As per case facts, appellants Satnam Singh and Gurmit Kaur were convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC following the unnatural death of Satnam Singh's wife, Rajwinder Kaur, within months ...
CRA-S-1159-SB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced:
Whether full judgment is pronounced: YES
SATNAM SINGH
STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM: HON'BLE MS
Present: Ms. G.K.
Mr. Arshjot Singh Mohi,
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG Punjab.
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 14.05.2004 and the order of sente
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants
Satnam Singh and Gurmit Kaur have been convicted under Sections 304
498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and each of them has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years a
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
304-B IPC, and to
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/
1
SB-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA
Reserved on: 22.05.2026
Pronounced on: 28
Uploaded on:
Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced:
Whether full judgment is pronounced: YES
SATNAM SINGH AND ORS.
Versus
PUNJAB
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arshjot Singh Mohi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 14.05.2004 and the order of sente
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants
Satnam Singh and Gurmit Kaur have been convicted under Sections 304
A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and each of them has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years a
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
B IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1159-SB-2004
Reserved on: 22.05.2026
Pronounced on: 28.07.2026
Uploaded on: 28.07.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced: NO
….Appellants
....Respondent
. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Senior Advocate with
Advocate for the appellants.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 14.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated 19.05.2004 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants
Satnam Singh and Gurmit Kaur have been convicted under Sections 304-B and
A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and each of them has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
nce dated 19.05.2004 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants
B and
A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and each of them has
nd
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
and
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
CRA-S-1159-SB
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC. Both the substantive sente
2. Appellant Satnam Singh was married to the deceased Rajwinder
Kaur on 06.12.2001. Rajwinder Kaur died on 24.02.2002, otherwise than under
normal circumstances. Appellant Gurmit Kaur alias Mito is the mother
of the deceased.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about eight days prior
to the occurrence, the deceased, Rajwinder Kaur, came to her parental home at
Village Sangrawan. During her stay there, she disclosed to her brother,
Gurbachan Singh, her mother, Malkit Kaur, her cousin, Sukhdev Singh, and her
uncle, Santokh Singh, Ex
brothers-in-law, Kundan Singh and Pargan
law, Gurmeet Kaur
having brought insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a motorcycle.
She further disclosed that the accused had asked her to persuade her brother,
who was residing abroad, to send money for the purchase of the motorcy
The members of the parental family assured the deceased that the demand for
the motorcycle would be fulfilled. On the following day, Gurbachan Singh
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and informed the ac
that arrangements
3.1 It is further the case of the prosecution that about three days prior
to the occurrence, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephonic call to her paternal aunt,
Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, and informed her that her in
continuing to harass her on account of the demand for a motorcycle. She
requested Manjit Kaur to convey the matter to her parents and to ask them to
arrange for the
2
SB-2004
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
A IPC. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant Satnam Singh was married to the deceased Rajwinder
Kaur on 06.12.2001. Rajwinder Kaur died on 24.02.2002, otherwise than under
normal circumstances. Appellant Gurmit Kaur alias Mito is the mother
of the deceased.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about eight days prior
to the occurrence, the deceased, Rajwinder Kaur, came to her parental home at
Village Sangrawan. During her stay there, she disclosed to her brother,
Singh, her mother, Malkit Kaur, her cousin, Sukhdev Singh, and her
uncle, Santokh Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, that her husband, Satnam Singh, her
law, Kundan Singh and Pargan Singh alias Gora, and her mother
law, Gurmeet Kaur alias Mito, used to taunt and harass her on account of
having brought insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a motorcycle.
She further disclosed that the accused had asked her to persuade her brother,
who was residing abroad, to send money for the purchase of the motorcy
The members of the parental family assured the deceased that the demand for
the motorcycle would be fulfilled. On the following day, Gurbachan Singh
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and informed the ac
arrangements for the motorcycle would be made
It is further the case of the prosecution that about three days prior
to the occurrence, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephonic call to her paternal aunt,
Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, and informed her that her in
continuing to harass her on account of the demand for a motorcycle. She
requested Manjit Kaur to convey the matter to her parents and to ask them to
arrange for the motorcycle at the earliest. On 24.02.2002, in the morning,
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
nces were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant Satnam Singh was married to the deceased Rajwinder
Kaur on 06.12.2001. Rajwinder Kaur died on 24.02.2002, otherwise than under
normal circumstances. Appellant Gurmit Kaur alias Mito is the mother-in-law
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about eight days prior
to the occurrence, the deceased, Rajwinder Kaur, came to her parental home at
Village Sangrawan. During her stay there, she disclosed to her brother,
Singh, her mother, Malkit Kaur, her cousin, Sukhdev Singh, and her
Sarpanch, that her husband, Satnam Singh, her
Singh alias Gora, and her mother-in-
nt and harass her on account of
having brought insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a motorcycle.
She further disclosed that the accused had asked her to persuade her brother,
who was residing abroad, to send money for the purchase of the motorcycle.
The members of the parental family assured the deceased that the demand for
the motorcycle would be fulfilled. On the following day, Gurbachan Singh
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and informed the accused
made shortly.
It is further the case of the prosecution that about three days prior
to the occurrence, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephonic call to her paternal aunt,
Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, and informed her that her in-laws were
continuing to harass her on account of the demand for a motorcycle. She
requested Manjit Kaur to convey the matter to her parents and to ask them to
On 24.02.2002, in the morning,
rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section
Appellant Satnam Singh was married to the deceased Rajwinder
Kaur on 06.12.2001. Rajwinder Kaur died on 24.02.2002, otherwise than under
law
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about eight days prior
to the occurrence, the deceased, Rajwinder Kaur, came to her parental home at
Village Sangrawan. During her stay there, she disclosed to her brother,
Singh, her mother, Malkit Kaur, her cousin, Sukhdev Singh, and her
Sarpanch, that her husband, Satnam Singh, her
-
nt and harass her on account of
having brought insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a motorcycle.
She further disclosed that the accused had asked her to persuade her brother,
cle.
The members of the parental family assured the deceased that the demand for
the motorcycle would be fulfilled. On the following day, Gurbachan Singh
cused
It is further the case of the prosecution that about three days prior
to the occurrence, Rajwinder Kaur made a telephonic call to her paternal aunt,
re
continuing to harass her on account of the demand for a motorcycle. She
requested Manjit Kaur to convey the matter to her parents and to ask them to
On 24.02.2002, in the morning,
CRA-S-1159-SB
Lakhwinder Singh, the mediator who had facilitated the marriage,
telephonically informed the complainant party that Rajwinder Kaur had died.
Upon receiving the information, the complainant party immediately reached her
matrimonial home, where they found he
was tied to an angle iron affixed to the roof of the kitchen constructed on the
chubara of the house, while the other end was tied around the neck of the
deceased.
4. Gurbachan Singh, brother of the deceased, made a
(Exhibit PA) before the police, narrating the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the
said statement, FIR No. 10 dated 24.02.2002 was registered at Police Station
Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, under Sections 302/34 and 498
Penal Code against the present appellants as well as Kundan Singh and Parga
Singh alias Gora, who were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Court.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Cou
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, vide order dated 16.05.2002. Upon
consideration of the material placed on record and finding a prima facie case,
the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC and, in the alternative, under Sections 304
A IPC. The charges were read over and explained to
Punjabi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh, PW3 Sukhdev Singh, PW4 SI
Satnam Singh, PW5 HC Mohinder Singh, PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra and PW7
ASI Gyan Chand. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution
3
SB-2004
Lakhwinder Singh, the mediator who had facilitated the marriage,
telephonically informed the complainant party that Rajwinder Kaur had died.
Upon receiving the information, the complainant party immediately reached her
matrimonial home, where they found her dead body hanging. One end of a rope
was tied to an angle iron affixed to the roof of the kitchen constructed on the
of the house, while the other end was tied around the neck of the
Gurbachan Singh, brother of the deceased, made a
(Exhibit PA) before the police, narrating the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the
said statement, FIR No. 10 dated 24.02.2002 was registered at Police Station
Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, under Sections 302/34 and 498
e against the present appellants as well as Kundan Singh and Parga
Singh alias Gora, who were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Court.
Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Cou
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, vide order dated 16.05.2002. Upon
consideration of the material placed on record and finding a prima facie case,
learned trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC and, in the alternative, under Sections 304
A IPC. The charges were read over and explained to
Punjabi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh, PW3 Sukhdev Singh, PW4 SI
Satnam Singh, PW5 HC Mohinder Singh, PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra and PW7
ASI Gyan Chand. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution
Lakhwinder Singh, the mediator who had facilitated the marriage,
telephonically informed the complainant party that Rajwinder Kaur had died.
Upon receiving the information, the complainant party immediately reached her
r dead body hanging. One end of a rope
was tied to an angle iron affixed to the roof of the kitchen constructed on the
of the house, while the other end was tied around the neck of the
Gurbachan Singh, brother of the deceased, made a statement
(Exhibit PA) before the police, narrating the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the
said statement, FIR No. 10 dated 24.02.2002 was registered at Police Station
Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, under Sections 302/34 and 498-A of the Indian
e against the present appellants as well as Kundan Singh and Pargan
Singh alias Gora, who were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Court.
Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court. The case, being
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, vide order dated 16.05.2002. Upon
consideration of the material placed on record and finding a prima facie case,
learned trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC and, in the alternative, under Sections 304-B and 498-
A IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in simple
Punjabi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh, PW3 Sukhdev Singh, PW4 SI
Satnam Singh, PW5 HC Mohinder Singh, PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra and PW7
ASI Gyan Chand. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also tendered
Lakhwinder Singh, the mediator who had facilitated the marriage,
telephonically informed the complainant party that Rajwinder Kaur had died.
Upon receiving the information, the complainant party immediately reached her
r dead body hanging. One end of a rope
was tied to an angle iron affixed to the roof of the kitchen constructed on the
of the house, while the other end was tied around the neck of the
statement
(Exhibit PA) before the police, narrating the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the
said statement, FIR No. 10 dated 24.02.2002 was registered at Police Station
A of the Indian
n
Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under
rt. The case, being
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, vide order dated 16.05.2002. Upon
consideration of the material placed on record and finding a prima facie case,
learned trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302
-
the accused in simple
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh, PW3 Sukhdev Singh, PW4 SI
Satnam Singh, PW5 HC Mohinder Singh, PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra and PW7
also tendered
CRA-S-1159-SB
documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
the same was closed.
7. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied the allegations
levelled against them, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Arvinder Singh, Clerk,
District Transport Office, Kapurthala; DW2 H
Assistant; DW3 Gobind Swaroop Sharma, Inspector, Food and Supplies
Department, Dhilwan; and DW4 Mohan Lal, Junior Assistant, District
Transport Office, Kapurthala. Upon conclusion of the defence evidence, the
same was closed.
8. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing
learned counsel for both sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of
conviction dated
and Gurpreet Kaur
498-A IPC. However, the co
alias Gora, were acquitted of all the charges by extending to them the benefit of
doubt. Consequent upon the judgment of conviction, the learned trial Court,
vide separate order on sentence dated
accused as aforem
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that
there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish that the deceased was ever
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry. It has be
mental ailment and remained under depression
4
SB-2004
documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
the same was closed.
Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied the allegations
levelled against them, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Arvinder Singh, Clerk,
District Transport Office, Kapurthala; DW2 H
Assistant; DW3 Gobind Swaroop Sharma, Inspector, Food and Supplies
Department, Dhilwan; and DW4 Mohan Lal, Junior Assistant, District
Transport Office, Kapurthala. Upon conclusion of the defence evidence, the
same was closed.
After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing
learned counsel for both sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of
conviction dated 14.05.2004, held the present appellants, namely
Gurpreet Kaur, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304
A IPC. However, the co-accused, namely Kundan Singh and Pargan
alias Gora, were acquitted of all the charges by extending to them the benefit of
doubt. Consequent upon the judgment of conviction, the learned trial Court,
vide separate order on sentence dated 19.05.2004
aforementioned.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that
there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish that the deceased was ever
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry. It has been argued that the deceased was, in fact, suffering from a
nt and remained under depression and that it was owing to her
documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied the allegations
levelled against them, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Arvinder Singh, Clerk,
District Transport Office, Kapurthala; DW2 Harbans Singh Kahlon, Junior
Assistant; DW3 Gobind Swaroop Sharma, Inspector, Food and Supplies
Department, Dhilwan; and DW4 Mohan Lal, Junior Assistant, District
Transport Office, Kapurthala. Upon conclusion of the defence evidence, the
After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing
learned counsel for both sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of
, held the present appellants, namely Satnam Singh
fences punishable under Sections 304-B and
, namely Kundan Singh and Pargan Singh
alias Gora, were acquitted of all the charges by extending to them the benefit of
doubt. Consequent upon the judgment of conviction, the learned trial Court,
19.05.2004, sentenced the convicted
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that
there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish that the deceased was ever
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
en argued that the deceased was, in fact, suffering from a
and that it was owing to her
documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence were put to them. The accused denied the allegations
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Arvinder Singh, Clerk,
arbans Singh Kahlon, Junior
Assistant; DW3 Gobind Swaroop Sharma, Inspector, Food and Supplies
Department, Dhilwan; and DW4 Mohan Lal, Junior Assistant, District
Transport Office, Kapurthala. Upon conclusion of the defence evidence, the
After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing
learned counsel for both sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of
Satnam Singh
B and
Singh
alias Gora, were acquitted of all the charges by extending to them the benefit of
doubt. Consequent upon the judgment of conviction, the learned trial Court,
, sentenced the convicted
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that
there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish that the deceased was ever
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
en argued that the deceased was, in fact, suffering from a
CRA-S-1159-SB
disturbed mental condition she committed suicide. Learned counsel has further
submitted that appellant Satnam Singh and t
separately on the first floor of the house, whereas appellant Gurmeet Kaur was
residing on the ground floor along with her husband and had no interference
whatsoever in the
argued that the complainant party had initially alleged that the deceased had
been murdered by her in
deceased had committed suicide, the prosecution sought to improve its version
and attempted to conver
10. It has next been contended that the testimonies of PW2 Gurbachan
Singh, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffer from material
inconsistencies with regard to the alleged disclosure stated to have
by the deceased about eight days prior to the occurrence. Elaborating his
submissions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh and argued that, although the prosecution
case is that the decease
demand for a motorcycle when she had visited her parental home about eight
days before the occurrence, no such assertion finds place in his deposition
before the Court. It has further been submitted that P
also not supported the prosecution version on this material aspect.
Learned counsel has further argued that, according to the prosecution itself,
about three days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had made a telephonic
call to her aunt, Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, informing her that she was
being harassed by her in
requesting her to convey the said fact to her parents so that the demand could be
5
SB-2004
disturbed mental condition she committed suicide. Learned counsel has further
submitted that appellant Satnam Singh and t
separately on the first floor of the house, whereas appellant Gurmeet Kaur was
residing on the ground floor along with her husband and had no interference
the matrimonial life of the deceased.
argued that the complainant party had initially alleged that the deceased had
been murdered by her in-laws. However, after it became evident that the
deceased had committed suicide, the prosecution sought to improve its version
and attempted to convert a case of suicide into one
It has next been contended that the testimonies of PW2 Gurbachan
Singh, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffer from material
inconsistencies with regard to the alleged disclosure stated to have
by the deceased about eight days prior to the occurrence. Elaborating his
submissions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh and argued that, although the prosecution
case is that the deceased had disclosed to him the acts of cruelty and the
demand for a motorcycle when she had visited her parental home about eight
days before the occurrence, no such assertion finds place in his deposition
before the Court. It has further been submitted that P
also not supported the prosecution version on this material aspect.
Learned counsel has further argued that, according to the prosecution itself,
about three days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had made a telephonic
er aunt, Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, informing her that she was
being harassed by her in-laws on account of the demand for a motorcycle and
requesting her to convey the said fact to her parents so that the demand could be
disturbed mental condition she committed suicide. Learned counsel has further
submitted that appellant Satnam Singh and the deceased were residing
separately on the first floor of the house, whereas appellant Gurmeet Kaur was
residing on the ground floor along with her husband and had no interference
deceased. Learned counsel has further
argued that the complainant party had initially alleged that the deceased had
laws. However, after it became evident that the
deceased had committed suicide, the prosecution sought to improve its version
one of dowry death.
