Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2267   OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1453 of 2013)

Kuldeep Kaur …Appellant (s)

versus

State of Uttarakhand …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and  

order  dated  3.1.2013  of  the  High  Court  of  Uttarakhand  in  

Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2006, whereby Division Bench of  

the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  

appellant  and  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  trial  court  

convicting her under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to  

undergo  three  years  rigorous  imprisonment  with  fine  of  

1

Page 2

Rs.5000/-.   The  High  Court  also  dismissed  the  appeal  

preferred  by  the  State  against  the  judgment  of  acquittal  

passed by trial court.  

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 6.6.2001  

the complainant of the case viz. Captain Jagtar Singh (PW1)  

lodged a report Ex.A-1 at P.S. Sitarganj, wherein it has been  

stated  that  marriage  of  his  daughter  Jagpreet  Kaur  was  

solemnized  with  Upkar  Singh  son  of  Harpal  Singh  on  

1.3.2001.  The complainant gave the articles in the marriage  

according to his capacity, but in-laws of his daughter used to  

demand car etc. and used to taunt and harass his daughter.  

It  was  further  complained  that  Jagpreet  Kaur  told  the  

informant that her in-laws harassed her on account of non-

fulfillment of demand of dowry and in the intervening night of  

5th/6th of June, 2001, she was compelled to commit suicide.  

On the basis of this complaint, case was registered against the  

accused persons under Section 304-B, IPC and the police took  

2

Page 3

into custody a small bottle, cover of which was slightly torned,  

on which “Cypermethrin High Emulsifable Concentrate (Vet)  

Elitomin 100 E.C.” was written.  Diary Ex.A-2 written by the  

deceased  was  also  seized.   Dead  body  was  sent  for  post-

mortem, where no apparent injury except ligature mark on the  

neck was found.  According to the concerned Doctor, cause of  

death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of ante  

mortem hanging.

4.  Upon  investigation,  charge-sheet  for  the  offence  

punishable  under Section 304-B, IPC was submitted in the  

Court of Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of  

Sessions for trial.    The trial court charged accused persons  

viz.  mother-in-law  Smt.  Kuldeep  Kaur  and  brothers-in-law  

Gurlal  Singh  & Rakesh Grover  under  Section  498A/304-B,  

IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the  

accused persons pleaded not guilty and sought trial.   

3

Page 4

5. It  is  worth  to  mention  here  that  as  accused  Harpal  

(father-in-law)  had died,  case  was abated against  him,  and  

since  deceased’s  husband  Upkar  Singh  and  sisters-in-law  

Rupender Kaur and Satender Kaur were absent at the time of  

filing  of  chargesheet,  their  records  were  taken  apart  and  

separate chargesheet was filed against them at later stage.  In  

that case, trial court has acquitted these accused persons by  

giving them benefit of doubt with respect to allegations alleged  

against them.   

6. To prove its case against Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Gurlal  

Singh  &  Rakesh  Grover,  prosecution  examined  eight  

witnesses,  namely,  PW1  Captain  Jagtar  Singh  (deceased’s  

father),  PW2 Smt.  Gurmeet  Kaur  (deceased’s  cousin  sister),  

PW3 Pyara Singh (deceased’s relative), PW4 Dr. R.A. Kediya  

(who  conducted  post-mortem),  PW5  Harak  Singh  Rawat  

(Tehsildar),  PW6 Balwant  Singh,  PW7 S.I.  Sohan Pal  Singh  

and PW8  Dalip Singh (Investigation Officer).  In defence, three  

4

Page 5

witnesses were examined.  Incriminating evidence was put to  

the  accused  persons  under  Section  313  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure, in which they submitted that they were  

falsely implicated in the case.

7. On  appreciation  of  evidence  and  material  placed  on  

record, the trial court held that the deceased did not commit  

suicide  due  to  cruelty  caused  to  her  in  connection  with  

demand of dowry and acquitted the appellant and other co-

accused of the offence punishable under Sections 498A/304B,  

IPC  and  Sections  3  &  4  of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act.  

