Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2007

Kulwant Singh & Ors. …..Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab      …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The  question  before  us  is  whether  the  conviction  of  

Kulwant  Singh  (appellant  No.1),  his  father  Gurtehal  Singh  

(appellant no.2) and his mother Harminder Kaur (appellant  

no.3)  for  offences  punishable  under  Section  304-B  and  

Section 498-A of  the Indian Penal  Code (IPC)  ought to  be  

sustained.  In  our  opinion,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  on  

record to sustain their conviction.

The facts: 2. Rachhpal  Kaur  (deceased)  married  Kulwant  Singh  on  

18th November 1984.  It appears from the record that even  

though she brought sufficient dowry, she was harassed and  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 1 of 19

Page 2

maltreated  by  her  husband  and  in-laws  for  bringing  

insufficient  dowry.  The  harassment  and  maltreatment  

continued resulting in the intervention by the Panchayat on  

or about 13th September 1988 to sort  out the problem so  

that  the  couple  could  live  a  normal  married  life.  

Unfortunately, the efforts of the Panchayat did not yield any  

positive result and about a month later on 14th October 1988  

Rachhpal Kaur died under suspicious circumstances.

3. The record indicates that Rachhpal Kaur was taken to  

the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh after rigor mortis had  

set in and there was froth coming from her mouth and nose.  

The appellants submitted an application Exh. DC for taking  

possession of the corpse without a post-mortem examination  

but that was not acceded to.  A post-mortem examination  

was conducted on 15th October  1988 which  revealed  that  

Rachhpal Kaur was carrying a 26-week fetus. Some parts of  

her body were then removed, sealed and sent for chemical  

examination to the Chemical Examiner to the Government of  

Punjab,  Patiala.  The  report  of  the  Chemical  Examiner,  

received much later,  indicated the presence of  aluminium  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 2 of 19

Page 3

phosphide (a pesticide) in the stomach of the deceased and  

phosphine, a constituent of aluminium phosphide, detected  

in her liver, spleen, right kidney and right lung.  According to  

Dr.  Asha  Kiran,  Medical  Officer,  Civil   Hospital,  Mandi  

Gobindgarh (PW-1) the contents were sufficient to cause the  

death of Rachhpal Kaur.  

4. Her younger sister Avtar Kaur (PW-9) gave intimation of  

Rachhpal Kaur’s death on 15th October 1988 to her father  

Sukhdev Singh (PW-5).  Thereupon Sukhdev Singh reached  

the hospital and claimed the body of Rachhpal Kaur and later  

cremated her.

5. Sukhdev  Singh  sought  to  lodge  a  first  information  

report (FIR) regarding the suspicious death of Rachhpal Kaur  

but  could  not  do  so.  The  police  authorities  declined  to  

register the FIR since the report of the chemical examination  

was not  available.   However,  Sukhdev Singh did make an  

application  in  the  concerned  police  station  which  was  

marked for necessary action to ASI Karnail Singh (PW-12) on  

18th October 1988.

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 3 of 19

Page 4

6. Eventually,  after  the cause of  Rachhpal  Kaur’s  death  

was ascertained, FIR No.67/1988 dated 2nd November 1988  

was registered and investigations commenced by the police.  

7. The FIR broadly stated that sufficient dowry had been  

given  to  the  appellants  at  the  time  of  Rachhpal  Kaur’s  

marriage with Kulwant Singh. However, a few days after her  

marriage she was maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry,  

treated with cruelty and beaten up several times. The FIR  

goes on to state that a Panchayat had visited the house of  

Kulwant Singh but he and the other in-laws of the deceased  

informed the Panchayat that they would continue to maltreat  

Rachhpal Kaur until their demands for dowry were fulfilled.

8. In the FIR, Sukhdev Singh stated that on 15th October  

1988 he came to know from his daughter Avtar Kaur that  

Rachhpal  Kaur  had  been  murdered  under  suspicious  

circumstances.  Sukhdev Singh was astonished to learn this  

and  he  reported  the  matter  to  the  local  police  but  they  

refused  to  take  action  since  the  report  of  the  chemical  

examination had not been received. According to Sukhdev  

Singh, the appellants and other in-laws of Rachhpal Kaur had  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 4 of 19

Page 5

committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B and  

Section 498-A of the IPC for causing the death of Rachhpal  

Kaur.

9. Upon registration of the FIR and receipt of the report of  

the  Chemical  Examiner,  the  local  police  carried  out  

investigations  and  filed  a  charge  sheet  against  the  

appellants as well as Gurcharan Singh and Sukhwant Singh,  

brothers of Kulwant Singh. The case was committed to the  

Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.35-T of  

5.5.1989 by the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala.

10. After  charges  were  framed,  all  the  accused  persons  

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

11. The  prosecution  produced  several  witnesses  to  bring  

home its case that the accused persons killed Rachhpal Kaur  

by poisoning her. The defence also produced their witnesses.