It has next been contended that the testimonies of PW2 Gurbachan
Singh, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffer from material
inconsistencies with regard to the alleged disclosure stated to have been made
by the deceased about eight days prior to the occurrence. Elaborating his
submissions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh and argued that, although the prosecution
d had disclosed to him the acts of cruelty and the
demand for a motorcycle when she had visited her parental home about eight
days before the occurrence, no such assertion finds place in his deposition
before the Court. It has further been submitted that PW1 Lakhwinder Singh has
also not supported the prosecution version on this material aspect.
Learned counsel has further argued that, according to the prosecution itself,
about three days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had made a telephonic
er aunt, Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, informing her that she was
laws on account of the demand for a motorcycle and
requesting her to convey the said fact to her parents so that the demand could be
disturbed mental condition she committed suicide. Learned counsel has further
he deceased were residing
separately on the first floor of the house, whereas appellant Gurmeet Kaur was
residing on the ground floor along with her husband and had no interference
ther
argued that the complainant party had initially alleged that the deceased had
laws. However, after it became evident that the
deceased had committed suicide, the prosecution sought to improve its version
It has next been contended that the testimonies of PW2 Gurbachan
Singh, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffer from material
been made
by the deceased about eight days prior to the occurrence. Elaborating his
submissions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh and argued that, although the prosecution
d had disclosed to him the acts of cruelty and the
demand for a motorcycle when she had visited her parental home about eight
days before the occurrence, no such assertion finds place in his deposition
W1 Lakhwinder Singh has
also not supported the prosecution version on this material aspect.
Learned counsel has further argued that, according to the prosecution itself,
about three days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had made a telephonic
er aunt, Manjit Kaur, wife of Avtar Singh, informing her that she was
laws on account of the demand for a motorcycle and
requesting her to convey the said fact to her parents so that the demand could be
CRA-S-1159-SB
fulfilled at the earliest. H
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh with
regard to the said telephonic conversation is admittedly based upon what was
allegedly conveyed to them by Manjit Kaur. Since Manjit Kaur, the pers
is stated to have received the telephone call from the deceased, has not been
examined by the prosecution, the aforesaid witnesses have merely deposed to
what they allegedly learnt from her. Such evidence, being hearsay in nature, is
inadmissible in
placed upon the said statements for recording a finding that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in
connection with any demand for dowry.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. It has
been argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within about two and a
half months of her marriage wh
to the medical evidence on record, learned State counsel has submitted that the
deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is, thus, contended
that the prosecution has successfully establi
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage,
thereby satisfying the foundational requirements of Section 304
Learned State counsel has further argued that the testimonies of PW2
Gurbachan Singh, brother of the deceased, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3
Sukhdev Singh consistently establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. It has been submitted
that the minor discrepancies, if any,
natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the
6
SB-2004
fulfilled at the earliest. However, whatever has been deposed to by PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh with
regard to the said telephonic conversation is admittedly based upon what was
allegedly conveyed to them by Manjit Kaur. Since Manjit Kaur, the pers
is stated to have received the telephone call from the deceased, has not been
examined by the prosecution, the aforesaid witnesses have merely deposed to
what they allegedly learnt from her. Such evidence, being hearsay in nature, is
evidence. It is, therefore, contended that no reliance can be
placed upon the said statements for recording a finding that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in
connection with any demand for dowry.
Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. It has
been argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within about two and a
half months of her marriage while residing at her matrimonial home. Referring
to the medical evidence on record, learned State counsel has submitted that the
deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is, thus, contended
that the prosecution has successfully establi
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage,
thereby satisfying the foundational requirements of Section 304
Learned State counsel has further argued that the testimonies of PW2
Singh, brother of the deceased, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3
Sukhdev Singh consistently establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. It has been submitted
that the minor discrepancies, if any, appearing in their testimonies are but
natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the
owever, whatever has been deposed to by PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh with
regard to the said telephonic conversation is admittedly based upon what was
allegedly conveyed to them by Manjit Kaur. Since Manjit Kaur, the person who
is stated to have received the telephone call from the deceased, has not been
examined by the prosecution, the aforesaid witnesses have merely deposed to
what they allegedly learnt from her. Such evidence, being hearsay in nature, is
evidence. It is, therefore, contended that no reliance can be
placed upon the said statements for recording a finding that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in
Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. It has
been argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within about two and a
ile residing at her matrimonial home. Referring
to the medical evidence on record, learned State counsel has submitted that the
deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is, thus, contended
that the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage,
thereby satisfying the foundational requirements of Section 304-B IPC.
Learned State counsel has further argued that the testimonies of PW2
Singh, brother of the deceased, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3
Sukhdev Singh consistently establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. It has been submitted
appearing in their testimonies are but
natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the
owever, whatever has been deposed to by PW1
Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh with
regard to the said telephonic conversation is admittedly based upon what was
on who
is stated to have received the telephone call from the deceased, has not been
examined by the prosecution, the aforesaid witnesses have merely deposed to
what they allegedly learnt from her. Such evidence, being hearsay in nature, is
evidence. It is, therefore, contended that no reliance can be
placed upon the said statements for recording a finding that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in
Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. It has
been argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within about two and a
ile residing at her matrimonial home. Referring
to the medical evidence on record, learned State counsel has submitted that the
deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is, thus, contended
shed that the deceased died
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage,
B IPC.
Learned State counsel has further argued that the testimonies of PW2
Singh, brother of the deceased, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh and PW3
Sukhdev Singh consistently establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. It has been submitted
appearing in their testimonies are but
natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the
CRA-S-1159-SB
otherwise reliable
contended that the evidence on record establishes a live an
between the cruelty meted out to the deceased on account of the demand for
dowry and her death. Learned State counsel has argued that once the
prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Section 304
statutory presumptio
stands attracted, whereupon the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said
presumption. According to the learned State counsel, the appellants have
to discharge the
defence has taken the plea that the deceased was suffering from depression and
had committed suicide on account of her mental condition, there is not an iota
of evidence on record to substantiate the said plea. It has, th
that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
be affirmed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
carefully gone through the record with their able assistance.
13. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
notice the essential ing
7
SB-2004
reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution.
contended that the evidence on record establishes a live an
between the cruelty meted out to the deceased on account of the demand for
dowry and her death. Learned State counsel has argued that once the
prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Section 304
statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
stands attracted, whereupon the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said
presumption. According to the learned State counsel, the appellants have
the said burden. Lastly, it has been argued that although the
defence has taken the plea that the deceased was suffering from depression and
had committed suicide on account of her mental condition, there is not an iota
of evidence on record to substantiate the said plea. It has, th
that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
I have heard learned counsel for the parties
gone through the record with their able assistance.
Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
notice the essential ingredients of Section 304
(a) the death of a woman must have been caused
injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances (including
suicide or any other unnatural death);
(b) the death must have occurred within seven years of her
marriage;
(c) soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband; and
prosecution. It has further been
contended that the evidence on record establishes a live and proximate nexus
between the cruelty meted out to the deceased on account of the demand for
dowry and her death. Learned State counsel has argued that once the
prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, the
B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
stands attracted, whereupon the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said
presumption. According to the learned State counsel, the appellants have failed
has been argued that although the
defence has taken the plea that the deceased was suffering from depression and
had committed suicide on account of her mental condition, there is not an iota
of evidence on record to substantiate the said plea. It has, therefore, been prayed
that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
gone through the record with their able assistance.
Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
redients of Section 304-B IPC which are:-
(a) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns, bodily
injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances (including
suicide or any other unnatural death);
(b) the death must have occurred within seven years of her
(c) soon before her death, the woman must have been
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
It has further been
d proximate nexus
between the cruelty meted out to the deceased on account of the demand for
dowry and her death. Learned State counsel has argued that once the
B IPC, the
B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
stands attracted, whereupon the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said
failed
has been argued that although the
defence has taken the plea that the deceased was suffering from depression and
had committed suicide on account of her mental condition, there is not an iota
erefore, been prayed
that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
d have
Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to
by burns, bodily
injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances (including
CRA-S-1159-SB
14. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the
deceased occurred within about two and a half
it was otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra,
who was a member of the Board of Doctors
examination on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that a ligature mark
measuring 2.2 cm in width was present on the upper part of the neck between
the larynx and the chin, running obliquely upwards along the line of the
mandible and extending up to the mastoid process behind the ear. He further
deposed that the ligature mark wa
and that the knot was present on the right side of the neck, where the ligature
mark was irregular and measured 3.5 cm at its widest point. According to the
opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was a
the ante-mortem injury to the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The post
corroborates the
establishing that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, thereby satisfying the
first two ingredients
15. However,
sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304
is further required to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
8
SB-2004
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in
connection with, the demand for dowry.
