published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40518
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007
RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
in Criminal Appeal No. 303DB of 2006. By its impugned
judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the
accusedBaldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased, of the
charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded
by the Additional Session Judge, Barnala against the
appellant under Section 304B, 498A IPC.
The accusedappellantRanjit Singh has been sentenced
to undergo RI for life under Section 304B IPC and further
sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a fine ofPage 2
2
Rs.2,000/, in default thereof to go RI for a further
period of six months under Section 498A IPC.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal
are as follows:
The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his
statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police
Station Tapa to the effect that he had performed marriage
of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,
son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan in the
month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/
cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,
etc. as dowry. In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said
marriage and fulfilled all the demands so raised by
Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw of his daughter. After about
7 days of marriage, his daughter came to her parents
house, she complained about the demand of money as
“Shagun”, upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/
to her daughter which she handed over to her husband
Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur
Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when
his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage
and told about the demand made by her inlaws and pursuantPage 3
3
thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/ and
sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.
The complainant further stated that even thereafter also
demands were made by her daughter's inlaws asking for
articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles
were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur
Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when
his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial
house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated
her about the harassment made by her inlaws on account of
demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she
apprehended that she might be killed by herinlaws and
requested to take her alongwith her. However, his wife
consoled her daughter and went back to her house at
village Kale Ka. On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,
they came to know about the death of their daughter
Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they
found their daughter Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the
courtyard of her inlaws house with injuries on her
person. The complainant suspected that Raghbir Singh,
fatherinlaw, Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Raj Kaur,Page 4
4
sisterinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband of his daughter
murdered her.
3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60 dated 30th
May, 1996 (Ex.PE) for an offence under Section 304B/34
IPC was registered at Police Station Tapa, District
Sangrur.
4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW6) reached
the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead
body of Jaswinder Kaur. He took the dead body to Civil
Hospital, Barnala for postmortem examination where Dr.
Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the postmortem
examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as
six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.
5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW6) recorded the statement of
the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were
arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities
of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ranjit
Singh for trial. In the absence of any evidence against
Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw of the deceased, her case was
dropped.Page 5
5
6. After commitment of the case, the Trial Court framed
charges against the accusedappellant for commission of
an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the
alternative charges under Section 304B read with Section
34 IPC and under Section 498A as well.
7. The prosecution in all, examined as many as six
witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW1,
Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW4,
Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Kaur, father and mother of the
deceased as PW4 and PW5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh
as PW6.
8. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Their
stand was that the deceased, in a disturbed mental state
committed suicide by hanging herself. On behalf of the
defence as many as five witnesses were examined. Rajinder
Singh, constable as DW1, Jagtar Singh @ Avtar Singh as
DW2, Gurcharan Singh son of Harchand as DW3, Major
Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW4 and DSP Darshan Singh
as DW5.
9. The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its
judgment dated 26.11.1998 convicted and sentenced the
accused Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh, husbandPage 6
6
and Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw for commiting an offence
under Section 304B IPC. Pursuant to an order passed in
criminal appeal No. 563DB of 1998 filed by the accused in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Division Bench
by its order dated 1st February, 2006 set aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court,
remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction
to proceed with the trials from the stage of Section
235Cr.P.C. and to pass order afresh in accordance with
law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition
preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were
dismissed by the same order, for having become
infructuous.
10. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the
matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during
the rehearing of the case before the Trial Court,
accused Raghbir Singh was reported to have died on 19th
April, 2003 and thereby the proceedings were abated
against him by order dated 25th March, 2006.
11. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence led by the
prosecution, the Trial Court held both Baldev Kaur,
motherinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offencePage 7
7
under Section 304B read with Section 34 and Section 498A
IPC and sentenced as noticed earlier. On appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court by impugned judgment
acquitted Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw but affirmed the
judgment passed by the Trial Court so far as it relates to
appellantRajnit Singh, husband of the deceased.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that in the
FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or
harassment or cruelty was made against the appellant,
Ranjit Singh, husband of the deceased. Even during the
trial, the demand for dowry was not attributed to the
appellant. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court
considered the defence evidence which appellant produced
to rebut the presumption. Further, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the
present case. Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased
has been acquitted considering the same evidence as is
available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same
cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty. It
was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made majorPage 8
8
improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to
notice the defence evidence which is more probable.