However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 306, IPC  

and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years  

and fine of Rs.5000/-.   

8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, respondent-

State  preferred  appeal  before  the  High  Court  against  the  

judgment  of  acquittal  passed  by  the  trial  court.   Accused-

5

Page 6

appellant  also  preferred  appeal  challenging  her  conviction  

under  Section  306,  IPC.   After  hearing  learned  counsel  

appearing for the parties and appreciating the evidence and  

papers placed before it, the Division Bench of the High Court  

dismissed the appeals affirming judgment of the trial court.   

9. Hence this appeal by the mother-in-law of the deceased.  

10.  Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellant at the very outset  submitted that the trial court  

has acquitted all  the accused persons except the appellant,  

who has already undergone about six months of custody as  

under trial and she is an old lady aged about 86 years.  It is  

further  submitted  that  the  appellant  has  undergone  heart  

surgery and is also suffering from various old age ailments  

and practically confined to bed.

6

Page 7

11. It  has  been contended on behalf  of  the appellant  that  

PW1 father of  the deceased made only general  allegation of  

demand of dowry against all the family members and there are  

no specific allegations against the present appellant.  The trial  

court  while  convicting  the  appellant  has  relied  upon  the  

contents of  the diary of  the deceased.   However,  trial  court  

found contradiction in the statements of the witnesses PW1,  

PW2 and PW3 in respect of demand of dowry by the accused  

persons and the deceased not writing anything about demand  

of  dowry  in  her  diary  in  respect  of  these  accused  persons  

including  the  appellant  and  therefore,  no  presumption  was  

taken  by  the  trial  court  in  respect  of  dowry  death  under  

Section 113B, IPC.   

12. Learned  senior  counsel  drew  our  attention  to  the  

following  findings  and observations  of  the  trial  court  in  its  

decision in separate trial pertaining to deceased’s husband:

“…It appears from the perusal of diary that deceased  

was not happy from the behavior meted out to her by  

7

Page 8

the accused persons and the members of the family  

and she was in depression.   Her sensitivity  towards  

things also appears to be more.  PW-1 has stated in  

his  cross-examination  as  to  mental  condition  and  

temperament of the deceased that his daughter was an  

illiterate  one  and  used  to  like  cities  much.   Her  

temperament right from childhood was such that she  

used  to  get  perturbed  on  any  issue,  whereas,  there  

was nothing in scarce in her matrimonial house or in  

her  paternal  house.   It  was  her  nature  to  get  

depressed; she was a patient of depression.  She was  

treated  for  depression  much  earlier  also,  but  her  

thinking and tendency  remained unchanged.   PW-6,  

who is the brother of the deceased, has also stated in  

his  evidence  that  his  sister  Priti  was in  depression.  

PW-7,  the  Investigation  Officer  has  stated  in  his  

examination-in-chief  that  one  sealed  bottle  was  

recovered  from the  site,  whose  cover  was  torn.   Its  

report  was  also  prepared  by  him….   In  cross-

examination  this  witness  has  stated  that  Actomin  

100E/C was written on the bottle recovered from the  

site.  He has not got any chemical examination done  

with respect  to medicine the above bottle contained.  

He has not conducted any investigation in this regard  

that  medicine  kept  in  the  bottle  is  used  for  which  

purpose.   This  medicine  can  also  be  used  in  the  

disease  of  depression.   In  this  way,  the  statements  

mentioned in the diary available on the record alleged  

to be written by the deceased in context of evidences  

8

Page 9

given by PW-1,  PW-6 and PW-7 makes it  clear that  

deceased  was  extremely  sensitive  and  she  could  easily  fall  prey of  depression  even under  normal  circumstances.  In this situation, special care of the  deceased and sympathetic ambience was necessary for  

the deceased, but inability of her husband and other  

members  of  her  family  to  understand  her  mental  

condition  or  their  inability  to  help  the  deceased  

properly could be an important mistake on the part of  

the  husband  of  the  deceased  and  her  other  family  

members,  but  they  cannot  be  held  liable  for  any  

offence for it.

xxxxx

In the instant case, it is quite clear from the findings of  

the  prosecution  evidence  that  deceased  was  found  

hanging inside a room locked from inside, from where  

she was taken out after breaking glass and opening  

the door.”   