There must, in addition, be a proximate and live link
between the dowry-related cruelty or ha
death. The expression “soon before death” does not mean
“immediately before death”, and depends upon the facts of
each case.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the
deceased occurred within about two and a half months of her marriage and that
it was otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra,
who was a member of the Board of Doctors who
examination on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that a ligature mark
asuring 2.2 cm in width was present on the upper part of the neck between
the larynx and the chin, running obliquely upwards along the line of the
mandible and extending up to the mastoid process behind the ear. He further
deposed that the ligature mark was absent on the posterior aspect of the neck
and that the knot was present on the right side of the neck, where the ligature
mark was irregular and measured 3.5 cm at its widest point. According to the
opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was a
mortem injury to the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem report (Exhibit PH) duly
the said medical opinion. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, thereby satisfying the
ingredients of Section304-B IPC.
However, proof of the aforesaid two circumstances, by
sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304
is further required to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in
connection with, the demand for dowry.
There must, in addition, be a proximate and live link
related cruelty or harassment and the
death. The expression “soon before death” does not mean
“immediately before death”, and depends upon the facts of
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the
months of her marriage and that
it was otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra,
who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that a ligature mark
asuring 2.2 cm in width was present on the upper part of the neck between
the larynx and the chin, running obliquely upwards along the line of the
mandible and extending up to the mastoid process behind the ear. He further
s absent on the posterior aspect of the neck
and that the knot was present on the right side of the neck, where the ligature
mark was irregular and measured 3.5 cm at its widest point. According to the
opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from
mortem injury to the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in the
mortem report (Exhibit PH) duly
Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, thereby satisfying the
proof of the aforesaid two circumstances, by itself, is not
sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution
is further required to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the
months of her marriage and that
it was otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW6 Dr. Subhash Chandra,
mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that a ligature mark
asuring 2.2 cm in width was present on the upper part of the neck between
the larynx and the chin, running obliquely upwards along the line of the
mandible and extending up to the mastoid process behind the ear. He further
s absent on the posterior aspect of the neck
and that the knot was present on the right side of the neck, where the ligature
mark was irregular and measured 3.5 cm at its widest point. According to the
sphyxia resulting from
mortem injury to the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in the
mortem report (Exhibit PH) duly
Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, thereby satisfying the
itself, is not
B IPC. The prosecution
is further required to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
CRA-S-1159-SB
harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry
and that such cruelty or harassment was inflicted upon her soon before her
death.
16. The expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in the
Code. It is, however, well settled that the expression is a relative one and
necessarily postulates the existen
dowry-related cruelty or harassment and the death of the deceased. The interval
between the cruelty and the death should not be so remote as to snap the nexus
between the two.
17. It is equally well settled that
proving the foundational facts constituting the offence under Section 304
does the statutory presumption under Section 113
1872 become operative, whereupon the burden shifts to the
said presumption. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
aforesaid foundational facts is the principal question that falls for determination
in the present appeal
18. The aforesaid legal position has been succinct
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
(2003) 8 SCC 80 : 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 830
Evidence Act and Section 304
9
SB-2004
harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry
such cruelty or harassment was inflicted upon her soon before her
The expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in the
Code. It is, however, well settled that the expression is a relative one and
necessarily postulates the existence of a live and proximate link between the
related cruelty or harassment and the death of the deceased. The interval
between the cruelty and the death should not be so remote as to snap the nexus
two.
It is equally well settled that only after the prosecution succeeds in
proving the foundational facts constituting the offence under Section 304
does the statutory presumption under Section 113
1872 become operative, whereupon the burden shifts to the
said presumption. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
aforesaid foundational facts is the principal question that falls for determination
in the present appeal.
The aforesaid legal position has been succinct
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
(2003) 8 SCC 80 : 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 830
“9. A conjoint reading of Section 113
and Section 304-B I.P.C. 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 occur
than in normal circumstances”. The expression “soon
before” is very relevant where Section 113
Evidence Act and Section 304-B I.P.C. are pressed into
harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry
such cruelty or harassment was inflicted upon her soon before her
The expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in the
Code. It is, however, well settled that the expression is a relative one and
ce of a live and proximate link between the
related cruelty or harassment and the death of the deceased. The interval
between the cruelty and the death should not be so remote as to snap the nexus
only after the prosecution succeeds in
proving the foundational facts constituting the offence under Section 304-B IPC
does the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 become operative, whereupon the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the
said presumption. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
aforesaid foundational facts is the principal question that falls for determination
The aforesaid legal position has been succinctly explained by the
Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
(2003) 8 SCC 80 : 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 830, wherein it was held as under:-
“9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
C. 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
B I.P.C. are pressed into
harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry
such cruelty or harassment was inflicted upon her soon before her
The expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in the
Code. It is, however, well settled that the expression is a relative one and
ce of a live and proximate link between the
related cruelty or harassment and the death of the deceased. The interval
between the cruelty and the death should not be so remote as to snap the nexus
only after the prosecution succeeds in
B IPC
B of the Indian Evidence Act,
accused to rebut the
said presumption. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
aforesaid foundational facts is the principal question that falls for determination
he
Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi,
CRA-S-1159-SB
period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity
Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used
No definite period has been indicated and t
Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may
presume that a man who is in the possession of goods
10
SB-2004
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
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 113B of the
Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used
in the substantive Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 113B of
the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.
No definite period has been indicated and t
“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 upo
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 wou
consequence.”
service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon
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
sumption under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her death” used
in the substantive Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 113B 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
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
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
CRA-S-1159-SB
19. The aforesaid
Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
the Hon’ble three
particular instance but normally refer to a course of
20. Again, i
SCC 1 : AIR 2021 SC 2627
import of the expression “soon before he
their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or
the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”, and that
what is pivotal to the said determination is the establishment of a “proximate
and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
21. The
Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101
cruelty or harassment is the very foundation for raising the statutory
presumption under Section
11
SB-2004
The aforesaid principle was emphasized
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others
the Hon’ble three-Judge Bench held that:-
“14. “Soon before” is a relative term which is
be considered under specific circumstances of each case
and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any
time-limit. … In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or
harassment to the deceased are
particular instance but normally refer to a course of
conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.
… Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the consequential death is
required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and
the date of death should not be too remote in time which,
under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.”
Again, in Satbir Singh and another v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6
SCC 1 : AIR 2021 SC 2627, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
import of the expression “soon before her death”,
their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or
the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”, and that
what is pivotal to the said determination is the establishment of a “proximate
and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baijnath and others v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101, further held that proof of dowry
cruelty or harassment is the very foundation for raising the statutory
presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Eviden
emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme
and others, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein
. “Soon before” is a relative term which is required to
be considered under specific circumstances of each case
and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any
limit. … In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or
harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a
particular instance but normally refer to a course of
conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.
… Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the consequential death is
proved by the prosecution. The demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and
the date of death should not be too remote in time which,
under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale
another v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6
, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while explaining the
death”, held that Courts should use
their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and
the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”, and that
what is pivotal to the said determination is the establishment of a “proximate
and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
Baijnath and others v. State of
further held that proof of dowry-related
cruelty or harassment is the very foundation for raising the statutory
B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that
the Hon’ble Supreme
, wherein
another v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6
while explaining the
held that Courts should use
harassment and
the death of the victim would come within the term “soon before”, and that
what is pivotal to the said determination is the establishment of a “proximate
Baijnath and others v. State of
related
cruelty or harassment is the very foundation for raising the statutory
ce Act, 1872, and that
CRA-S-1159-SB
the said presumption cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution
case. It was observed as under:
predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably
Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her
22. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the prosecution has relied
upon two circumstances to establish that the deceased was
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. The first
circumstance pertains to the alleged disclosure made by the deceased about
eight days prior to the occurrence when she visited her parental home and
allegedly informed h
cousin Sukhdev Singh and her uncle Santokh Singh, Ex
husband, brothers
insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a moto
circumstance relates to the alleged telephonic conversation made by the
deceased about three days prior to the occurrence to her aunt, Manjit Kaur,
wherein she is alleged to have disclosed that her in
on account of the demand for a motorcycle and requested that her parents be
asked to arrange the same at the earliest. According to the prosecution, Manjit
Kaur thereafter conveyed the said information to the parental family of the
deceased.
