Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2007

RANJIT SINGH      ...APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB   ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This   appeal is directed against   the judgment and  

order   dated   17th   January,   2007   passed   by   the   Division 

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh  

in Criminal Appeal No. 303­DB of 2006. By its impugned  

judgment the Division Bench while acquitting one of the  

accused­Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased, of the  

charges framed against her, affirmed the sentence awarded  

by   the   Additional   Session   Judge,   Barnala   against   the  

appellant under Section 304­B, 498­A IPC.   

The accused­appellant­Ranjit Singh has been sentenced  

to undergo RI for life under Section 304­B IPC and further  

sentenced to undergo RI for   two years with a fine of  

Page 2 2

Rs.2,000/­,   in   default   thereof   to   go   RI   for   a   further 

period of six months under Section 498­A IPC.

2.The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal  

are as follows:­

                   The informant Bahadur Singh got recorded his  

statement on 30th May, 1996 to ASI Gurcharan Singh, Police  

Station Tapa  to the effect that he had performed marriage  

of his daughter Jaswinder Kaur with Ranjit Singh @ Makhan,  

son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Roorki Kalan   in the  

month of January, 1996. He gave 14 tolas gold, Rs.55,000/­  

cash, one scooter, fridge, cooler, sofa set, bed, almirah,  

etc. as dowry.   In total he spent 1.5 lakh in the said  

marriage   and   fulfilled   all   the   demands   so   raised   by 

Raghbir Singh, father­in­law of his daughter.  After about  

7   days   of   marriage,     his   daughter   came   to   her   parents 

house,   she   complained   about   the   demand   of   money   as  

“Shagun”,  upon which he handed over a sum of Rs.8,000/­  

to   her   daughter   which   she   handed   over   to   her   husband­

Ranjit Singh (appellant herein). The complainant Bahadur  

Singh in his statement further narrated as to how and when  

his daughter again came to them after 20 days of marriage  

and told about the demand made by her in­laws and pursuant  

Page 3 3

thereto he again purchased articles worth Rs.1500/­   and  

sent to her daughter's matrimonial house at Roorki Kalan.  

The complainant further stated that even thereafter also  

demands   were   made   by   her   daughter's   in­laws   asking   for 

articles of good quality as the earlier purchased articles  

were not upto their satisfaction. The complainant, Bahadur  

Singh further mentioned the episode of 29th May, 1998 when  

his wife Gurmail Kaur went to her daughter’s matrimonial  

house at Village Roorki Kalan where her daughter narrated  

her about the harassment made by her in­laws on account of  

demand of a car. She further informed her mother that she  

apprehended that she might be killed by her­in­laws and  

requested to take her alongwith her.   However, his wife  

consoled   her   daughter   and   went   back   to   her   house   at 

village Kale Ka.   On 30th May, 1996, at about 3.30P.M.,  

they   came   to   know   about   the   death   of   their     daughter 

Jaswinder Kaur and on reaching village Roorki Kalan they  

found their daughter  Jaswinder Kaur lying on a cot in the  

courtyard   of   her   in­laws   house   with   injuries     on   her 

person.   The   complainant     suspected   that   Raghbir   Singh, 

father­in­law,   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law,   Raj   Kaur,  

Page 4 4

sister­in­law and Ranjit Singh, husband of his daughter  

murdered her.

3.On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 60  dated 30th  

May, 1996 (Ex.PE) for an offence under Section 304­B/34  

IPC   was   registered   at   Police   Station   Tapa,   District  

Sangrur.

4.The Police Office Gurcharan Singh, ASI (PW­6) reached  

the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex.PC) of the dead  

body of Jaswinder Kaur.   He took the dead body to Civil  

Hospital,   Barnala   for   post­mortem   examination   where   Dr. 

Bhalinder   Singh(PW­2)   conducted   the   post­mortem  

examination and by report (Ex.PA), he noticed as many as  

six injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of  

death was due to asphyxia by throttling.  

5.Gurcharan Singh, ASI(PW­6)  recorded the statement of  

the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were  

arrested and thereafter on completion of usual formalities  

of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  

was filed against Raghbir Singh, Baldev Kaur and Ranjit  

Singh for trial. In the absence of any evidence against  

Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law   of   the   deceased,   her   case   was 

dropped.

