Page 1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2008

SUKHWINDER SINGH …APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB     …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. In this appeal judgment and order dated 16/17-05-2007  

passed  by  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  is  under  

challenge.

2. The appellant is original accused no. 4.  He was tried  

along with Gurdev Singh,  Surjit  Kaur and Jaswinder Singh,  

original  accused  nos.  1,  2  and  3  respectively,  by  the

Page 2

Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Trial No. 16  

of 1994 for  offence punishable under Section 304B of the  

IPC.  Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 31/08/1995  

acquitted all  the accused.  The State of Punjab carried an  

appeal from the said order to the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana.   By  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  

16/17-05-2007 the High Court set aside the order of acquittal  

so  far  as  the  appellant  is  concerned.   He  was  convicted  

under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI  

for seven years.  He was directed to pay compensation of  

Rs.20,000/- to the father of the deceased.  In default he was  

directed to suffer RI for one year.  The High Court noted that  

accused no. 1 Gurdev Singh was dead.  So far as accused no.  

2  Surjit  Kaur  and  accused  no.  3  Jaswinder  Singh  are  

concerned, the High Court gave them benefit of doubt and  

confirmed their acquittal.  Being aggrieved by his conviction  

and sentence the appellant has approached this Court.  

Case of the Prosecution

2

Page 3

3. The  appellant  was  married  to  deceased  Karnail  Kaur  

(“the  deceased” or  “Karnail  Kaur”)  in  May,  1989.  

Accused no. 1 Gurdev Singh was his father.  Accused no. 2  

Surjit Kaur is his mother and accused no. 3 Jaswinder Singh  

is his brother.  The prosecution story is unfolded by PW-2  

Labh  Singh,  father  of  the  deceased.   He  stated  that  on  

25/06/1991 he went to meet the deceased to the house of  

the appellant along with PW-3 Surjit  Singh.  The appellant  

who was employed in the Army had come home on leave.  

The deceased was in tears.  She told PW-2 Labh Singh that  

the  appellant  and  the  other  accused  were  demanding  a  

scooter and a refrigerator and that her life was in danger.  

PW-2 Labh Singh told her that he would meet the demand  

after the Sauni Crop.  On 01/07/1991 he was told by Pritam  

Singh, a resident of Dehlon, that Karnail Kaur had died on  

30/06/1991.  On 01/07/1991 when he was proceeding to the  

police station to lodge FIR, he met PW-4 ASI Mohinder Singh,  

who  recorded  his  statement.   PW-4  ASI  Mohinder  Singh  

forwarded  it  to  the  police  station  and  a  formal  FIR  was  

registered  at  P.S.  Samrala  under  Section 304B of  the  IPC  

3

Page 4

against  the  accused.   The  accused  were  arrested.   After  

completion of investigation they were sent up for trial.  

The trial

4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Gurmit Singh, who  

had  conducted  the  post-mortem,  PW-2  Labh  Singh,  PW-3  

Surjit Singh and police witnesses PW-4 ASI Mohinder Singh,  

PW-5 HC Kalmit Singh, PW-6 SI Manminder Singh and PW-7  

Constable  Angrej  Singh.   The  appellant  and  the  other  

accused denied the prosecution case.

The view taken by the trial court

5. The trial court acquitted all the accused on the ground  

that evidence of PW-1 Dr. Gurmit Singh, PW-4 ASI Mohinder  

Singh  and  affidavit  filed  by  PW-7  Constable  Angrej  Singh  

indicate  that  the  case  property,  that  is  the  contents  of  

stomach of the deceased and other material, handed over by  

PW-1  Dr.  Gurmit  Singh  to  him  remained  in  his  personal  

custody  for  one  day  and,  therefore,  the  possibility  of  its  

4

Page 5

tampering  cannot  be  ruled  out.   Therefore,  the  Chemical  

Analyser’s report stating that poison was detected therein  

cannot be relied on.  The trial court also held that there was  

delay in sending special report to the Magistrate from which  

it could be inferred that the FIR was ante timed.  The trial  

court further held that while PW-2 Labh Singh stated that the  

deceased told him about the dowry demand in the room,  

PW-3 Surjit Singh stated that the deceased talked to them in  

the verandah.  Thus, there is variance in their statements.  

Moreover, the deceased could not have told them about the  

dowry demand in the presence of  the accused.   The trial  

court, thus, concluded that the prosecution had not proved  

it’s  case  beyond  reasonable  doubt  and  acquitted  the  

accused.   

