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