Decision of the Trial Court: 12. The Trial Judge, by his judgment and order dated 17th  

September  1993  found  the  appellants  Kulwant  Singh,  

Gurtehal  Singh  and  Harminder  Kaur  guilty  of  an  offence  

punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. They were then  

sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven  Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 5 of 19

Page 6

years. They were also convicted for an offence punishable  

under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  year  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.500/-.  The sentences were to run concurrently.  

13. The Trial Court held that there was no delay in lodging  

the FIR by Sukhdev Singh.  In fact, soon after the cremation  

of Rachhpal Kaur he went to the concerned Police Station at  

Amloh and apparently reported the suspicious circumstances  

under which his daughter had died.  However, a case was  

not  registered  since  the  chemical  examination  report  had  

not  been  received.   Sukhdev  Singh  also  moved  an  

application before senior police officers and even appeared  

before the Senior Superintendent of Police at Patiala and it is  

then that the FIR was registered on 2nd November 1988.  On  

these facts the Trial Court concluded that there was no delay  

in lodging the FIR by Sukhdev Singh.  

14. On the issue of a demand for dowry, maltreatment and  

harassment of Rachhpal Kaur, the Trial Court relied on the  

evidence of Sukhdev Singh (PW-5), his daughter Avtar Kaur  

(PW-9) his son Jasbir  Singh (PW-11) and more importantly  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 6 of 19

Page 7

the  members  of  the  Panchayat,  Sohan  Singh  (PW-7)  and  

Darshan  Singh  (PW-8)  who  had  gone  to  Kulwant  Singh’s  

house  to  sort  out  the  issues  between  him  and  Rachhpal  

Kaur.  The members  of  the  Panchayat  categorically  stated  

(and this was believed by the Trial  Court) that when they  

met Rachhpal Kaur on 13th September 1988 she was crying  

and  had  told  them  that  the  appellants  demanded  more  

dowry from her.  She also stated that the appellants were  

given a buffalo and Rs.6,000/- in cash over and above the  

dowry given at the time of marriage but the appellants still  

complained that the dowry was insufficient.

15. Avtar  Kaur  (PW-9)  had  met  Rachhpal  Kaur  on  8th  

October  1988  and  was  told  by  the  deceased  that  her  

husband and members of his family were harassing her for  

dowry.  The appellants subjected her to beating and that she  

wanted to be taken away from the house of her in-laws.  

16. Jasbir  Singh (PW-11)  was believed by  the Trial  Court  

when he stated that he had borrowed Rs.6,000/- to give to  

the appellants as demanded by them. It was contended that  

Sukhdev Singh owned sufficient  land and therefore,  there  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 7 of 19

Page 8

was  no  need  for  his  son  to  borrow  Rs.6,000/-  against  a  

promissory note for  payment to the appellants.   The Trial  

Court did not accept this  contention and found that since  

Sukhdev Singh had a very large family, it was not unnatural  

if  his  son  had  borrowed  some  money  to  give  to  the  

appellants.  

17. The Trial Court also concluded that Rachhpal Kaur had  

died  due  to  aluminium  phosphide  poisoning  and  the  

ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC had been made out  

and additionally the ingredients of Section 498-A had also  

been made out.  It was held that Rachhpal Kaur’s death was  

not a case of suicide.   

18. On the above findings, the Trial Court concluded that  

the appellants  were guilty  of  the offences that  they were  

charged with.  However, it was held that the prosecution had  

not  been  able  to  prove  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  

Sukhwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh had committed any  

offence.  On this basis, they were found not guilty while the  

appellants  were  awarded  the  punishment  as  mentioned  

above.  Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 8 of 19

Page 9

Decision of the High Court: 19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order as well as  

the  sentence  awarded  by  the  Trial  Court,  the  appellants  

preferred  Criminal  Appeal  No.356-SB  of  1993,  which  was  

heard  and  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana by its judgment and order dated 2nd May 2007.

20. The High Court independently examined the evidence  

on  record  and  concluded  that  the  prosecution  had  led  

sufficient evidence to show that the appellants, on account  

of a demand for dowry, maltreated Rachhpal Kaur and that  

she died under abnormal circumstances at the house of her  

in-laws.   The High  Court  believed  the  witnesses  who had  

consistently  supported  the  prosecution  version  of  

harassment,  maltreatment  and  misbehavior  by  the  

appellants with Rachhpal Kaur on account of her allegedly  

bringing insufficient dowry.   

21. The High Court also believed the case put forward by  

the  prosecution  that  in  addition  to  the  dowry  brought  by  

Rachhpal Kaur at the time of her marriage, the appellants  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 9 of 19

Page 10

had been given a buffalo and Rs.6,000/- in  cash by Sukhdev  

Singh (PW-5) and Jasbir Singh (PW-11).   

