Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2009

Karan Singh & Anr.                            …..Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana                            … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question before us is whether the appellants are guilty  

of an offence punishable under Section 304-B or under Section  

306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, they are guilty  

of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

The facts 2. Manju and her sister PW-5 Sunita,  were married on 17th  

May, 1993 to Satbir and his brother Sukhbir respectively.  PW-4  Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 1 of 14

Page 2

Ram Kishan,  the father of the two brides spent a considerable  

amount on the wedding, beyond his means, and also gave several  

articles in dowry.  However, the parents of Satbir and Sukhbir that  

is Karan Singh (father) and Mukhtiari (mother) were apparently  

not satisfied with the dowry.

3. According to the prosecution Karan Singh and Mukhtiari  

would often harass and beat Manju and Sunita and demand some  

more dowry.   It  was  alleged that  Manju  and Sunita  were  also  

turned out from their matrimonial home on some occasions.

4. Sometime in August, 1994 Manju gave birth to a baby boy  

and  her  father  Ram  Kishan  again  spent  some  money  on  the  

occasion and gave gifts.  Unfortunately, however, within ten days  

thereafter  Manju  and  Sunita  were  turned  out  from  their  

matrimonial  home.  They informed Ram Kishan that they were  

being harassed and demands were being made for dowry.  On  

this,  Ram Kishan  called  and  spoke  to  Satbir  and  Sukhbir  and  

persuaded  them  to  take  Manju  and  Sunita  back  in  their  

matrimonial  home,  which  they  did.  However,  according  to  the  

prosecution there was no change in the behaviour of Karan Singh  

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 2 of 14

Page 3

and Mukhtiari.

5. At this stage, it may be noted that Manju and Sunita made  

no  allegations  regarding  dowry  demands  by  their  respective  

husband.  The demand for dowry and allegations of harassment  

were made only against Karan Singh and Mukhtiari.

6. On  or  about  10th December,  1995  Sunita  was  given  a  

beating and turned out of the matrimonial home.  However, Manju  

stayed back in the matrimonial home in village Raiya.

7. On  13th December,  1995  at  about  4.00  p.m.  Manju  

consumed or was made to consume some poison.  She was then  

taken to the Community Health Centre in Jhajjar and thereafter  

referred to the Medical College and Hospital (MCH) at Rohtak.

8. At about 6.30 p.m. on 13th December, 1995 a rukka (Exh.  

PL) was sent by the Community Health Centre at Jhajjar to the  

Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhajjar.

9. Manju was taken to the MCH at Rohtak by her husband  

Satbir  and  was  examined  at  about  8.15  p.m.   The  doctor  in  

Rohtak then sent another rukka (Exh. PH) to the Police Post, MCH  

at Rohtak at about 9.30 p.m. along with a medico-legal report.

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 3 of 14

Page 4

10. PW-9 ASI Raj Kumar, the Investigating Officer had, in the  

meanwhile,  received the first rukka (Exh. PL) but since he was  

busy in connection with another case, he went the next day on  

14th December,  1995  at  about  8.00  a.m.  to  Rohtak  where  he  

picked up the rukka (Exh. PH) and the medico-legal report from  

the  concerned  Police  Post  in  Rohtak.   He  then  went  to  the  

emergency ward in the MCH and learnt that at about 2.00 a.m.  

(early  morning  of  14th December,  1995)  Manju  had  expired.  

According to Raj Kumar no one from her family was present at the  

spot and therefore the dead body was placed in the dead house.  

Raj  Kumar  conducted  inquest  proceedings  on  14th and  15th  

December,  1995.  During  the  inquest  proceedings  on  15th  

December, 1995 Ram Kishan met Raj Kumar at Rohtak and his  

formal  statement was recorded only at  about 5.30 p.m.  and a  

First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 304-B  

of the Indian Penal Code.

11. After carrying out investigations Raj Kumar arrested Karan  

Singh and Mukhtiari on 26th December, 1995 and subsequently a  

charge sheet was filed against them alleging offences punishable  

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 4 of 14

Page 5

under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.

Decision of the Trial Court 12. The Trial  Judge hearing the case delivered his judgment  

and order on 12th February, 1997 and acquitted Karan Singh and  

Mukhtiari.   The  two  principal  grounds  on  which  they  were  

acquitted were that there was an unexplained delay in lodging  

the FIR.  It was held that Manju’s mother PW-6 Vidya Devi and her  

sister  Sunita  had  come to  know on  14th December,  1995  that  

Manju had died but the FIR was registered by Ram Kishan only on  

15th December, 1995. In view of the unexplained delay, the case  

of the prosecution was liable to fail.   

13. It  was  held  that  the  inquest  report  showed  that  Ram  

Kishan had met Raj Kumar on 14th December, 1995.  However, we  

have seen the inquest report and find this is factually incorrect.   

