caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Major Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 9 March, 2015Author: R Banumathi
Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, Amitava Roy
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 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 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 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 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 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:-
The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’
such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband;
such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of
dowry and
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
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-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 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 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 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 [pic]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.
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 custody is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
…………………..J
(T. S. Thakur)
…………………..J
(R. Banumathi)
…………………..J
(Amitava Roy)
New Delhi;
April 8, 2015
Comments