Page 5 5

6.After commitment of the case,  the Trial Court framed  

charges   against   the   accused­appellant   for   commission   of 

an   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC   with   the 

alternative charges under Section 304­B read with Section  

34 IPC and under Section 498­A as well.

7.The   prosecution   in   all,   examined   as   many   as     six 

witnesses viz. Gurjant Singh, son of Pritam Singh as PW­1,  

Dr. Bhalinder Singh as PW­2, Dev Raj, Draftsman as PW­4,  

Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Kaur, father and mother of   the  

deceased as PW­4 and PW­5 respectively and Gurcharan Singh  

as PW­6. 

8.The accused denied the prosecution allegations.  Their  

stand was that  the deceased, in a disturbed mental state  

committed   suicide   by   hanging   herself.   On   behalf   of   the 

defence as many as five witnesses were examined.  Rajinder  

Singh, constable as DW­1, Jagtar  Singh @ Avtar Singh as  

DW­2,   Gurcharan   Singh   son   of   Harchand   as   DW­3,   Major 

Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh as DW­4 and DSP Darshan Singh  

as DW­5.

9.The Trial Court on conclusion of its trial, vide its  

judgment   dated   26.11.1998   convicted   and   sentenced   the  

accused Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law, Ranjit Singh, husband  

Page 6 6

and Raghbir Singh, father­in­law for commiting an offence  

under Section 304­B IPC.  Pursuant to an order passed in  

criminal appeal No. 563­DB of 1998 filed by the accused in  

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Division Bench  

by   its   order   dated   1st   February,   2006   set   aside   the 

conviction   and   sentence   recorded   by   the   Trial   Court,  

remanded back the case to the Trial Court with direction  

to   proceed   with   the     trials   from   the   stage   of   Section 

235Cr.P.C.   and   to   pass   order   afresh   in   accordance   with 

law. Separate Criminal Appeal as well as revision petition  

preferred by the State of Punjab and the complainant were  

dismissed   by   the   same   order,     for   having   become  

infructuous.

10.Pursuant   to   the   direction   of   the   High   Court,   the 

matter was again taken up by the Trial Court and during  

the   re­hearing   of   the   case   before   the   Trial   Court,  

accused Raghbir Singh was reported to have died on 19th  

April,   2003   and   thereby   the   proceedings   were   abated  

against him by order dated 25th March, 2006.

11.Thereafter,   on   appreciation   of   evidence   led   by   the 

prosecution,   the   Trial   Court   held   both   Baldev   Kaur,  

mother­in­law and Ranjit Singh, husband, guilty of offence  

Page 7 7

under Section 304­B read with Section 34 and Section 498­A  

IPC   and sentenced as noticed earlier.   On appeal, the  

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   impugned   judgment 

acquitted   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law   but   affirmed   the  

judgment passed by the Trial Court so far as it relates to  

appellant­Rajnit Singh, husband of the deceased.

12.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant  

assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that in the  

FIR, no specific allegation about the demand of dowry or  

harassment   or   cruelty   was   made   against   the   appellant, 

Ranjit   Singh,   husband   of   the   deceased.   Even   during   the 

trial,   the   demand   for   dowry   was   not   attributed   to   the 

appellant.   Neither   the   Trial   Court   nor   the   High   Court 

considered the defence evidence which appellant produced  

to   rebut   the   presumption.   Further,   learned   counsel  

appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   submitted     that 

Section 113­B of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the  

present case.   Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law of the deceased  

has   been   acquitted   considering   the   same   evidence   as   is 

available in the case of Ranjit Singh,husband and the same  

cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty.   It  

was also alleged that the prosecution witnesses made major  

Page 8 8

improvements in their evidence and Trial Court failed to  

notice the defence evidence  which is more probable. 

13.Gurjant Singh,PW­1 stated that the deceased Jaswinder  

Kaur, daughter of his sister  was married  to Ranjit Singh  

at Kaleke in January, 1996. On the date of occurrence i.e.  