23. Insofar as the
12
SB-2004
the said presumption cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution
It was observed as under:-
“33. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus
predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably
substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct
and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption
engrafted in Section 113B of the Act against the accused.
Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her
relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to
inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person
charged within the coils thereof.”
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the prosecution has relied
upon two circumstances to establish that the deceased was
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. The first
circumstance pertains to the alleged disclosure made by the deceased about
eight days prior to the occurrence when she visited her parental home and
allegedly informed her brother Gurbachan Singh, her mother Malkit Kaur, her
cousin Sukhdev Singh and her uncle Santokh Singh, Ex
husband, brothers-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her for bringing
insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a moto
circumstance relates to the alleged telephonic conversation made by the
deceased about three days prior to the occurrence to her aunt, Manjit Kaur,
wherein she is alleged to have disclosed that her in
ount of the demand for a motorcycle and requested that her parents be
asked to arrange the same at the earliest. According to the prosecution, Manjit
Kaur thereafter conveyed the said information to the parental family of the
Insofar as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution has
the said presumption cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution
. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus
predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably
substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct
and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption
engrafted in Section 113B of the Act against the accused.
Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her
is thus the sine qua non to
inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person
charged within the coils thereof.”
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the prosecution has relied
upon two circumstances to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. The first
circumstance pertains to the alleged disclosure made by the deceased about
eight days prior to the occurrence when she visited her parental home and
er brother Gurbachan Singh, her mother Malkit Kaur, her
cousin Sukhdev Singh and her uncle Santokh Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, that her
law were harassing her for bringing
insufficient dowry and had raised a demand for a motorcycle. The second
circumstance relates to the alleged telephonic conversation made by the
deceased about three days prior to the occurrence to her aunt, Manjit Kaur,
wherein she is alleged to have disclosed that her in-laws were still harassing her
ount of the demand for a motorcycle and requested that her parents be
asked to arrange the same at the earliest. According to the prosecution, Manjit
Kaur thereafter conveyed the said information to the parental family of the
first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution has
the said presumption cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the prosecution has relied
subjected to cruelty
and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. The first
circumstance pertains to the alleged disclosure made by the deceased about
eight days prior to the occurrence when she visited her parental home and
er brother Gurbachan Singh, her mother Malkit Kaur, her
Sarpanch, that her
law were harassing her for bringing
rcycle. The second
circumstance relates to the alleged telephonic conversation made by the
deceased about three days prior to the occurrence to her aunt, Manjit Kaur,
laws were still harassing her
ount of the demand for a motorcycle and requested that her parents be
asked to arrange the same at the earliest. According to the prosecution, Manjit
Kaur thereafter conveyed the said information to the parental family of the
first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution has
CRA-S-1159-SB
sought to prove the same through the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh,
PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh. It may be noticed that the FIR
came to be registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA m
Singh before the police, wherein he stated that about eight days prior to the
occurrence, his sister Rajwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and
disclosed before him, his mother Malkit Kaur, his cousin Sukhdev Singh and
his uncle Santokh Singh, Ex
mother-in-law were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and were
demanding a motorcycle.
Gurbachan Singh has, inter alia, deposed a
13
SB-2004
sought to prove the same through the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh,
PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh. It may be noticed that the FIR
came to be registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA m
Singh before the police, wherein he stated that about eight days prior to the
occurrence, his sister Rajwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and
disclosed before him, his mother Malkit Kaur, his cousin Sukhdev Singh and
Santokh Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, that her husband, brothers
law were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and were
demanding a motorcycle. However, while appearing in the witness box, PW
Gurbachan Singh has, inter alia, deposed as under:
“……About 15 days after the marriage, Satnam Singh,
husband, Kundan Singh brother
brother-in-law, Gurmit Kaur @ Mito mother
deceased started demanding motorcycle from us. The
accused told Rajwinder Kaur that in c
the motorcycle she could not come to their house. They
turned out Rajwinder Kaur from her bridal house and then
she went to her parents house. When Rajwinder Kaur came
to our house, she told my mother Malkiat Kaur, Santokh
Singh Ex-Sarpanch, my uncle from the brotherhood,
Sukhdev Singh my uncle’s son that Satnam Singh, Kundan
Singh, Pargan Singh alias Gora brothers
Kaur accused present in the Court were taunting her and
asking her to bring insufficient dowry. She to
about 8 days before her death. On the next day, I took my
sister Rajwinder Kaur to her in
Bhandal Bet and told Satnam Singh, Kundan Singh, Pargan
Singh and Gurmit Kaur accused that we had already given
telephonic message to Gurdial Singh my elder brother in
Kuwait. We further told that they should not harass and
sought to prove the same through the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh,
PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh. It may be noticed that the FIR
came to be registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by PW2 Gurbachan
Singh before the police, wherein he stated that about eight days prior to the
occurrence, his sister Rajwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and
disclosed before him, his mother Malkit Kaur, his cousin Sukhdev Singh and
Sarpanch, that her husband, brothers-in-law and
law were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and were
However, while appearing in the witness box, PW-2
s under:-
“……About 15 days after the marriage, Satnam Singh,
husband, Kundan Singh brother-in-law, Pargan Singh
law, Gurmit Kaur @ Mito mother-in-law of the
deceased started demanding motorcycle from us. The
accused told Rajwinder Kaur that in case she failed to bring
the motorcycle she could not come to their house. They
turned out Rajwinder Kaur from her bridal house and then
she went to her parents house. When Rajwinder Kaur came
to our house, she told my mother Malkiat Kaur, Santokh
Sarpanch, my uncle from the brotherhood,
Sukhdev Singh my uncle’s son that Satnam Singh, Kundan
Singh, Pargan Singh alias Gora brothers-in-law and Gurmit
present in the Court were taunting her and
asking her to bring insufficient dowry. She told about this
about 8 days before her death. On the next day, I took my
sister Rajwinder Kaur to her in-laws house at village
Bhandal Bet and told Satnam Singh, Kundan Singh, Pargan
Singh and Gurmit Kaur accused that we had already given
to Gurdial Singh my elder brother in
Kuwait. We further told that they should not harass and
sought to prove the same through the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh,
PW2 Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh. It may be noticed that the FIR
ade by PW2 Gurbachan
Singh before the police, wherein he stated that about eight days prior to the
occurrence, his sister Rajwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and
disclosed before him, his mother Malkit Kaur, his cousin Sukhdev Singh and
law and
law were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and were
2
CRA-S-1159-SB
24. A careful reading of the aforesaid testi
Gurbachan Singh has nowhere stated that the deceased had made the aforesaid
disclosure to him. Rather, on his own showing, the deceased disclosed the
alleged acts of cruelty and the demand for a motorcycle to his mother Malkit
Kaur, his uncle Santokh Singh, Ex
that extent, the testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh is not based upon any
disclosure made directly to him by the deceased and, therefore, cannot be relied
upon to conclude that the decease
subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
25. No doubt, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated in the opening part of
his deposition that about fifteen days after the marriage, the accused
demanding a motorcycle. The said assertion, however, is wholly bald and
omnibus, bereft of any material particulars regarding the date, place, manner or
circumstances in which such demand was allegedly raised. Significantly, the
allegation pertains to a point of time falling about the third week of December,
2001, i.e. more than two months prior to the death of the deceased. Even if the
said assertion is accepted at its face value, a demand allegedly raised at such a
distant point of time, in th
cruelty or harassment, cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of “soon before
her death” occurring in Section 304
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decis
26. Insofar as the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is concerned,
he has deposed that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
Rajwinder Kaur came to her parental home and that thereafter Gurbachan
14
SB-2004
taunt my sister and as soon as they receive the amount from
Gurdial Singh, they will give the motorcycle to them…..”