14. The  second  ground  on  which  the  Trial  Judge  acquitted  

Karan Singh and Mukhtiari was that there was nothing to show  

that soon before her death, Manju was subjected to cruelty and  

harassment for or in connection with a demand of dowry.  It was  

held  that  Manju  had  died  under  circumstances  that  were  not  

normal  and her  death had occurred within  seven years  of  her  Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 5 of 14

Page 6

marriage but there was no evidence of her being harassed for  

dowry. She had not sent any letter to her parents complaining of  

dowry harassment.    

15. The Trial Judge also relied on the statement of DW-2 Badlu  

aged about 75 years and a respectable person of village Raiya  

that both Manju and Sunita were treated with love and affection  

and  there  was  no  demand  for  dowry  from  Karan  Singh  or  

Mukhtiari.  Badlu further stated that Ram Kishan used to come to  

village Raiya to enquire about the welfare of his daughters but he  

was frequently drunk.  This was objected to by Mukhtiari  which  

annoyed  Ram Kishan.   It  was  also  stated  by  Badlu  that  Ram  

Kishan wanted his daughters and their respective husband to stay  

separately from Karan Singh and Mukhtiari and he had also tried  

to persuade Karan Singh to give his lands to Satbir and Sukhbir  

and live on his pension.  This was not acceptable to Karan Singh.  

The Trial Judge was of the opinion that in view of all these facts,  

Ram Kishan blamed Karan Singh and Mukhtiari for Manju’s death.

Decision of the High Court 16. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by  

the Trial Court, the State preferred an appeal in the Punjab and  Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 6 of 14

Page 7

Haryana High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 575-DBA of 1997.  

By its Judgment and Order dated 12th May, 2008 the High Court  

set  aside  the  decision  of  the  Trial  Judge  and  convicted  Karan  

Singh and Mukhtiari for an offence punishable under Section 304-

B of the IPC and punished them to imprisonment for the minimum  

period of seven years.   

17. The High Court was of the opinion that the delay in lodging  

the FIR was satisfactorily explained inasmuch as Vidya Devi and  

Sunita could not be expected to lodge the FIR and would have  

waited for Ram Kishan to arrive and take necessary steps.  There  

was no undue delay in Ram Kishan’s arrival in Rohtak and the FIR  

was lodged thereafter within a reasonable time. We agree with  

this finding since the record shows that Ram Kishan was informed  

of some untoward happening by his son Surinder Singh only on  

14th December, 1995 and thereafter he reached Rohtak at about  

10.00 p.m. the same day.  Not finding anybody there, he went to  

his village Dhani Phogat and came back to Rohtak on the morning  

of 15th December, 1995. The FIR was lodged in the afternoon on  

completion of the inquest proceedings.

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 7 of 14

Page 8

18. The High Court also held that it was significant that Satbir  

and Sukhbir were not examined by Karan Singh and Mukhtiari as  

defence witnesses.  If there was no substance in the allegations  

made against them, surely Satbir and Subkhbir would have come  

to their defence.  It was also held that merely because there was  

some disagreement between Ram Kishan on the one hand and  

Karan Singh and Mukhtiari on the other, that was no reason for  

Manju to have committed suicide or be killed.  The evidence of  

Sunita as well as that of Ram Kishan clearly pointed to the fact  

that both Manju and Sunita were being harassed for dowry and  

were turned out from their matrimonial home on more than one  

occasion.  It was held that just a few days before Manju’s death,  

Sunita was given a beating and turned out of her  matrimonial  

home.  Therefore, soon before her death, Manju was subjected to  

harassment and she died under unnatural circumstances.  

19. Accordingly,  the  High  Court  convicted  Karan  Singh  and  

Mukhtiari of an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC  

and reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

20. Karan  Singh  and  Mukhtiari  are  in  appeal  against  the  

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 8 of 14

Page 9

judgment and order of the High Court and the sentence awarded  

to them.

Discussion 21. We have been taken through the evidence of Ram Kishan,  

Sunita and Vidya Devi.  On an analysis of the oral testimony given  

by them, it is quite clear that the marriage of Manju and Sunita  

was  performed  in  a  comparatively  simple  manner  although  a  

considerable  amount  seems  to  have  been  spent.  Ram  Kishan  

categorically  stated  in  his  testimony  that  before  the  marriage  

there was no demand for any dowry.  Subsequent to the marriage  

of Manju and Sunita, there also does not seem to be any specific  

demand for dowry as per the statement of Ram Kishan.  All that  

he testified is that Karan Singh and Mukhtiari would say that his  

daughters should bring money for raising the construction of a  

house where they could reside separately. Other than this, there  

is no mention of any demand having been made by Karan Singh  

and Mukhtiari for any dowry.

22. Even the statement given by Sunita does not disclose any  

specific  demand for dowry except that there is bald statement  

that she and Manju were taunted for bringing insufficient dowry.  Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 9 of 14

Page 10

The tenor  of  her  testimony suggests that  she and Manju were  

being  generally  harassed  and  ill-treated  by  Karan  Singh  and  

Mukhtiari.  The ill-treatment and harassment does not appear to  

be related to any specific demand for dowry.