30th  May, 1996 he had gone  to visit    at the house of  

accused Ranjit Singh where all family members including  

Jaswinder   Kaur   were   present   there.   They   were   openly  

threatening   Jaswinder   Kaur   since   she   had   not   brought  

maruti car in dowry. They started abusing her followed by  

Baldev Kaur, mother­in­law who took her into a room by  

holding her from her neck. Ranjit singh, husband caught  

hold   of   her   legs   and   Raghbir   Singh   ,   father­in­law  

exhorted them to kill her by pressing her neck and similar  

exhortation was also given by Raj Kaur, sister­in­law and  

in his presence all of them strangulated her to death.

     On   behalf   of   the   appellant   it   was   contended   that 

Gurjant Singh(PW­1) is a maternal uncle of the deceased  

and,   therefore,   his   statement   was   not   worthy   of   any 

credence   as   he   would   not   allow   anybody   to   commit   such 

crime in his presence. If he would have present there at  

Page 9 9

that time, he must have intervened to save his niece or  

raised an alarm which he admitted that he did not do so.

14.Bahadur Singh(PW­4) is the father of the deceased,  

Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that on 30th May, 1996 at about  

3.30P.m., he received information of his daughter's death  

at her ­in­law's house at Village Roorki Kalan. He along  

with   others   visited   the   Village   where   he   found   his  

daughter,  Jaswinder Kaur was lying dead on a cot then he  

visited Police Station Tapa and lodged  an FIR.  He stated  

that on demand of the accused­Raghvir Singh, father­in­

law,   he   spent   Rs,   1,50,000/­   on   the   marriage   of   her 

daughter.   She   was   given   14   tolas   of   gold,   scooter   and 

Rs.55,000/­ in cash. In addition to it he gave cooler,  

fridge,   dressing   table,   etc.   as   dowry   to   his   daughter. 

After 7­8days of marriage, Jaswinder Kaur came to Vilage  

Kaleke to meet her parents and told them that the accused  

were demanding more money as dowry and they also demanded  

the amount of “Shaguns”.   On this, he gave Rs.8,000/­ as  

an amount of “Shaguns” to his daughter  which she handed  

over   to   her   husband­Ranjit   Singh   who   had   accompanied  

Jaswinder Kaur to Kaleke.   After about 20 days, when he  

brought her daughter in Kaleke, she informed that her­in­

Page 10 10

laws were demanding more dowry.  She further informed that  

she was being   harassed by the accused. All the accused  

including   Raj   Kaur,   sister­in­law,   were   demanding   dowry 

articles of good quality.   Gurmel Kaur(PW­5), mother of  

the deceased went to her daughter’s matrimonial home one  

day  prior  to   the  date  of  occurrence  of   death   when  her  

daughter narrated her woeful   stories and requested her  

mother   to take her back as she was apprehending death  

from the accused. She further informed that the accused  

was demanding Maruti Car as dowry.     Gurmail Kaur(PW­5)  

assured her daughter to she would tell the entire story to  

her father and she came back in the evening of the same  

day at Village Kaleke.  Bahadur Singh(PW­4) further stated  

that   his   brother­in­law   (wife's   brother)   went   to   meet 

Jaswinder   Kaur   at   about   12/12.30   P.M.   on   the   day   of 

occurrence   and   saw   that   all   the   accused   including   Raj 

Kaur, sister­in­law   were scolding Jaswinder Kaur as she  

had not brought Maruti Car for them.

15.Gurmail Kaur(PW­5), mother of the deceased, deposed  

in   her   statement   that   her   daughter   was   married     to 

accused­Ranjit Singh about 4 months before the date of the  

occurrence of her death.  Sufficient dowry  was given in  

Page 11 11

the marriage as per the demand of the accused. She had  

gone   to   the   Village   Roorki   Kalan   to   meet   her   daughter 

where she told her that she was being maltreated by her­

in­laws as they were demanding Maruti Car and the demand  

was   made   by   Baldev   Kaur,   mother­in­law,     Ranjit   Singh, 

husband,   Raghbir   Singh,   father­in­law   and   Raj   Kaur,  

sister­in­law of the deceased. She also told her mother  

that they were threatening to kill her in case she did not  

bring Maruti car. She requested her mother to take her  

back to Kaleke as she apprehended danger to her life at  

the hands of the accused. She consoled her daughter and  

assured   her   that   she   would   narrate   the   matter   to   her 

father.  She came to the Village Kaleke and narrated the  

entire matter to Bahadur Singh(PW­4).  Next day at about  

3.30 P.M. they received a message that their daughter had  

been killed by her­in­laws.