13.Gurjant Singh,PW1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder
Kaur, daughter of his sister was married to Ranjit Singh
at Kaleke in January, 1996. On the date of occurrence i.e.
30th May, 1996 he had gone to visit at the house of
accused Ranjit Singh where all family members including
Jaswinder Kaur were present there. They were openly
threatening Jaswinder Kaur since she had not brought
maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by
Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw who took her into a room by
holding her from her neck. Ranjit singh, husband caught
hold of her legs and Raghbir Singh , fatherinlaw
exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar
exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw and
in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that
Gurjant Singh(PW1) is a maternal uncle of the deceased
and, therefore, his statement was not worthy of any
credence as he would not allow anybody to commit such
crime in his presence. If he would have present there atPage 9
9
that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or
raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so.
14. Bahadur Singh(PW4) is the father of the deceased,
Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that on 30th May, 1996 at about
3.30P.m., he received information of his daughter's death
at her inlaw's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along
with others visited the Village where he found his
daughter, Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he
visited Police Station Tapa and lodged an FIR. He stated
that on demand of the accusedRaghvir Singh, fatherin
law, he spent Rs, 1,50,000/ on the marriage of her
daughter. She was given 14 tolas of gold, scooter and
Rs.55,000/ in cash. In addition to it he gave cooler,
fridge, dressing table, etc. as dowry to his daughter.
After 78days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage
Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused
were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded
the amount of “Shaguns”. On this, he gave Rs.8,000/ as
an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter which she handed
over to her husbandRanjit Singh who had accompanied
Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke. After about 20 days, when he
brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that herinPage 10
10
laws were demanding more dowry. She further informed that
she was being harassed by the accused. All the accused
including Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw, were demanding dowry
articles of good quality. Gurmel Kaur(PW5), mother of
the deceased went to her daughter’s matrimonial home one
day prior to the date of occurrence of death when her
daughter narrated her woeful stories and requested her
mother to take her back as she was apprehending death
from the accused. She further informed that the accused
was demanding Maruti Car as dowry. Gurmail Kaur(PW5)
assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to
her father and she came back in the evening of the same
day at Village Kaleke. Bahadur Singh(PW4) further stated
that his brotherinlaw (wife's brother) went to meet
Jaswinder Kaur at about 12/12.30 P.M. on the day of
occurrence and saw that all the accused including Raj
Kaur, sisterinlaw were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she
had not brought Maruti Car for them.
15. Gurmail Kaur(PW5), mother of the deceased, deposed
in her statement that her daughter was married to
accusedRanjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the
occurrence of her death. Sufficient dowry was given inPage 11
11
the marriage as per the demand of the accused. She had
gone to the Village Roorki Kalan to meet her daughter
where she told her that she was being maltreated by her
inlaws as they were demanding Maruti Car and the demand
was made by Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh,
husband, Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw and Raj Kaur,
sisterinlaw of the deceased. She also told her mother
that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not
bring Maruti car. She requested her mother to take her
back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at
the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and
assured her that she would narrate the matter to her
father. She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the
entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW4). Next day at about
3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had
been killed by herinlaws.
16. Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur @
Baljinder Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh @ Makhan Singh, R/o
Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.
The following injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:Page 12
12
1. Abrasion on the right side of neck 1x.25
cm in size 8cm away from right angle of mouth 0.5
cm away from right ear. Horozontal in position.
2. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
5x1½cm, 1cm below injury no. 1 and oblique in
position.
3. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
5x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 2.
4. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
4x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 3.
5. Contusion on left side 3x2cm in the
middle.
6. Upper eyelid of left eye was swollen and
blushed. On dissection of neck soft tissue
ecchomised.
He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured. Right lung
and left lung were congested with punctiform hemorrhage.
Right heart contained blood and left heart was empty.
Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.
17.In his crossexamination, he also stated that there is
a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for
hanging through ling it would cause ligature marks.
18.Dev Raj (PW3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the
same.