13. Mr. Ahmadi contended that the finding of the trial court  

holding the petitioner guilty under Section 306, IPC is on the  

basis  of  surmises  and  conjectures.   The  trial  court  in  its  

judgment pertaining to the appellant  has reproduced a line  

from the diary of the deceased, which reads as “Still she wants  

me to work till late.”  It is contended that the trial court erred  

9

Page 10

in presuming that when the deceased writes the above line in  

her  diary  she  is  referring  to  the  appellant.    It  is  further  

contended that conviction of the appellant deserves to be set  

aside as both the courts below failed to appreciate that the  

prosecution did not led any evidence on record to show that  

there was direct reasonable nexus between suicide and alleged  

cruelty.  As both the courts below gave findings that there was  

no  demand  of  dowry  or  any  cruelty  committed  with  the  

deceased in connection with demand of dowry and acquitted  

the appellant from charge under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and  

under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the courts  

below could not have come to a contradictory view that the  

deceased committed suicide due to cruelty committed by the  

appellant.  Even in the diary, deceased has not written even a  

single word against the appellant.  Perusal of the diary only  

shows, as also observed by the trial court in its decision in the  

trial of other accused persons including deceased’s husband,  

that the deceased was depressed and has left no interest in  

life.   

10

Page 11

14. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not disputed  

that although against the judgment of acquittal passed by the  

trial court acquitting the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-

law and two sisters-in-law,  the State preferred appeal but the  

same was dismissed by the High Court.  However, no further  

appeal has been filed by the State before this Court. Learned  

counsel submitted that the conviction of the appellant under  

Section 306 IPC is fully justified.

15. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial court  

as also by the High Court.  We have also gone through the  

judgments by which the husband,  father-in-law, brother-in-

law and two sisters-in-law have been acquitted by the trial  

court and affirmed by the High Court.  So far this appellant is  

concerned, she has also been acquitted against the charges of  

dowry harassment but she has been convicted under Section  

306 IPC.

11

Page 12

16.  A  perusal  of  trial  court  judgment  pertaining  to  

deceased’s  husband  would  show  that  PW1,  father  of  the  

deceased, in his cross examination stated that no dowry was  

demanded by the accused persons from the day of alliance till  

solemnization of marriage.  Whatever stridhan was given was  

as per the custom and as per his will in the form of gift to his  

daughter.  He further stated that his daughter had not told  

him that in the absence of Upkar Singh she remained dejected  

in  her  matrimonial  house  because  of  her  mother-in-law,  

father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband and elder brother-in-

law on the issue of dowry.  Witness himself stated that only  

God knows why her daughter committed suicide without any  

reason.  This witness has stated that it  is  true to say that  

neither the accused persons abetted his daughter to commit  

suicide nor they harassed her.  

17. We have given our anxious consideration in the matter  

and analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.  In  

our considered opinion, the evidence adduced as against the  

12

Page 13

appellant does not establish the case under Section 306 of the  

Code.  On the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses,  

conviction of the appellant only cannot be sustained.  Having  

regard  to  the  fact  of  the  case  and  the  evidence  of  the  

prosecution  witnesses,  the  trial  court  acquitted  all  the  

accused persons except  the  present  appellant  and the  said  

judgment was affirmed by the High Court.  We do not find any  

strong reason to agree with the judgment of conviction passed  

by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court as against  

the appellant.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the  

judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC  

is set aside.

….…………………………….J. [ M.Y. Eqbal ]  

…………………………….J. [Pinaki Chandra Ghose]

New Delhi October 17, 2014

13

Page 14

14