16.Dr. Bhalinder Singh(PW­2) conducted  the post mortem  

examination   on   the     dead   body   of     Jaswinder   Kaur   @ 

Baljinder   Kaur   w/o   Ranjit   Singh   @   Makhan   Singh,   R/o 

Roorke. The deceased was shown aged about 30 years.

     The following injuries were found on the body of the  

deceased:

Page 12 12

1.       Abrasion on the right side of neck 1x.25  

cm in size 8cm away from right angle of mouth 0.5  

cm  away from right ear. Horozontal in position.  

2.       Contusion on right side of neck measuring  

5x1

½cm,   1cm   below   injury   no.   1   and   oblique   in

position.

3.       Contusion on right side of neck measuring  

5x1

½cm ½cm below injury no. 2.

4.       Contusion on right side of neck measuring  

4x1

½cm ½cm below injury no.  3.

5.               Contusion   on   left   side   3x2cm   in   the 

middle.

6.      Upper eye­lid of left eye was swollen and  

blushed.     On   dissection   of   neck   soft   tissue  

ecchomised.

He stated that Hyoid bone was fractured.  Right lung  

and left lung were congested with punctiform hemorrhage.  

Right   heart   contained   blood   and   left   heart   was   empty. 

Pericardium was congested. Doctor opined that the cause of  

death was due to asphyxia by throttling.  

17.In his cross­examination, he also stated that there is  

a possibility that if a ligature like a Parna was used for  

hanging  through ling it would cause ligature marks.

18.Dev Raj (PW­3) draftsman prepared a site plan for the  

same. 

19.Gurcharan Singh(PW­6), ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Barnala who  

was   the     AIO,   recorded   the   FIR   and   stated   that   he 

Page 13 13

inspected the spot and prepared the rough site of the spot  

(Ex.PK) with correct marginal note. Cot on which the dead  

body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo  

(Ex.PF).     On 31st May, 1996, he arrested the accused;  

Baldev Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh.  He recorded  

the statement of Bahadur Singh(PW­4) as (Ex.DA)and Gurmail  

Kaur(PW­5)  as  (Ex.DB)  without  any  omission   or  addition.  

He noted down the brief according to the facts contained  

in the FIR.  

It was given in the evidence of PW­4 that one day  

before   the   death   of   Jaswinder   Kaur,   Gurmail   Kaur(PW­5) 

mother of the deceased went to meet her daughter where she  

expressed   her   apprehension   of   threat   to   her   life   and 

requested to take her alongwith her (Gurmail Kaur PW­5).  

She also conveyed that there was a demand of Maruti Car  

from the accused for which Gurmel Kaur (PW­5) assured her  

daughter that she would bring the matter to the notice of  

Bahadur   Singh(PW­4),   father   of   the   deceased.   The  

statements of PW­4 and PW­3(parents of the deceased) were  

duly corroborated with respect to the demand of dowry and  

harassment immediately prior to the date of occurrence and  

the event of her visit a day prior to her death.   They  

Page 14 14

were subjected to lengthy cross examination. Apart from  

minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the  

case,   their   statements   are   corroborated   on   material  

particulars   so   far   as   the   demands   of   harassment   to  

Jaswinder Kaur is concerned.       Their statements indict  

the   series   of   incidents   forming   part   of   the   same  

transaction   which   culminated   in   the   death   of   Jaswinder 

Kaur. The deceased was disrespected by her­in­laws right  

from the very beginning and from time to time was being  

harassed   on   demand   of   dowry.   The   sequence   of   events, 

discussed above, suggested that cruelty and harassment on  

account of such demands were present till her death. 

20.Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   laid   much   stress 

that there is no independent eye witness to corroborate  

the statements of PW­4 and PW­5 who are closely related to  

the deceased.  The contention is again meritless.  It is,  

but   natural,   that   instance   of     cruelty,   harassment   of 

demand of dowry generally would remain within the personal  

knowledge of  near relations  and they would be the best  

persons to depose about the same.  Therefore, the evidence  

of physical and mental torture of the deceased from the  

Page 15 15

accused   is   not   to   be   discarded   simply   on   the   score   of 

independent corroboration.  