19.Gurcharan Singh(PW6), ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala who
was the AIO, recorded the FIR and stated that hePage 13
13
inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot
(Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead
body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo
(Ex.PF). On 31st May, 1996, he arrested the accused;
Baldev Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh. He recorded
the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail
Kaur(PW5) as (Ex.DB) without any omission or addition.
He noted down the brief according to the facts contained
in the FIR.
It was given in the evidence of PW4 that one day
before the death of Jaswinder Kaur, Gurmail Kaur(PW5)
mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she
expressed her apprehension of threat to her life and
requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW5).
She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car
from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW5) assured her
daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of
Bahadur Singh(PW4), father of the deceased. The
statements of PW4 and PW3(parents of the deceased) were
duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and
harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and
the event of her visit a day prior to her death. TheyPage 14
14
were subjected to lengthy cross examination. Apart from
minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the
case, their statements are corroborated on material
particulars so far as the demands of harassment to
Jaswinder Kaur is concerned. Their statements indict
the series of incidents forming part of the same
transaction which culminated in the death of Jaswinder
Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by herinlaws right
from the very beginning and from time to time was being
harassed on demand of dowry. The sequence of events,
discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on
account of such demands were present till her death.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress
that there is no independent eye witness to corroborate
the statements of PW4 and PW5 who are closely related to
the deceased. The contention is again meritless. It is,
but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of
demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal
knowledge of near relations and they would be the best
persons to depose about the same. Therefore, the evidence
of physical and mental torture of the deceased from thePage 15
15
accused is not to be discarded simply on the score of
independent corroboration.
21. One of the stand taken by the appellant that no
Panchayat was convened and the matter was not reported to
the police cannnot be the ground to discard the evidence
of PW4 and PW5 who are material witnesses. About the
harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the
matter is first reported to the parents and not to the
Panchanayat. It is not necessary that such matter is
required to be reported to the Panchayat.
22. From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW2), it is
apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur was caused by
bodily injury which is otherwise than under the normal
circumstances. The death took place within few months of
the date of marriage i.e. much before seven years of
marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in
connection with the demand of dowry. Therefore, the
present case squarely falls within the meaning of dowry
death for the purpose to attract Section 304B IPC.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the
presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the
Page 16
16
question is whether a person has committed a 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 demand of a dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry
death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective
of the fact whether the accused had any direct connection
with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have
committed the “dowry death” provided the other
requirements mentioned above are satisfied.
23. In the present case, we have noticed that the
prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients
necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC.
Such ingredients having been proved, Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act automatically comes into play.
In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder
Kaur had taken place just within four months of her
marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the
evidence of PW4 and PW5, parents of the deceased.
They
have made statements that even at the time of marriage
they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 78 days of marriage
when Jaswinder Kaur came to their parents house and
Page 17
17
conveyed that the accused were demanding dowry as the
amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/ was given her to
handover to her husband who accompanied her.
Their
statement further suggested that upon subsequent visit of
their daughter after about 20 days, a sum of Rs.1500 was
spent by PW4 for purchase of certain articles, which his
daughter took to her matrimonial home in a tractor.
Just
a day before the death, she informed her mother Gurmail
Kaur(PW5) that the accused were torturing her and
demanding Maruti Car.
24. The statement of the accused corroborates the
materials particularly in relation to harassment and
demand of dowry and death by torture.
The accused being
the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of
Maruti Car, we find no reason to differ with the
conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate
Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence under
Section 304B IPC.
25. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for the
appellant made an alternative submission and requested to
take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the
death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife), the appellant got
Page 18
18
married second time and
from his second wife he has three children out of which one son is handicapped and
his mother is also paralysed.
Taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact,
we affirm the conviction under Section
304B IPC and 498A IPC and
reduce the sentence awarded
under Section 304B IPC to seven years alongwith the
sentence of two years imposed under Section 498A IPC
and fine of Rs.2,000/ as imposed by the Trial Court and
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with
direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.
Bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he is
directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the remainder of the sentence.
……………………………........………………..J.
(A.K.PATNAIK)
………........……………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3, 2013.
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007
RANJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 17th January, 2007 passed by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
in Criminal Appeal No. 303DB of 2006. By its impugned
judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the
accusedBaldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased, of the
charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded
by the Additional Session Judge, Barnala against the
appellant under Section 304B, 498A IPC.
