caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Kuljit Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2021Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, Hon’Ble Ms. Kohli
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2012
Kuljit Singh & Anr. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Punjab ….Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
18.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh in CRAS307SB of 2002. By the said judgment
the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants
herein and upheld the conviction of the appellants ordered by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions Case No.74 of
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2021.12.08
16:49:15 IST
Reason:
1999 registered for the offence under Section 304B of Indian
1
Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). The sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 8 years imposed on both the appellants by
the learned Sessions Judge was however modified. In that
regard, the period of imprisonment to be undergone by the
appellant No.2 – Raj Rani alone was reduced to 7 years. The
appellants thus being aggrieved by their conviction and
sentence are before this Court in this appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel for
the appellants, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the appeal papers.
3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant No.1 and the
deceased Manju i.e. the eldest daughter of Gurnam Singh were
married in the year 1997. The incident in question leading to
the death of Manju had occurred on 02.03.1999 i.e in a short
span of about 2 years from the date of marriage. The death of
Manju, the wife of the appellant No.1 was an unnatural death.
The cause of death as spoken to by the expert witnesses was
due to consumption of insecticide. Therefore, ex facie it is
noticed that the circumstances provided under Section 304B
IPC to the extent; the death of the woman being caused
2
otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death
having occurred within 7 years of her marriage, would stand
established.
4. In that background, since the appellants were charged of
having committed the offence under Section 304B IPC, the
factual aspects which were required to be established by the
prosecution in the course of trial is about the deceased being
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of
his relatives and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in
connection with demand for dowry.
5. In the instant facts, to establish this aspect of the matter,
the father of the deceased (Gurnam Singh) was examined as
PW1 and the mother of the deceased (Charanjit Kaur) was
examined as PW8, while another witness Bidhi Chand was
examined as PW7. From the evidence of the said witnesses, the
trial court as well as the High Court has noted that the demand
for a television set and Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) was
being put forth ever since the marriage of the deceased with the
appellant No.1. The evidence tendered by the said witnesses
has stood the test of crossexamination and has been rightly
3
accepted by both the courts. In that background, the evidence
of Dr. Gurnamjit Rai (PW2) and of the SubInspector (Jaswant
Singh) (PW5) would establish that the death had occurred due
to organo phosphorous poisoning. Hence, as noted, the death
was unnatural and there was demand for dowry. In those
circumstances, the further evidence of PW1 and PW8, the
parents of the deceased would also refer to the circumstances
when the deceased had been sent back to the parental home to
secure fulfilment of the said demand, but the parents being
unable to fulfil the demand, had counselled and sent her back.
It was also stated by them that during such visit she had
mentioned about the illtreatment meted out to her. But the
question would be as to whether such evidence will be sufficient
to hold both appellants guilty of committing the offence.
6. Considering the fact that on all these aspects of the
matter, the trial court has referred to the evidence in detail and
the High Court has reappreciated the same in its correct
perspective, to the extent of both the courts holding the
appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) guilty, convicting him and
imposing the sentence in the manner as done, is justified and
does not call for interference.
4
7. The only aspect which requires consideration herein is as
to whether the conviction and sentence handed down to the
appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) is justified or not? The learned
counsel for the appellant in that regard has strenuously
contended that except for making vague statements to the effect
that the husband and the inlaws of their daughter had made
demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court
had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant
No.2 namely, the motherinlaw of the deceased had been
ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting
cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section
313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role
and had also contended that she was not present in the house
when death of her daughterinlaw had occurred. It is true that
the appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) had also stated that he was
not present when the death had occurred. On that aspect, as
rightly noted by the trial court, it had come in the evidence
through the deposition of Bittu (DW1) that he and appellant
No.1 (Kuljit Singh) had taken the deceased to Dr. Kalsi and
thereafter to Shri Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar though
the version given by the said witness was, because she was
5
pregnant. However, it has been established that such shifting to
the hospital was after the deceased had collapsed due to the
poisonous substance being consumed. Therefore, though the
presence of the appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established,
the presence of the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) was not spoken
about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard
to such demand being made by the appellant No.2 or cruelty
being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand. From the
evidence referred by the trial court, it is noticed that wherever
this aspect has been referred to, a sweeping statement has been
made that the husband and inlaws of the deceased had
inflicted cruelty or it has been stated that the husband and his
mother had done so, without specifying their roles. However, as
already noted, the said evidence would be sufficient to hold the
appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) guilty but same would be
insufficient to hold the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) guilty. Hence,
we are of the opinion that the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) is
entitled to be acquitted.
8. For the reasons stated above, the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) is
affirmed, while the conviction and sentence imposed on the
6
appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) is set aside. The judgment dated
08.01.2002 in Sessions Case No.74/1999 and the judgment
dated 18.01.2011 in CRA307SB of 2002 stand modified to the
above extent.
9. The appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) who is on bail, shall
surrender within two weeks from the date of this judgment and
serve the remaining sentence. The appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) is
set at liberty if not wanted in any other case and the bail bonds
executed by her is ordered to be cancelled.
10. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….………………….CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
..…………………………J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
…….……………………J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
New Delhi,
December 08, 2021
7
Comments