The High Court’s view

6. The High Court held that the inference drawn by the  

trial court that the case property might have been tampered  

with  is  without  any  basis.   The  High  Court  held  that  the  

evidence  of  PW-2  Labh  Singh  and  PW-3  Surjit  Singh  

5

Page 6

established that the deceased was subjected to harassment  

for  dowry and that  the time taken to  forward the special  

report to the Magistrate did not make the prosecution case  

suspect.  Taking note of the fact that Karnail Kaur had died  

within seven years of marriage, the High Court convicted the  

appellant  as  aforesaid.   The  High  Court  confirmed  the  

acquittal of mother and brother of the appellant by giving  

them benefit of doubt.  

Submissions of the counsel

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some  

length.  Mr. Vishal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant  

reiterated all the points which the trial court had taken into  

consideration while acquitting the accused which we have  

quoted hereinabove and stated that the High Court erred in  

disturbing  the  trial  court’s  well  reasoned  judgment.   He  

submitted  that  the  trial  court’s  view  was  a  reasonably  

possible  view  which  the  High  Court  should  not  have  

disturbed even if it felt that another view of the matter was  

possible.  Counsel submitted that the deceased was married  

6

Page 7

to the appellant in May, 1989.  PW-2 Labh Singh stated that  

on 25/06/1991 the deceased told him about the harassment  

and demand for dowry.  There is no evidence to show that  

from May,  1989  to  25/06/1991  there  was  harassment  for  

dowry.  Counsel submitted that in the FIR PW-2 Labh Singh  

stated that Pritam Singh told him that Karnail Kaur had died.  

But,  he  improved  his  story  in  the  court  and  stated  that  

Pritam Singh told him on 01/07/1991 that Karnail Kaur had  

been killed a day earlier.  Thus, he is not a reliable witness.  

Counsel pointed out that there is overwriting in the inquest  

report  Exhibit-PC with  the intention to  match it  with  time  

given in the FIR.  Counsel submitted that post-mortem notes  

do  not  show  presence  of  cyanosis.   Therefore,  the  

prosecution  case  that  Karnail  Kaur  died  of  poisoning  is  

doubtful.   In  the  circumstances,  impugned  judgment  

deserves  to  be  set  aside.  Ms.  Anvita  Cowshish,  learned  

counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that the evidence  

of PW-2 Labh Singh and PW-3 Surjit Singh and the Chemical  

Analyser’s report bear out the prosecution story  and hence  

the appeal be dismissed.

7

Page 8

Our view and conclusion

8. Admittedly,  Karnail  Kaur  died  within  seven  years  of  

marriage, therefore, presumptions under Section 304B of the  

IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are  

attracted to  this  case.   It  is  for  the appellant  to  rebut  it,  

which, in our opinion the appellant has failed to do.  

9. We have already noted the gist of PW-2 Labh Singh’s  

evidence.  He has given the details of articles given to the  

appellant  and  his  family  as  dowry  and  stated  that  after  

marriage the attitude of the accused was hostile towards the  

deceased.   Thereafter,  he  has  described  his  visit  to  the  

appellant’s  house  along  with  PW-3  Surjit  Singh  on  

25/06/1991 when the deceased, who was in tears, told him  

about the dowry demand of the accused.  The appellant was  

present there.  PW-3 Surjit Singh, who had accompanied PW-

2 Labh Singh, corroborates PW-2 Labh Singh on this aspect.  

They  are  rustic  witnesses.   Their  evidence  must  be  read  

bearing their simple background in mind.  PW-2 Labh Singh  

had lost his daughter.  Besides, they were deposing in 1994,  

8

Page 9

almost  three  years  after  the  incident.   Hence,  allowance  

must  be  made  for  minor  discrepancies,  if  any,  in  their  

evidence.   In  any  case,  by  and  large,  their  evidence  is  

consistent.   Only discrepancy which is  pointed out  by the  

appellant’s counsel is that while PW-2 Labh Singh stated that  

the deceased told them about the demand in the room, PW-3  

Surjit Singh stated that she talked to them in the verandah.  

Evidence  of  witnesses  cannot  be  rejected  on  such  minor  

inconsistencies.  We also do not find any substance in the  

contention that the deceased could not have talked about  

the  dowry  demand in  the  presence of  the  accused.   The  

deceased appears to have reached a point of desperation.  

She stated that her life was in danger.  It appears that she  

had  no  option  but  to  tell  PW-2  Labh  Singh  about  her  

miserable existence.  One wonders whether she would have  

been allowed to share some moments with the father alone.  

Pertinently,  shortly  thereafter,  she  took  poison.   It  is  not  

correct to say that from the date of marriage till the date of  

incident there was no harassment to the deceased.  PW-2  

Labh Singh stated that after the marriage the attitude of the  

9

Page 10

accused  towards  the  deceased  was  hostile.   Besides,  the  

demand was made on 25/06/1991 and the deceased died on  

01/07/1991.   Thus,  the  harassment  for  dowry  was  soon  

before  the  death  of  Karnail  Kaur,  as  required  by  Section  

304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

10. PW-1  Dr.  Gurmit  Singh  did  the  post-mortem  of  the  

deceased.  The stomach contents were sent to the Chemical  

Analyser.  The finding of the Chemical Analyser reads thus:

“Aluminium phosphate a pesticide was detected in   the  contents  of  exhibit  NO.  1.   Phosphine  a  constituent of aluminium phosphide was detected   in the contents of exhibits No. II and No. III poison   was detected in the contents of exhibit NO. IV”

Thus,  the  deceased  died  of  poisoning.  She  had  

consumed Aluminium Phosphate, a pesticide.  