The accusedappellantRanjit Singh has been sentenced
to undergo RI for life under Section 304B IPC and further
sentenced to undergo RI for two years with a fine ofPage 2
2
Rs.2,000/, in default thereof to go RI for a further
period of six months under Section 498A IPC.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal
are as follows:
The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his
statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police
Station Tapa to the effect that he had performed marriage
of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,
son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan in the
month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/
cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,
etc. as dowry. In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said
marriage and fulfilled all the demands so raised by
Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw of his daughter. After about
7 days of marriage, his daughter came to her parents
house, she complained about the demand of money as
“Shagun”, upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/
to her daughter which she handed over to her husband
Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur
Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when
his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage
and told about the demand made by her inlaws and pursuantPage 3
3
thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/ and
sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.
The complainant further stated that even thereafter also
demands were made by her daughter's inlaws asking for
articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles
were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur
Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when
his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial
house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated
her about the harassment made by her inlaws on account of
demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she
apprehended that she might be killed by herinlaws and
requested to take her alongwith her. However, his wife
consoled her daughter and went back to her house at
village Kale Ka. On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,
they came to know about the death of their daughter
Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they
found their daughter Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the
courtyard of her inlaws house with injuries on her
person. The complainant suspected that Raghbir Singh,
fatherinlaw, Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Raj Kaur,Page 4
4
sisterinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband of his daughter
murdered her.
3. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60 dated 30th
May, 1996 (Ex.PE) for an offence under Section 304B/34
IPC was registered at Police Station Tapa, District
Sangrur.
4. The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW6) reached
the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead
body of Jaswinder Kaur. He took the dead body to Civil
Hospital, Barnala for postmortem examination where Dr.
Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the postmortem
examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as
six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.
5. Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW6) recorded the statement of
the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were
arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities
of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ranjit
Singh for trial. In the absence of any evidence against
Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw of the deceased, her case was
dropped.Page 5
5
6. After commitment of the case, the Trial Court framed
charges against the accusedappellant for commission of
an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the
alternative charges under Section 304B read with Section
34 IPC and under Section 498A as well.
7. The prosecution in all, examined as many as six
witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW1,
Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW4,
Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Kaur, father and mother of the
deceased as PW4 and PW5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh
as PW6.
8. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Their
stand was that the deceased, in a disturbed mental state
committed suicide by hanging herself. On behalf of the
defence as many as five witnesses were examined. Rajinder
Singh, constable as DW1, Jagtar Singh @ Avtar Singh as
DW2, Gurcharan Singh son of Harchand as DW3, Major
Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW4 and DSP Darshan Singh
as DW5.
9. The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its
judgment dated 26.11.1998 convicted and sentenced the
accused Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh, husbandPage 6
6
and Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw for commiting an offence
under Section 304B IPC. Pursuant to an order passed in
criminal appeal No. 563DB of 1998 filed by the accused in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Division Bench
by its order dated 1st February, 2006 set aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court,
remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction
to proceed with the trials from the stage of Section
235Cr.P.C. and to pass order afresh in accordance with
law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition
preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were
dismissed by the same order, for having become
infructuous.
10. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the
matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during
the rehearing of the case before the Trial Court,
accused Raghbir Singh was reported to have died on 19th
April, 2003 and thereby the proceedings were abated
against him by order dated 25th March, 2006.
11. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence led by the
prosecution, the Trial Court held both Baldev Kaur,
motherinlaw and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offencePage 7
7
under Section 304B read with Section 34 and Section 498A
IPC and sentenced as noticed earlier. On appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court by impugned judgment
acquitted Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw but affirmed the
judgment passed by the Trial Court so far as it relates to
appellantRajnit Singh, husband of the deceased.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that in the
FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or
harassment or cruelty was made against the appellant,
Ranjit Singh, husband of the deceased. Even during the
trial, the demand for dowry was not attributed to the
appellant. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court
considered the defence evidence which appellant produced
to rebut the presumption. Further, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the
present case. Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased
has been acquitted considering the same evidence as is
available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same
cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty. It
was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made majorPage 8
8
improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to
notice the defence evidence which is more probable.
