Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2005

NACHHATTAR SINGH & ORS. ...... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.  This appeal by way of special leave arises out of  

the following facts:

Balbir  Kaur,  the  deceased,  was  married  with  

Nachhattar Singh appellant about five years prior to  

the date of occurrence.  Out of the wedlock, the couple  

bore a female child.  About 2 or 3 years after the  

marriage,  the  appellant  and  his  parents(the  three  

accused)  started  making  demands  for  dowry  on  the  

allegation that Balbir Kaur's  parents had not given  

sufficient amounts at the time of marriage, but as the  

demands could not be satisfied she was maltreated which  

led  the  deceased  to  leave  the  matrimonial  home  on  

several occasions.  It appears, however, that on the  

intervention of well-wishers on both sides she returned

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 2

to the matrimonial home.  The ill-treatment however,  

continued unabated and whenever Balbir Kaur's brother  

Sukhmander  Singh,  P.W.  6,  would  meet  her  she  would  

complain that she was not being treated properly.  On  

the 25th December, 1987 at about 7:00a.m. information  

with  regard  to  Balbir  Kaur's  unnatural  death  was  

received  by  her  parents  on  which  Sukhmander  Singh,  

P.W., along with other family members rushed to the  

house of the accused.  They saw Balbir Kaur lying dead  

on her cot.   The police were informed and a First  

Information Report was registered.  The dead body was  

despatched  for  its  post  mortem  examination.   The  

viscera  was  also  sent  to  the  Chemical  Examiner  who  

rendered an opinion that the death had been caused by  

poisoning.  A criminal complaint was also filed by P.W.  

6  Sukhmander  Singh  against  the  appellant  in  the  

meanwhile.  The complaint case as well as the case  

arising  out  of  the  First  Information  Report  were  

clubbed  together  and  on  the  completion  of  the  

investigation  a  charge  under  Section  302  read  with  

Section 34 and 304B IPC was framed against the accused.  

The prosecution relied primarily on the evidence  

of P.W. 6, the complainant, P.W. 1, Dr. Yashpal Garg  

who had performed the post mortem of the dead body,  

P.W. 2 the Chemical Examiner and P.W. 7 Sajjan Singh, a

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 3

resident of Moga  who deposed to the demands for dowry  

made by the accused even a day before the incident.  

The prosecution case was then put to the accused and  

they denied the allegations levelled against them and  

on  the  contrary  pleaded  that  as  Balbir  Kaur  was  a  

qualified Steno-typist she wanted to join service and  

live at Moga but as her parents-in-law were old they  

had insisted that she stay at home to look after the  

house hold chores and this frustration had led her into  

a depression and finally to suicide.  The trial court,  

on  a  consideration  of  the  evidence,  acquitted  the  

accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34  

of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them for the  

offence punishable  under section  304B and  awarded a  

sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment.  An appeal  

was thereafter filed by the accused before the High  

Court.   The  High  court  partly  allowed  the  appeal  

inasmuch that it held that a case under Section 304B of  

the  IPC  was  not  made  out  but  the  accused  were  

nonetheless liable to conviction under Section 306 for  

having abetted the suicide of Balbir Kaur.  The Court  

found as a fact that there was absolutely no evidence  

to show that Balbir Kaur's suicide was a dowry death as  

the evidence with respect to the demands for dowry were  

both vague and stale and could not form the basis for

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 4

conviction.  This is what the Court had to say:

“Analysis  of  statements  of  prosecution  witnesses,  referred  to  above,  clearly  indicates  that  allegations regarding demand of dowry  and  cruelty  inflicted  upon  the  deceased  are  in  general  terms  and  vague.   None  of  the  prosecution  witnesses had stated as to when, in  which year, date and month, any act of  cruelty in connection with demand of  dowry  was  committed  by  any  fo  the  appellants against the deceased.  Not  even a single witness had given any  specific  instance  in  that  regard.  None of them except Sajjan Singh (PW  &) had stated that soon before death,  acts  of  cruelty  in  connection  with  demand of dowry were committed by the  appellants against the deceased.” The  Court  nevertheless  went  on  to  hold  that  

though there were no specific instances of demands of  

dowry yet an inference that certain demands had been  

made was available from their testimony and the other  

documentary evidence on record and particularly, that  

no woman who had a young child would commit suicide (as  

had happened in the present case) unless she had been  

driven to it by the ill treatment meted out to her.  

The  accused  were,  accordingly,  acquitted  of  the  

offences under Section 304B of the IPC but convicted  

under Section 306 IPC and awarded a sentence of four  

years.  It is the conceded case that a Special Leave  

Petition filed by Nachhattar Singh, the husband, has  

since  been  dismissed.   The  present  appeal  is  thus  

confined only to the in-laws  i.e. Nirmal Singh and

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 5

Harbans Kaur, the appellants before us.   

We have gone through the evidence as also the  

reasons  given  by  the  High  Court  to  arrive  at  its  

conclusions.   It  will  be  seen  that  the  allegations  

against  the  accused  were  that  they  had  driven  the  

deceased  to  suicide  on  account  of  cruelty  which  

included  demands  for  dowry.   The  High  Court  has  

rejected the story about the demands for dowry but has  

drawn  an  inference  that  there  must  have  been  some  

cruelty  which  had  forced  a  young  woman  to  suicide  

despite the fact that she had a young child.  We find  

that in the background of the findings recorded while  

acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 304B  

of the IPC, no inferences or presumptions can be drawn.  

Moreover, a perusal of Section 498A IPC would show that  

cruelty would mean any wilful conduct which was of such  

a  nature  as  was  likely  to  drive  a  woman  to  commit  

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,  

limb  or  health  whether  mental  or  physical)  to  the  

woman.  We find  no evidence on this score and it has  

been so found by the High Court.  On the contrary, a  

perusal  of  the  evidence  of  P.W.  6   shows  that  the  

defence  story  is  in  fact  reflected  in  his  cross-

examination.  He initially testified that it was wrong  

to suggest that she did not want to stay in the village

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 6

or that she wanted to join service but in the very next  

line he admitted that the reason that the deceased was  

not  encouraged  to  shift  to  Moga  was  that  as  the  

appellants were old they had wanted her to work in the  

house and to look after them.   In this view of the  

matter, we find that the wilful conduct referred to  

above should be of such a nature as would provoke a  

person  of  common  prudence  to  commit  suicide  and  a  

difference  of  opinion  within  a  family  on  everyday  

mundane matters would not fall within that category.  

We find that merely because the appellants were of the  

opinion that the deceased, as a good daughter-in-law,  

should look after them in old age could not be said to  

an abetment of suicide.    The presumption against the  

appellants raised under Section 113A of the Evidence  

Act, 1872 cannot thus be drawn. We are, therefore, of  

the opinion that the High Court's judgment suffers from  

serious contradictions.  We, accordingly, allow this  

appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants  

before us.  Their bail bonds be discharged.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005                                                                                                  REPORTABLE 7

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 03, 2011.