A careful reading of the aforesaid testi
Gurbachan Singh has nowhere stated that the deceased had made the aforesaid
disclosure to him. Rather, on his own showing, the deceased disclosed the
alleged acts of cruelty and the demand for a motorcycle to his mother Malkit
is uncle Santokh Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, and his cousin Sukhdev Singh. To
that extent, the testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh is not based upon any
disclosure made directly to him by the deceased and, therefore, cannot be relied
upon to conclude that the deceased had informed him that she was being
subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
No doubt, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated in the opening part of
his deposition that about fifteen days after the marriage, the accused
demanding a motorcycle. The said assertion, however, is wholly bald and
omnibus, bereft of any material particulars regarding the date, place, manner or
circumstances in which such demand was allegedly raised. Significantly, the
ains to a point of time falling about the third week of December,
2001, i.e. more than two months prior to the death of the deceased. Even if the
said assertion is accepted at its face value, a demand allegedly raised at such a
distant point of time, in the absence of any cogent evidence of proximate
cruelty or harassment, cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of “soon before
her death” occurring in Section 304-B IPC, having regard to the proximity test
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decis
Insofar as the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is concerned,
he has deposed that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
Rajwinder Kaur came to her parental home and that thereafter Gurbachan
taunt my sister and as soon as they receive the amount from
Gurdial Singh, they will give the motorcycle to them…..”
A careful reading of the aforesaid testimony reveals that PW2
Gurbachan Singh has nowhere stated that the deceased had made the aforesaid
disclosure to him. Rather, on his own showing, the deceased disclosed the
alleged acts of cruelty and the demand for a motorcycle to his mother Malkit
Sarpanch, and his cousin Sukhdev Singh. To
that extent, the testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh is not based upon any
disclosure made directly to him by the deceased and, therefore, cannot be relied
d had informed him that she was being
subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
No doubt, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated in the opening part of
his deposition that about fifteen days after the marriage, the accused had started
demanding a motorcycle. The said assertion, however, is wholly bald and
omnibus, bereft of any material particulars regarding the date, place, manner or
circumstances in which such demand was allegedly raised. Significantly, the
ains to a point of time falling about the third week of December,
2001, i.e. more than two months prior to the death of the deceased. Even if the
said assertion is accepted at its face value, a demand allegedly raised at such a
e absence of any cogent evidence of proximate
cruelty or harassment, cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of “soon before
B IPC, having regard to the proximity test
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions noticed hereinabove.
Insofar as the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is concerned,
he has deposed that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
Rajwinder Kaur came to her parental home and that thereafter Gurbachan
mony reveals that PW2
Gurbachan Singh has nowhere stated that the deceased had made the aforesaid
disclosure to him. Rather, on his own showing, the deceased disclosed the
alleged acts of cruelty and the demand for a motorcycle to his mother Malkit
Sarpanch, and his cousin Sukhdev Singh. To
that extent, the testimony of PW2 Gurbachan Singh is not based upon any
disclosure made directly to him by the deceased and, therefore, cannot be relied
d had informed him that she was being
No doubt, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated in the opening part of
had started
demanding a motorcycle. The said assertion, however, is wholly bald and
omnibus, bereft of any material particulars regarding the date, place, manner or
circumstances in which such demand was allegedly raised. Significantly, the
ains to a point of time falling about the third week of December,
2001, i.e. more than two months prior to the death of the deceased. Even if the
said assertion is accepted at its face value, a demand allegedly raised at such a
e absence of any cogent evidence of proximate
cruelty or harassment, cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of “soon before
B IPC, having regard to the proximity test
Insofar as the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is concerned,
he has deposed that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
Rajwinder Kaur came to her parental home and that thereafter Gurbachan
CRA-S-1159-SB
Singh, Sukhdev S
accused. According to him, he was also called there and all of them prevailed
upon the accused not to harass the deceased, whereafter they returned to their
village leaving
PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, however, does not inspire confidence for more than
one reason.
26.1 Firstly, according to the prosecution itself, it was PW2 Gurbachan
Singh who had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home on the following
day. However, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has nowhere deposed that PW1
Lakhwinder Singh had also been called to the matrimo
deceased or that he had joined them in persuading the accused not to harass the
deceased.
26.2 Secondly, while PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated that he alone
had taken his sister to her matrimonial home, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh has
introduced an altogether different version by stating that Gurbachan Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Trilok Singh had accompanied the deceased to her
matrimonial home and that he too had reached there. Thus, the two witnesses
are at variance on material particulars regardi
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and the events which are
stated to have transpired
26.3 Thirdly, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is not only
inconsistent with the statement of PW2 Gurbachan S
previous statement (Ex.DA) recorded during the course of investigation. In the
said statement, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had merely stated that he was called to
Village Sangrawan by the complainant party, where he was informed that th
accused were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and that he was requested to
15
SB-2004
Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Trilok Singh came along with her to the house of the
accused. According to him, he was also called there and all of them prevailed
upon the accused not to harass the deceased, whereafter they returned to their
Rajwinder Kaur at her matrimonial
PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, however, does not inspire confidence for more than
Firstly, according to the prosecution itself, it was PW2 Gurbachan
Singh who had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home on the following
day. However, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has nowhere deposed that PW1
Lakhwinder Singh had also been called to the matrimo
deceased or that he had joined them in persuading the accused not to harass the
Secondly, while PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated that he alone
had taken his sister to her matrimonial home, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh has
an altogether different version by stating that Gurbachan Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Trilok Singh had accompanied the deceased to her
matrimonial home and that he too had reached there. Thus, the two witnesses
are at variance on material particulars regarding the persons who had allegedly
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and the events which are
transpired there.
Thirdly, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is not only
inconsistent with the statement of PW2 Gurbachan S
previous statement (Ex.DA) recorded during the course of investigation. In the
said statement, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had merely stated that he was called to
Village Sangrawan by the complainant party, where he was informed that th
accused were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and that he was requested to
ingh and Trilok Singh came along with her to the house of the
accused. According to him, he was also called there and all of them prevailed
upon the accused not to harass the deceased, whereafter they returned to their
matrimonial home. The testimony of
PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, however, does not inspire confidence for more than
Firstly, according to the prosecution itself, it was PW2 Gurbachan
Singh who had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home on the following
day. However, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has nowhere deposed that PW1
Lakhwinder Singh had also been called to the matrimonial home of the
deceased or that he had joined them in persuading the accused not to harass the
Secondly, while PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated that he alone
had taken his sister to her matrimonial home, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh has
an altogether different version by stating that Gurbachan Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Trilok Singh had accompanied the deceased to her
matrimonial home and that he too had reached there. Thus, the two witnesses
ng the persons who had allegedly
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and the events which are
Thirdly, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is not only
inconsistent with the statement of PW2 Gurbachan Singh but also with his own
previous statement (Ex.DA) recorded during the course of investigation. In the
said statement, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had merely stated that he was called to
Village Sangrawan by the complainant party, where he was informed that the
accused were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and that he was requested to
ingh and Trilok Singh came along with her to the house of the
accused. According to him, he was also called there and all of them prevailed
upon the accused not to harass the deceased, whereafter they returned to their
The testimony of
PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, however, does not inspire confidence for more than
Firstly, according to the prosecution itself, it was PW2 Gurbachan
Singh who had taken the deceased to her matrimonial home on the following
day. However, PW2 Gurbachan Singh has nowhere deposed that PW1
nial home of the
deceased or that he had joined them in persuading the accused not to harass the
Secondly, while PW2 Gurbachan Singh has stated that he alone
had taken his sister to her matrimonial home, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh has
an altogether different version by stating that Gurbachan Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Trilok Singh had accompanied the deceased to her
matrimonial home and that he too had reached there. Thus, the two witnesses
ng the persons who had allegedly
accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home and the events which are
Thirdly, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh is not only
ingh but also with his own
previous statement (Ex.DA) recorded during the course of investigation. In the
said statement, PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had merely stated that he was called to
e
accused were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and that he was requested to
CRA-S-1159-SB
persuade them. He further stated that he made the deceased understand and sent
her back to her matrimonial home. Significantly, in the said previous statement,
he did not state tha
or that he, along with the complainant party, had prevailed upon the accused not
to harass the deceased.
26.4 These omissions assume significance as they relate to the very
occurrence sought
aforesaid inconsistencies and omissions, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder
Singh does not inspire sufficient confidence to safely rely upon the same for
holding that the deceased had, in fact, visited he
days prior to the occurrence and that the accused were confronted with the
allegation of dowry demand and harassment on that occasion.
27. Insofar as the testimony of PW3 Sukhdev Singh is concerned, it is
evident that the same
During his cross
recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., he had not stated that Rajwinder Kaur had
visited her parental home about eight days prior
had disclosed that she was being harassed by her in
demand for dowry.
161 Cr.P.C., which was duly put to him during the course of his cros
examination, reveals material departures from his deposition before the Court.