13.Gurjant Singh,PW1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder
Kaur, daughter of his sister was married to Ranjit Singh
at Kaleke in January, 1996. On the date of occurrence i.e.
30th May, 1996 he had gone to visit at the house of
accused Ranjit Singh where all family members including
Jaswinder Kaur were present there. They were openly
threatening Jaswinder Kaur since she had not brought
maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by
Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw who took her into a room by
holding her from her neck. Ranjit singh, husband caught
hold of her legs and Raghbir Singh , fatherinlaw
exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar
exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw and
in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that
Gurjant Singh(PW1) is a maternal uncle of the deceased
and, therefore, his statement was not worthy of any
credence as he would not allow anybody to commit such
crime in his presence. If he would have present there atPage 9
9
that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or
raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so.
14. Bahadur Singh(PW4) is the father of the deceased,
Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that on 30th May, 1996 at about
3.30P.m., he received information of his daughter's death
at her inlaw's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along
with others visited the Village where he found his
daughter, Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he
visited Police Station Tapa and lodged an FIR. He stated
that on demand of the accusedRaghvir Singh, fatherin
law, he spent Rs, 1,50,000/ on the marriage of her
daughter. She was given 14 tolas of gold, scooter and
Rs.55,000/ in cash. In addition to it he gave cooler,
fridge, dressing table, etc. as dowry to his daughter.
After 78days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage
Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused
were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded
the amount of “Shaguns”. On this, he gave Rs.8,000/ as
an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter which she handed
over to her husbandRanjit Singh who had accompanied
Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke. After about 20 days, when he
brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that herinPage 10
10
laws were demanding more dowry. She further informed that
she was being harassed by the accused. All the accused
including Raj Kaur, sisterinlaw, were demanding dowry
articles of good quality. Gurmel Kaur(PW5), mother of
the deceased went to her daughter’s matrimonial home one
day prior to the date of occurrence of death when her
daughter narrated her woeful stories and requested her
mother to take her back as she was apprehending death
from the accused. She further informed that the accused
was demanding Maruti Car as dowry. Gurmail Kaur(PW5)
assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to
her father and she came back in the evening of the same
day at Village Kaleke. Bahadur Singh(PW4) further stated
that his brotherinlaw (wife's brother) went to meet
Jaswinder Kaur at about 12/12.30 P.M. on the day of
occurrence and saw that all the accused including Raj
Kaur, sisterinlaw were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she
had not brought Maruti Car for them.
15. Gurmail Kaur(PW5), mother of the deceased, deposed
in her statement that her daughter was married to
accusedRanjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the
occurrence of her death. Sufficient dowry was given inPage 11
11
the marriage as per the demand of the accused. She had
gone to the Village Roorki Kalan to meet her daughter
where she told her that she was being maltreated by her
inlaws as they were demanding Maruti Car and the demand
was made by Baldev Kaur, motherinlaw, Ranjit Singh,
husband, Raghbir Singh, fatherinlaw and Raj Kaur,
sisterinlaw of the deceased. She also told her mother
that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not
bring Maruti car. She requested her mother to take her
back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at
the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and
assured her that she would narrate the matter to her
father. She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the
entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW4). Next day at about
3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had
been killed by herinlaws.
16. Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW2) conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body of Jaswinder Kaur @
Baljinder Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh @ Makhan Singh, R/o
Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.
The following injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:Page 12
12
1. Abrasion on the right side of neck 1x.25
cm in size 8cm away from right angle of mouth 0.5
cm away from right ear. Horozontal in position.
2. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
5x1½cm, 1cm below injury no. 1 and oblique in
position.
3. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
5x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 2.
4. Contusion on right side of neck measuring
4x1½cm ½cm below injury no. 3.
5. Contusion on left side 3x2cm in the
middle.
6. Upper eyelid of left eye was swollen and
blushed. On dissection of neck soft tissue
ecchomised.
He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured. Right lung
and left lung were congested with punctiform hemorrhage.
Right heart contained blood and left heart was empty.
Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of
death was due to asphyxia by throttling.
17.In his crossexamination, he also stated that there is
a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for
hanging through ling it would cause ligature marks.
18.Dev Raj (PW3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the
same.