11. PW-1 Dr. Gurmit Singh is an independent witness.  He  

stated  that  post-mortem  was  conducted  on  01/07/1991.  

There  is  no reason to  disbelieve  him.   He stated that  he  

handed  over  the  case  property  to  PW-7  Angrej  Singh  on  

10

Page 11

01/07/1991.  PW-7 Angrej Singh in his affidavit appears to  

have stated that post-mortem was conducted on 02/07/1991  

and he handed over the case property to PW-4 ASI Mohinder  

Singh on 02/07/1991.  It is contended that since PW-1 Dr.  

Gurmit Singh stated that case property was handed over to  

PW-7 Angrej Singh on 01/07/1991, then, it remained in the  

personal custody of PW-7 Angrej Singh for a day.  Therefore,  

the  case  property  might  have  been  tampered  with.   No  

suggestion  was  put  to  PW-1  Dr.  Gurmit  Singh  that  post-

mortem was not conducted on 01/07/1991.  PW-1 Dr. Gurmit  

Singh has stated that all the parcels were sealed and handed  

over  to  PW-7  Angrej  Singh.   PW-7  Angrej  Singh  has  

confirmed  that  all  the  parcels  were  sealed,  they  were  

deposited  in  Malkhana  and  then  taken  to  the  laboratory.  

There is, therefore, no question of any tampering with the  

case property.  We do not see any foul play in this.  There  

appears to be mistake in giving the dates.  It is too much to  

presume that the doctor and the Chemical Analyser would  

conspire  and  fabricate  a  false  report.   Similarly,  the  

overwriting in the inquest report is inconsequential.  It could  

11

Page 12

be a mere inadvertent  lapse.   It  could also be purposeful  

lapse.   But,  if  such  mistakes  or  lapses  are  given  undue  

importance every criminal case will end in acquittal.  While it  

is true that the police should not involve innocent persons,  

fabricate evidence and obtain convictions, it is equally true  

that cases in which substratum of the prosecution case is  

strong  and  substantiated  by  reliable  evidence,  lapses  in  

investigation  should  not  persuade  the  court  to  reject  the  

prosecution case.  The court with its vast experience should  

be  quick  to  notice  mischief  if  there  is  any.   Incompetent  

prosecuting  agencies  or  prosecuting  agencies  which  are  

driven by extraneous considerations should not be allowed  

to take the court for a ride.  Particularly in offences relating  

to women and children,  which are on rise,  the courts  will  

have to  adopt a pragmatic  approach.   No scope must  be  

given  to  absurd  and  fanciful  submissions.   It  is  true  that  

there can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but,  

unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors  

or lapses.  If  courts get carried away by every mistake or  

lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field  

12

Page 13

day.   The submissions relating to  alleged overwriting and  

discrepancies in timings and dates, therefore, are rejected.

12. We also  do not  find that  time taken to  send special  

report  to  the  Magistrate  has  any  adverse  impact  on  the  

prosecution  case.   The  FIR  was  lodged  promptly  on  

01/07/1991 at 2.10 p.m. after PW-2 Labh Singh got to know  

about  his  daughter’s  death.   It  reached the Magistrate at  

7.00 p.m. on 02/07/1991.  We do not think that in the facts  

of this case this time lag could be termed as delay.  In any  

case, requirement of sending special report to the Magistrate  

is an external check on the working of police agency but not  

in  all  cases  that  delay  will  make  the  prosecution  case  

doubtful.  We do not find any indication in this case from any  

evidence on record that the prosecution case is untrue or  

fabricated.  We reject this submission.

13. The  mother  and  brother  of  the  appellant  have  been  

acquitted by giving them benefit  of  doubt.   So far  as the  

appellant is concerned, the prosecution has established it’s  

13

Page 14

case beyond reasonable doubt.   The trial  court fell  into a  

grave  error  in  acquitting  him.   The  trial  court’s  order  is  

indeed perverse.  The High Court rightly interfered with it.  

The view taken by the High Court, which is confirmed by us,  

is the only possible and correct view in the facts of this case.  

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  The appellant is on bail.  

His bail  bonds stand cancelled.  He shall  surrender before  

the concerned court.  

.…………………………..J. (Ranjana Prakash  

Desai)

.…………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; November 12, 2013.

14