In the said statement, PW3 Sukhdev Singh had stated that the deceased had
visited her parental home about three days prior to her death and had disclosed
to her mother and bro
her for bringing insufficient dowry. He had further stated that the family
members persuaded the deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
16
SB-2004
persuade them. He further stated that he made the deceased understand and sent
her back to her matrimonial home. Significantly, in the said previous statement,
he did not state that he had accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home
or that he, along with the complainant party, had prevailed upon the accused not
to harass the deceased.
These omissions assume significance as they relate to the very
sought to be proved by the prosecution.
aforesaid inconsistencies and omissions, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder
Singh does not inspire sufficient confidence to safely rely upon the same for
holding that the deceased had, in fact, visited he
days prior to the occurrence and that the accused were confronted with the
allegation of dowry demand and harassment on that occasion.
Insofar as the testimony of PW3 Sukhdev Singh is concerned, it is
evident that the same also fails to lend assurance to the prosecution version.
During his cross-examination, the witness admitted that in his statement
recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., he had not stated that Rajwinder Kaur had
visited her parental home about eight days prior
had disclosed that she was being harassed by her in
dowry. Further, a perusal of his statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., which was duly put to him during the course of his cros
examination, reveals material departures from his deposition before the Court.
In the said statement, PW3 Sukhdev Singh had stated that the deceased had
visited her parental home about three days prior to her death and had disclosed
to her mother and brother that her in-laws were demanding dowry and harassing
her for bringing insufficient dowry. He had further stated that the family
members persuaded the deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
persuade them. He further stated that he made the deceased understand and sent
her back to her matrimonial home. Significantly, in the said previous statement,
t he had accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home
or that he, along with the complainant party, had prevailed upon the accused not
These omissions assume significance as they relate to the very
prosecution. Viewed in the light of the
aforesaid inconsistencies and omissions, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder
Singh does not inspire sufficient confidence to safely rely upon the same for
holding that the deceased had, in fact, visited her parental home about eight
days prior to the occurrence and that the accused were confronted with the
allegation of dowry demand and harassment on that occasion.
Insofar as the testimony of PW3 Sukhdev Singh is concerned, it is
also fails to lend assurance to the prosecution version.
examination, the witness admitted that in his statement
recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., he had not stated that Rajwinder Kaur had
visited her parental home about eight days prior to the occurrence or that she
had disclosed that she was being harassed by her in-laws in connection with the
Further, a perusal of his statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., which was duly put to him during the course of his cross-
examination, reveals material departures from his deposition before the Court.
In the said statement, PW3 Sukhdev Singh had stated that the deceased had
visited her parental home about three days prior to her death and had disclosed
laws were demanding dowry and harassing
her for bringing insufficient dowry. He had further stated that the family
members persuaded the deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
persuade them. He further stated that he made the deceased understand and sent
her back to her matrimonial home. Significantly, in the said previous statement,
t he had accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home
or that he, along with the complainant party, had prevailed upon the accused not
These omissions assume significance as they relate to the very
Viewed in the light of the
aforesaid inconsistencies and omissions, the testimony of PW1 Lakhwinder
Singh does not inspire sufficient confidence to safely rely upon the same for
r parental home about eight
days prior to the occurrence and that the accused were confronted with the
Insofar as the testimony of PW3 Sukhdev Singh is concerned, it is
also fails to lend assurance to the prosecution version.
examination, the witness admitted that in his statement
recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., he had not stated that Rajwinder Kaur had
to the occurrence or that she
laws in connection with the
Further, a perusal of his statement recorded under Section
-
examination, reveals material departures from his deposition before the Court.
In the said statement, PW3 Sukhdev Singh had stated that the deceased had
visited her parental home about three days prior to her death and had disclosed
laws were demanding dowry and harassing
her for bringing insufficient dowry. He had further stated that the family
members persuaded the deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
CRA-S-1159-SB
Significantly, in the said statement, the witness
had visited her parental home about eight days prior to the occurrence nor that
PW2 Gurbachan Singh had accompanied her to her matrimonial home. He also
did not state that PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had been called either to Vill
Sangrawan or to the matrimonial home of the deceased to apprise him of the
alleged demand
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be used only for
the limited purp
145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is in that limited perspective alone that
the aforesaid contradictions have been noticed. However, the omissions and
improvements made by PW3 Sukhdev Sin
insignificant matters but relate to the very foundation of the prosecution case
regarding the alleged visit of the deceased to her parental home eight days prior
to her death and the disclosure allegedly made by her on
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the first circumstance relied
upon by it, namely, that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
had visited her parental home and disclosed to the members of her parental
family that she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants
in connection with the demand for a motorcycle.
28.1 The evidence of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh
and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffers from material inconsistencies, omissions and
improvements touching the very genesis of the prosecution case. These are not
mere minor discrepancies, but strike at the r
Thus, the prosecution has
doubt, the alleged disclosure said to have been made by the deceased eight days
17
SB-2004
Significantly, in the said statement, the witness
had visited her parental home about eight days prior to the occurrence nor that
PW2 Gurbachan Singh had accompanied her to her matrimonial home. He also
did not state that PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had been called either to Vill
Sangrawan or to the matrimonial home of the deceased to apprise him of the
for dowry. It is, no doubt, well settled that a statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be used only for
the limited purpose of contradiction in the manner contemplated under Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is in that limited perspective alone that
the aforesaid contradictions have been noticed. However, the omissions and
improvements made by PW3 Sukhdev Singh are not with respect to trivial or
insignificant matters but relate to the very foundation of the prosecution case
regarding the alleged visit of the deceased to her parental home eight days prior
to her death and the disclosure allegedly made by her on
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the first circumstance relied
upon by it, namely, that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
visited her parental home and disclosed to the members of her parental
family that she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants
in connection with the demand for a motorcycle.
The evidence of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh
and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffers from material inconsistencies, omissions and
improvements touching the very genesis of the prosecution case. These are not
mere minor discrepancies, but strike at the root of the prosecution version.
Thus, the prosecution has remained unsuccessful
doubt, the alleged disclosure said to have been made by the deceased eight days
Significantly, in the said statement, the witness neither stated that the deceased
had visited her parental home about eight days prior to the occurrence nor that
PW2 Gurbachan Singh had accompanied her to her matrimonial home. He also
did not state that PW1 Lakhwinder Singh had been called either to Village
Sangrawan or to the matrimonial home of the deceased to apprise him of the
It is, no doubt, well settled that a statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be used only for
ose of contradiction in the manner contemplated under Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is in that limited perspective alone that
the aforesaid contradictions have been noticed. However, the omissions and
gh are not with respect to trivial or
insignificant matters but relate to the very foundation of the prosecution case
regarding the alleged visit of the deceased to her parental home eight days prior
to her death and the disclosure allegedly made by her on that occasion.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the first circumstance relied
upon by it, namely, that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
visited her parental home and disclosed to the members of her parental
family that she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants
in connection with the demand for a motorcycle.
The evidence of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh
and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffers from material inconsistencies, omissions and
improvements touching the very genesis of the prosecution case. These are not
oot of the prosecution version.
remained unsuccessful in proving, beyond reasonable
doubt, the alleged disclosure said to have been made by the deceased eight days
neither stated that the deceased
had visited her parental home about eight days prior to the occurrence nor that
PW2 Gurbachan Singh had accompanied her to her matrimonial home. He also
age
Sangrawan or to the matrimonial home of the deceased to apprise him of the
It is, no doubt, well settled that a statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can be used only for
ose of contradiction in the manner contemplated under Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is in that limited perspective alone that
the aforesaid contradictions have been noticed. However, the omissions and
gh are not with respect to trivial or
insignificant matters but relate to the very foundation of the prosecution case
regarding the alleged visit of the deceased to her parental home eight days prior
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the first circumstance relied
upon by it, namely, that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the deceased
visited her parental home and disclosed to the members of her parental
family that she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants
The evidence of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan Singh
and PW3 Sukhdev Singh suffers from material inconsistencies, omissions and
improvements touching the very genesis of the prosecution case. These are not
oot of the prosecution version.
in proving, beyond reasonable
doubt, the alleged disclosure said to have been made by the deceased eight days
CRA-S-1159-SB
prior to her death. The first circumstance relied upon by the pros
therefore, cannot be said to have been proved.