19.Gurcharan Singh(PW6), ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala who
was the AIO, recorded the FIR and stated that hePage 13
13
inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot
(Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead
body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo
(Ex.PF). On 31st May, 1996, he arrested the accused;
Baldev Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh. He recorded
the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail
Kaur(PW5) as (Ex.DB) without any omission or addition.
He noted down the brief according to the facts contained
in the FIR.
It was given in the evidence of PW4 that one day
before the death of Jaswinder Kaur, Gurmail Kaur(PW5)
mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she
expressed her apprehension of threat to her life and
requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW5).
She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car
from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW5) assured her
daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of
Bahadur Singh(PW4), father of the deceased. The
statements of PW4 and PW3(parents of the deceased) were
duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and
harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and
the event of her visit a day prior to her death. TheyPage 14
14
were subjected to lengthy cross examination. Apart from
minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the
case, their statements are corroborated on material
particulars so far as the demands of harassment to
Jaswinder Kaur is concerned. Their statements indict
the series of incidents forming part of the same
transaction which culminated in the death of Jaswinder
Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by herinlaws right
from the very beginning and from time to time was being
harassed on demand of dowry. The sequence of events,
discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on
account of such demands were present till her death.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress
that there is no independent eye witness to corroborate
the statements of PW4 and PW5 who are closely related to
the deceased. The contention is again meritless. It is,
but natural, that instance of cruelty, harassment of
demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal
knowledge of near relations and they would be the best
persons to depose about the same. Therefore, the evidence
of physical and mental torture of the deceased from thePage 15
15
accused is not to be discarded simply on the score of
independent corroboration.
21. One of the stand taken by the appellant that no
Panchayat was convened and the matter was not reported to
the police cannnot be the ground to discard the evidence
of PW4 and PW5 who are material witnesses. About the
harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the
matter is first reported to the parents and not to the
Panchanayat. It is not necessary that such matter is
required to be reported to the Panchayat.
22. From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW2), it is
apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur was caused by
bodily injury which is otherwise than under the normal
circumstances. The death took place within few months of
the date of marriage i.e. much before seven years of
marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in
connection with the demand of dowry. Therefore, the
present case squarely falls within the meaning of dowry
death for the purpose to attract Section 304B IPC.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the
presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the
Page 16
16
question is whether a person has committed a 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 demand of a dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry
death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective
of the fact whether the accused had any direct connection
with the death or not, he shall be presumed to have
committed the “dowry death” provided the other
requirements mentioned above are satisfied.
23. In the present case, we have noticed that the
prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients
necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC.
Such ingredients having been proved, Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act automatically comes into play.
In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder
Kaur had taken place just within four months of her
marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the
evidence of PW4 and PW5, parents of the deceased.
They
have made statements that even at the time of marriage
they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 78 days of marriage
when Jaswinder Kaur came to their parents house and
Page 17
17
conveyed that the accused were demanding dowry as the
amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/ was given her to
handover to her husband who accompanied her.
Their
statement further suggested that upon subsequent visit of
their daughter after about 20 days, a sum of Rs.1500 was
spent by PW4 for purchase of certain articles, which his
daughter took to her matrimonial home in a tractor.
Just
a day before the death, she informed her mother Gurmail
Kaur(PW5) that the accused were torturing her and
demanding Maruti Car.
24. The statement of the accused corroborates the
materials particularly in relation to harassment and
demand of dowry and death by torture.
The accused being
the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of
Maruti Car, we find no reason to differ with the
conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate
Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence under
Section 304B IPC.
25. At the end of the argument, learned counsel for the
appellant made an alternative submission and requested to
take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the
death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife), the appellant got
Page 18
18
married second time and
from his second wife he has three children out of which one son is handicapped and
his mother is also paralysed.
Taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact,
we affirm the conviction under Section
304B IPC and 498A IPC and
reduce the sentence awarded
under Section 304B IPC to seven years alongwith the
sentence of two years imposed under Section 498A IPC
and fine of Rs.2,000/ as imposed by the Trial Court and
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with
direction that both sentences shall run concurrently.
Bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he is
directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the remainder of the sentence.
……………………………........………………..J.
(A.K.PATNAIK)
………........……………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 3, 2013.