22. The High Court considered and rejected the contention  

of  the  appellants  that  the  demand  for  dowry  was  an  

afterthought since it did not find any mention in the FIR.  The  

High Court noted that the FIR clearly records that Rachhpal  

Kaur had mentioned the demand for dowry to the members  

of  the  Panchayat  and her  immediate  family.   Though the  

demand for dowry was not specific, there was undoubtedly a  

demand made by the appellants and which was satisfied by  

Rachhpal Kaur’s family.  

23. The High Court found that the death of Rachhpal Kaur  

was due to aluminium phosphide poisoning and that there  

was  sufficient  evidence  on  record  to  hold  the  appellants  

guilty  of  the  offences  that  they  were  charged  with.  

Accordingly,  the  appeal  filed  by  the  appellants  was  

dismissed by the High Court.  

24. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal  

is before us.

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 10 of 19

Page 11

Submissions and discussion: 25. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  made  three  

submissions  before  us.  It  was  firstly  submitted  that  there  

was a delay in lodging the FIR by Sukhdev Singh inasmuch  

as the incident occurred on 14th October 1988 but the FIR  

was lodged on 2nd November 1988; secondly,  there was a  

great deal of improvement in the case by Sukhdev Singh and  

other  prosecution witnesses inasmuch as  the  FIR  and the  

statements recorded during investigations under Section 161  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not mention anything  

about  the  demand  for  dowry  having  been  raised  by  the  

appellants  more  particularly  about  a  buffalo  having  been  

demanded  and  given  to  the  appellants  and  payment  of  

Rs.6,000/-  again  on the demand of  the appellants.  It  was  

contended, in other words, that a completely new story was  

set up by the prosecution witnesses and for this reason they  

should  not  be believed;  thirdly,  the ingredients  of  Section  

304-B  of  the  IPC  were  not  made  out  since  the  alleged  

demand  for  dowry  was  not  proximate  to  the  death  of  

Rachhpal Kaur.

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 11 of 19

Page 12

26. We are unable to agree with learned counsel  for  the  

appellants in respect of any of the submissions advanced by  

him.

27. As far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, we  

are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial  

Court that there was no delay in lodging the FIR.  It may be  

mentioned that the argument of delay in lodging the FIR was  

not raised before the High Court.  

28. Be that as it may, the facts reveal that Sukhdev Singh  

(PW-5) had made sufficient attempts to have the FIR lodged  

but was unable to do so since the report of the Chemical  

Examiner had not yet been received by the concerned police  

station.  In any event, it is also clear from the evidence of  

ASI Karnail Singh (PW-12) that Sukhdev Singh had submitted  

an application which was marked by S.I. Balbir Singh (PW-13)  

the  Station  House  Officer  of  Police  Station  Amloh  to  him  

(Karnail Singh) on 18th October 1989. S.I. Balbir Singh also  

stated in his evidence that he had received an application  

made  by  Sukhdev  Singh  to  the  Senior  Superintendent  of  

Police at Patiala and  it  was  then  that   he  registered  the  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 12 of 19

Page 13

FIR  on  2nd  November 1988. As such, it cannot be said that  

there was any delay in lodging the FIR.

29. We may also mention that the issue about the delay in  

lodging an FIR has been dealt by this Court ad nauseum and  

we should not make a fetish out of any perceived delay in  

lodging the FIR.  Some time back, one of us (Madan B.Lokur,  

J.) had occasion to deal with this issue in Gurmail Singh v.  

State  of  Punjab,  (2012)  11  SCALE  224  and  it  is  not  

necessary  to  repeat  the  conclusions  arrived  at  nor  is  it  

necessary to reaffirm the principle that delay in lodging the  

FIR  cannot  be  a  ground  for  throwing  away  the  entire  

prosecution case as held in  Jitender Kumar v. State of  

Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 204.

30. The  second  contention  urged  by  the  appellants  also  

does not merit any serious consideration.  It is true that in  

the FIR Sukhdev Singh did not give any specific instance of  

the demand for dowry made by the appellants but he did  

categorically  mention  that  there  was  a  demand  for  more  

dowry by the appellants.  Apart from the statement in the  

FIR,  both  the  Courts  have  considered  the  overwhelming  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 13 of 19

Page 14

evidence of several prosecution witnesses to the effect that  

there was a demand for dowry made by the appellants and  

concurrently held that the appellants had made a demand.  

We do not see any reason to interfere with this finding of  

fact.

31. That apart, there is sufficient evidence on record that  

the appellants had demanded a buffalo from Sukhdev Singh  

and this demand was acceded to.  There is also sufficient  

evidence that the appellants had demanded Rs.6,000/- from  

Sukhdev Singh and even this demand was acceded to with  

Jasbir Singh (PW-11) giving the amount to the appellants.