28.2 Coming now to the second circumstance, the prosecution has
sought to establish that about three days prior to her death, the deceased had
telephonically informed her aunt, Manjit Kaur, that she
cruelty and harassment by her in
motorcycle and had requested her to convey the said fact to her parents so that
the demand could be fulfilled at the earliest. It is the further case of the
prosecution that Manjit Kaur, in turn, conveyed the said information to the
parental family
the alleged telephonic conversation and, thus, the most material witness to
prove its contents, has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation
whatsoever has been furnished for withholding the said wit
28.3 The testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan
Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh, insofar as they relate to the alleged telephonic
conversation, are admittedly not based upon their personal knowledge but upon
what was allegedly communicated to them by Ma
therefore, hearsay in nature and cannot be accorded the same evidentiary value
as the testimony of a witness who had directly heard the deceased. The non
examination of Manjit Kaur assumes considerable significance, particularl
when the alleged telephonic conversation constitutes the principal circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to
dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In these
circumstances, the prosecut
to substantiate this material allegation. Consequently, the alleged telephonic
disclosure made by the deceased cannot be safely relied upon to hold that she
18
SB-2004
prior to her death. The first circumstance relied upon by the pros
therefore, cannot be said to have been proved.
Coming now to the second circumstance, the prosecution has
sought to establish that about three days prior to her death, the deceased had
telephonically informed her aunt, Manjit Kaur, that she
cruelty and harassment by her in-laws on account of the demand for a
motorcycle and had requested her to convey the said fact to her parents so that
the demand could be fulfilled at the earliest. It is the further case of the
ution that Manjit Kaur, in turn, conveyed the said information to the
of the deceased. However, Manjit Kaur, being the recipient of
the alleged telephonic conversation and, thus, the most material witness to
prove its contents, has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation
whatsoever has been furnished for withholding the said wit
The testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan
Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh, insofar as they relate to the alleged telephonic
conversation, are admittedly not based upon their personal knowledge but upon
what was allegedly communicated to them by Ma
therefore, hearsay in nature and cannot be accorded the same evidentiary value
as the testimony of a witness who had directly heard the deceased. The non
examination of Manjit Kaur assumes considerable significance, particularl
when the alleged telephonic conversation constitutes the principal circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to
related cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In these
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to produce the best available evidence
to substantiate this material allegation. Consequently, the alleged telephonic
disclosure made by the deceased cannot be safely relied upon to hold that she
prior to her death. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution,
Coming now to the second circumstance, the prosecution has
sought to establish that about three days prior to her death, the deceased had
telephonically informed her aunt, Manjit Kaur, that she was being subjected to
laws on account of the demand for a
motorcycle and had requested her to convey the said fact to her parents so that
the demand could be fulfilled at the earliest. It is the further case of the
ution that Manjit Kaur, in turn, conveyed the said information to the
However, Manjit Kaur, being the recipient of
the alleged telephonic conversation and, thus, the most material witness to
prove its contents, has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation
whatsoever has been furnished for withholding the said witness.
The testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan
Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh, insofar as they relate to the alleged telephonic
conversation, are admittedly not based upon their personal knowledge but upon
what was allegedly communicated to them by Manjit Kaur. Such evidence is,
therefore, hearsay in nature and cannot be accorded the same evidentiary value
as the testimony of a witness who had directly heard the deceased. The non-
examination of Manjit Kaur assumes considerable significance, particularly
when the alleged telephonic conversation constitutes the principal circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to
related cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In these
ion has failed to produce the best available evidence
to substantiate this material allegation. Consequently, the alleged telephonic
disclosure made by the deceased cannot be safely relied upon to hold that she
ecution,
Coming now to the second circumstance, the prosecution has
sought to establish that about three days prior to her death, the deceased had
was being subjected to
laws on account of the demand for a
motorcycle and had requested her to convey the said fact to her parents so that
the demand could be fulfilled at the earliest. It is the further case of the
ution that Manjit Kaur, in turn, conveyed the said information to the
However, Manjit Kaur, being the recipient of
the alleged telephonic conversation and, thus, the most material witness to
prove its contents, has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation
The testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2 Gurbachan
Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh, insofar as they relate to the alleged telephonic
conversation, are admittedly not based upon their personal knowledge but upon
njit Kaur. Such evidence is,
therefore, hearsay in nature and cannot be accorded the same evidentiary value
-
y
when the alleged telephonic conversation constitutes the principal circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to
related cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In these
ion has failed to produce the best available evidence
to substantiate this material allegation. Consequently, the alleged telephonic
disclosure made by the deceased cannot be safely relied upon to hold that she
CRA-S-1159-SB
was subjected to cruelty or harassment in con
dowry soon before
28.4 In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
ingredients of Section 304
under Section 113
conviction of the appellants under Section 304
sustained.
29. The conviction of the appellants under Section 498
cannot be sustained. The charge under the said provision rests upon the very
same evidence, namely, the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2
Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh regarding the alleged demand for a
motorcycle and the consequent harassment
having already been found to be unreliable for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, no independent or other cogent evidence survives on record to
establish that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty within the
meaning of the Explanation appended to Section 498
It may also be noticed that the learned trial Court itself acquitted co
Kundan Singh and Pargan
identical allegations had been levelled by the very same prosecution witnesses,
holding that they appeared to have been falsely implicated with a view to
exaggerate the number of the accused. The correctness of
not the subject matter of the present appeal. Nevertheless, the said finding lends
further assurance to the conclusion arrived at by this Court regarding the
reliability of the
19
SB-2004
was subjected to cruelty or harassment in con
before her death.
In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. Consequently,
under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not arise. The
conviction of the appellants under Section 304
The conviction of the appellants under Section 498
not be sustained. The charge under the said provision rests upon the very
same evidence, namely, the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2
Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh regarding the alleged demand for a
motorcycle and the consequent harassment of the deceased. The said evidence
having already been found to be unreliable for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, no independent or other cogent evidence survives on record to
establish that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty within the
ning of the Explanation appended to Section 498
It may also be noticed that the learned trial Court itself acquitted co
Kundan Singh and Pargan Singh alias Gora, against whom substantially
identical allegations had been levelled by the very same prosecution witnesses,
holding that they appeared to have been falsely implicated with a view to
exaggerate the number of the accused. The correctness of
not the subject matter of the present appeal. Nevertheless, the said finding lends
further assurance to the conclusion arrived at by this Court regarding the
the prosecution evidence.
was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for
In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
B IPC. Consequently, the statutory presumption
B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not arise. The
conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, cannot be
The conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC also
not be sustained. The charge under the said provision rests upon the very
same evidence, namely, the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2
Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh regarding the alleged demand for a
of the deceased. The said evidence
having already been found to be unreliable for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, no independent or other cogent evidence survives on record to
establish that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty within the
ning of the Explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC.
It may also be noticed that the learned trial Court itself acquitted co-accused
Singh alias Gora, against whom substantially
identical allegations had been levelled by the very same prosecution witnesses,
holding that they appeared to have been falsely implicated with a view to
exaggerate the number of the accused. The correctness of the said acquittal is
not the subject matter of the present appeal. Nevertheless, the said finding lends
further assurance to the conclusion arrived at by this Court regarding the
nection with the demand for
In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
the statutory presumption
B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not arise. The
B IPC, therefore, cannot be
A IPC also
not be sustained. The charge under the said provision rests upon the very
same evidence, namely, the testimonies of PW1 Lakhwinder Singh, PW2
Gurbachan Singh and PW3 Sukhdev Singh regarding the alleged demand for a
of the deceased. The said evidence
having already been found to be unreliable for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, no independent or other cogent evidence survives on record to
establish that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty within the
A IPC.
accused
Singh alias Gora, against whom substantially
identical allegations had been levelled by the very same prosecution witnesses,
holding that they appeared to have been falsely implicated with a view to
the said acquittal is
not the subject matter of the present appeal. Nevertheless, the said finding lends
further assurance to the conclusion arrived at by this Court regarding the
CRA-S-1159-SB
30. As a necessary corollary to t
appeal deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of
conviction dated
by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. The appellants are
all the charges framed against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
31. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
28.07.2026
puneet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned:
2. Whether reportable:
20
SB-2004
As a necessary corollary to the foregoing discussion, the present
appeal deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of
conviction dated 14.05.2004 and the order of sentence dated
by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. The appellants are
all the charges framed against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
heir bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
he foregoing discussion, the present
appeal deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of
and the order of sentence dated 19.05.2004 passed
by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of
all the charges framed against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
heir bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
JUDGE
he foregoing discussion, the present
appeal deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of
passed
acquitted of
all the charges framed against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....