23. Even  Vidya  Devi  in  her  statement  makes  a  general  

allegation of demand for dowry and the consequent harassment  

of Manju and Sunita but again the statement is only of a very  

general nature.

24. Neither Ram Kishan nor Vidya Devi nor Sunita has given  

any  indication  of  any  specific  demand for  dowry.  Under  these  

circumstances, it is difficult for us to conclude that the provisions  

of Section 304-B of the IPC would be attracted.  It has been held  

times without number that,

“To  establish  the  offence  of  dowry  death  under  Section  304-B  IPC  the  prosecution  has  to  prove  beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or his  relative has subjected the deceased to cruelty or  harassment in connection with demand of dowry  soon before her death.”1

As such the ill-treatment and subsequent death of Manju would  

not fall within the meaning of a dowry death under Section 304-B  

1  More recently in Indrajit Sureshprasad Bind v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 14  SCC 678

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 10 of 14

Page 11

of the IPC.  

25. But,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Manju  and  Sunita  were  

subjected to ill-treatment and harassment from time to time by  

Karan  Singh  and Mukhtiari  though it  was  not  relatable  to  any  

demand for dowry. The evidence on record shows that they were  

turned  out  from  the  matrimonial  home  on  more  than  one  

occasion.  They were even turned out from the matrimonial home  

within about ten days after Manju gave birth to a baby boy.  Ram  

Kishan had spoken about this to Satbir and Sukhbir but in spite of  

this, the attitude of Karan Singh and Mukhtiari did not change. As  

mentioned above,  no  allegation has  been made against  Satbir  

and Sukhbir. Again, a few days before Manju’s death, Sunita was  

subjected to beating and turned out  of  the matrimonial  home.  

Although, Manju did not accompany her sister, she paid the price  

for staying back in village Raiya.  From the facts of the case it is  

quite clear to us that although there may be no evidence of Manju  

having been compelled by Karan Singh and Mukhtiari to consume  

poison, they had created a situation over a sufficiently long period  

of time whereby she was left with no option but to take her life. It  

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 11 of 14

Page 12

is quite unlikely that a young lady, particularly one having a year  

old child, would take her life unless she had some mental health  

issues (which is not the case) or was compelled by circumstances  

to  do  so.  An  offence  of  abetment  of  suicide  punishable  under  

Section 306 of the IPC is much broader in scope than an offence  

punishable  under  Section  304-B  of  the  IPC.2 In  this  case  an  

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly made  

out against Karan Singh and Mukhtiari.   

26. It is significant that when Manju was admitted in the MCH  

at Rohtak, and even when the inquest proceedings were being  

conducted on 14th and 15th December, 1995 neither Karan Singh  

nor Mukhtiari was present at any time.  They seem to have had  

some antipathy towards Manju and Sunita  and this  resulted in  

their  harassing  and  treating  Manju  with  cruelty  such  that  she  

could not bear it any further and therefore decided to take her  

life.

27. The testimony of Badlu does not assist Karan Singh and  

Mukhtiari.  His  testimony  in  their  favour  was  in  the  context  of  

2  Bhupendra v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 106 Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 12 of 14

Page 13

dowry demands but,  as we have held, that is not the question  

agitating  us.  His  testimony  also  showed  that  there  was  some  

friction between Ram Kishan on the one hand and Karan Singh  

and Mukhtiari on the other. This part of Badlu’s testimony does  

not assist Karan Singh and Mukhtiari. On the contrary, the friction  

may have been an aggravating factor in the relationship between  

Manju and Sunita and their parents in law. In any event, it is not  

necessary for us to read too much, either way, in the statement of  

Badlu and we leave it at that.  

Conclusion 28. Under these circumstances, we modify the judgment and  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  and  convict  Karan  Singh  and  

Mukhtiari for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.  

The  sentence  awarded  to  them  by  the  High  Court  would  

necessarily have to be modified.  In our opinion, keeping in view  

the fact  that both Karan Singh and Mukhtiari  are in their  mid-

sixties and we are told by their learned counsel that Satbir and  

Sukhbir are living separately from them due to their differences  

and taking into consideration the fact that Manju’s son is being  

looked after  by  Karan  Singh and Mukhtiari  for  the  last  almost  Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 13 of 14

Page 14

twenty years, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would  

be  met  if  they  are  sentenced  to  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  

period of two years.  We are also of the opinion that each one of  

them should be subjected to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in  

default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a  

further period of six months.

29. With this modification in the conviction and sentence, the  

appeal is disposed of.

                    ……………………………………J

            (Ranjana Prakash  Desai)

 ……………………………………J

            (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi; April 15, 2014   

Crl. Appeal No. 666 of 2009                                        Page 14 of 14