disputed. Now looking into
the evidence on record, we have to see whether death of
Karamjit Kaur occurring within seven years of marriage is due
to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry
and whether there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged
harassment and death.
12. PW1–Sukhdev Singh, father of the deceased, has
stated that after marriage his daughter Karamjit Kaur was
being ill-treated and subjected to cruelty in connection with
demand of dowry and that the accused were demanding
scooter and that his daughter used to complain about the ill-
Page 8
8
treatment by the accused. PW1–Sukhdev Singh further stated
that he informed the conduct of the accused demanding dowry
to the village Panchayat and that he took Panchayat to village
Badiala and thereafter he left his daughter at the house of the
accused about one week prior to the occurrence. PW3–Manga
Singh, brother of the deceased, had also spoken about the
demand of dowry and that the accused had been ill-treating
his sister in connection with demand of dowry and that they
were demanding a scooter.
13. Prosecution has not examined any independent
witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was demand
of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment.
Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being
committed within the four corners of a house and normally
direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman
by her husband or relatives of the husband is not available.
But when PW3 has specifically stated that the demand of
dowry by the accused was informed to the Panchayatdars and
that Panchayat was taken to the village Badiala, the alleged ill-
treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur by her husband or
relatives could have been proved by examination of the
Page 9
9
Panchayatdars. The fact that deceased was subjected to
harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is
not proved by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that
both the courts below have acquitted all the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.
14. Insofar as the occurrence on 14.08.1996, PWs 1 and
3 have stated that they saw the accused dragging Karamjit
Kaur towards a room inside the house and that Karamjit Kaur
was trembling and on seeing PWs 1 and 3, all the four accused
persons ran away and after taking last breath Karamjit Kaur
expired. Subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises serious
doubts about their presence in the house of the accused at the
time of occurrence and witnessing accused dragging
deceased–Karamjit Kaur. That PWs 1 and 3 have not raised
any alarm nor tried to chase the accused and that PW1 did not
inform anyone in the village of the accused looks quite
unnatural. The subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises
doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence and the
prosecution version. But the fact remains that deceased–
Karamjit Kaur died within 21/2 years of marriage otherwise
under normal circumstances. As pointed out earlier, in the
Page 10
10
cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show that “soon
before the occurrence” deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. In the absence of proof that deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death”,
the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.
15. To attract conviction under Section 304B IPC, the
prosecution should adduce evidence to show that “soon before
her death”, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. There must always be proximate and live link
between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and
the concerned death. In the case of Hira Lal & Ors. vs.
State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, in paragraph (9) it
was 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 “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
Page 11
11
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.”
16. Same principle was also expressed in State of A.P.
vs. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 470; Balwant Singh
& Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724, Kaliyaperumal &
Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157; Kamesh
Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC
388; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463;
Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of West
Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 and Narayanamurthy vs. State of
Karnataka & Anr, (2008) 16 SCC 512.
Page 12
12
17. Applying these principles to the instant case, we find
that there is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty
and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry
harassment “soon before her death”. Except the demand of
scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the
allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was
demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the
husband–Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have
demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any
evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or
harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon
before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the
appellants under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. The
trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence
in the light of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC and
the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC is
liable to be set aside.
18. In the result, conviction of the appellants under
Section 304B IPC is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
Appellant No.2–Mohinder Kaur is on bail and her bail bonds
stands discharged. Appellant No.1-Major Singh who is in
Page 13
13
custody is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
…………………..J (T. S. Thakur)
…………………..J (R. Banumathi)
…………………..J (Amitava Roy)
New Delhi; April 8, 2015