32. The final contention urged on behalf of the appellants  

also requires to be rejected.  Section 304-B of the IPC reads  

as follows:

“304-B.  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.  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 14 of 19

Page 15

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section,  "dowry" shall have the same meaning 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.”  

33. There  is  no  dispute  that  Rachhpal  Kaur  died  under  

abnormal  circumstances  due  to  aluminium  phosphide  

poisoning within seven years of her marriage.  The evidence  

on  record  clearly  indicates  that  she  was  subjected  to  

harassment for dowry not only by Kulwant Singh but also by  

his parents.  In fact, the harassment continued, as stated by  

the members of the Panchayat who visited Kulwant Singh’s  

house on 13th September 1988 and also by Avtar Kaur (PW-

9)  on  8th October  1988.  Rachhpal  Kaur  was,  therefore,  

harassed for dowry till almost immediately before her death.

34. We may also make a reference to Section 113-B of the  

Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows:-

“113-B. 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 had been subjected by such person  to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 15 of 19

Page 16

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

35. The presumption of a dowry death can be raised in four  

circumstances given below and which have been mentioned  

in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 155:

“(1) The question before the court must be whether the  accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.  (This means that the presumption can be raised only if  the accused is being tried for the offence under Section  304-B IPC.)

(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment  by her husband or his relatives.

(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection  with, any demand for dowry.

(4)  Such cruelty  or  harassment  was  soon before  her  death.”

All  these  ingredients  are  present  in  this  case  and  a  

presumption of a dowry death can safely be drawn.

36. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  referred  to  

Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9  

SCC 721 wherein it was held that asking the wife to bring  

money  for  meeting  domestic  expenses  on  account  of  Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 16 of 19

Page 17

financial  stringency and for  purchasing manure cannot be  

held as a demand for dowry.  We are unable to see how this  

decision has any relevance to the facts of the present case  

or  to  the controversy that  we are concerned with.  In  any  

event,  the  observations  made  in  Appasaheb  were  

explained in Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana, (2011) 4  

SCC  427  wherein  it  was  held  that  the  observations  in  

Appasaheb were required to be understood in the context  

of the case. It was held that Appasaheb cannot be read as  

laying  down  an  absolute  proposition  that  a  demand  for  

money or some property or valuable security on account of  

some business or financial requirement could not be termed  

as a demand for dowry.  

37. Finally, reference was made to Vipin Jaiswal v. State  

of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (3) SCALE 525 which also has  

no  relevance  to  the  present  case  since  in  that  case  the  

ingredients of harassment or cruelty had not been made out.  

Vipin Jaiswal’s wife committed suicide and left behind a note  

to the effect that nobody was responsible for her death and  

that  her  parents  and  family  members  had  harassed  her  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 17 of 19

Page 18

husband and it is because of this that she was fed up with  

her life and the quarrels taking place.

38. There is no doubt that insofar as the present case is  

concerned, Rachhpal Kaur was harassed by her husband and  

in-laws  for  dowry  and  that  she  died  under  abnormal  

circumstances  due to  aluminium phosphide poisoning.   In  

our  opinion,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  hold  the  

appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 304-B  

of the IPC and 498-A of the IPC.  We see no reason to disturb  

the conclusions concurrently arrived at by both the Courts  

below.

39. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  

contended that Gurtehal Singh is today about 80 years old  

and  his  legs  have  been  amputated  because  of  severe  

diabetes.   It  was  also  submitted  that  Harminder  Kaur  is  

about 78 years of age and she needs to look after Gurtehal  

Singh.   In  these  circumstances  considering  their  age  and  

physical disability, a sympathetic view should be taken in the  

matter as far as they are concerned.  

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 18 of 19

Page 19

40. We have given considerable thought to this submission  

but find that the law prescribes a minimum of seven years  

imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.  

There  is  no  provision  for  reducing  the  sentence  for  any  

reason whatsoever nor has any exception being carved out  

in law.  Consequently, we cannot accept this plea.  

41. We must not lose sight of the fact that even though  

Gurtehal Singh and Harminder Kaur are now aged, they were  

responsible  for  the  death  of  Rachhpal  Kaur  through  

aluminium phosphide poisoning.  Rachhpal Kaur was a young  

lady when she died and we can only guess the trauma that  

her  unnatural  death  would  have  caused  to  her  parents.  

Sympathizing with an accused person or a convict does not  

entitle  to  us  to  ignore  the  feelings  of  the  victim  or  the  

immediate family of the victim.   

Conclusion: 42. There  is  no  merit  in  the  appeal.  It  is  accordingly  

dismissed.  

….……………………..J.          (A.K. Patnaik)

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 19 of 19

Page 20

….……………………..J.          (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; April 02, 2013

Crl. Appeal No.1548 of 2007 Page 20 of 19