21.One   of   the   stand   taken   by   the   appellant   that   no 

Panchayat was convened and the matter was not reported to  

the police cannnot be the ground to discard the evidence  

of PW­4 and PW­5 who are material witnesses.   About the  

harassment meted to a girl normally in Indian family, the  

matter is first reported to the parents and not to the  

Panchanayat.     It   is   not   necessary   that   such   matter   is 

required to be reported to the Panchayat. 

22.From the statements of Dr.Bhalinder Singh(PW­2), it is  

apparent that the death of Jaswinder Kaur  was caused by  

bodily   injury   which   is   otherwise   than   under   the   normal 

circumstances. The death took place within few months of  

the   date   of   marriage   i.e.     much   before   seven   years   of 

marriage. It is shown that soon before her death she was  

subjected   to   cruelty   and   harassment   by   her   husband   in 

connection   with   the   demand   of   dowry.     Therefore,   the 

present case squarely falls within the meaning of dowry  

death   for   the   purpose   to   attract   Section   304­B   IPC. 

Section 113­B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the  

presumption of “dowry death” and proclaims that when the  

Page 16 16

question is whether a person has committed a dowry death  

of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death,  

such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or  

harassment,  for or in connection with demand of a dowry,  

the Court shall presume that such person had caused “dowry  

death”. It can, therefore, be understood that irrespective  

of the fact whether the accused  had any direct connection  

with   the   death   or   not,   he   shall   be   presumed   to   have 

committed   the   “dowry   death”   provided   the   other  

requirements mentioned above are satisfied. 

23.In   the   present   case,   we   have   noticed   that   the  

prosecution   has   successfully   proved   the   ingredients  

necessary to attract the Provision of Section 304B IPC.  

Such ingredients   having been proved,   Section 113­B of  

the Indian  Evidence  Act automatically comes into play.  

In the facts and circumstances, the death of Jaswinder  

Kaur   had   taken   place   just   within   four   months   of   her 

marriage. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on  the  

evidence of PW­4 and PW­5, parents of the  deceased. They  

have made statements that even at the time of marriage  

they spent Rs,1,50,000 and even after 7­8 days of marriage  

when   Jaswinder   Kaur   came   to   their   parents   house   and 

Page 17 17

conveyed   that   the   accused   were   demanding   dowry   as   the 

amount of “shagun” for which Rs.8,000/­ was given her to  

hand­over   to   her   husband   who   accompanied   her.     Their 

statement further suggested that  upon subsequent visit of  

their daughter after about 20 days, a sum of Rs.1500 was  

spent  by PW­4 for purchase of certain articles, which his  

daughter took  to her matrimonial home in a tractor. Just  

a day before the death, she informed her mother Gurmail  

Kaur(PW­5)   that   the   accused   were   torturing   her   and  

demanding Maruti Car.

24.The   statement   of   the   accused   corroborates   the  

materials   particularly   in   relation   to   harassment   and  

demand of dowry and death by torture. The accused being  

the husband and direct beneficiary of the said demand of  

Maruti   Car,   we   find   no   reason   to   differ   with   the  

conclusion of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate  

Court that the appellant is guilty  of the offence under  

Section 304B IPC.

25.At the end of the argument, learned counsel for   the  

appellant made an alternative submission and requested  to  

take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the  

death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife),   the appellant got  

Page 18 18

married second time and from his second wife he has three  

children   out   of   which   one   son   is   handicapped   and   his 

mother is also paralysed. Taking into consideration the  

aforesaid   fact,   we   affirm   the   conviction   under   Section 

304B IPC   and 498­A IPC and reduce the sentence awarded  

under   Section   304B   IPC     to   seven   years   alongwith   the 

sentence of two   years   imposed under Section 498­A IPC  

and fine of Rs.2,000/­ as imposed by the Trial Court and  

affirmed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   with 

direction   that   both   sentences     shall   run   concurrently. 

Bail   bonds   of   the   appellant   are   cancelled   and   he   is 

directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out  

the remainder of the sentence. 

……………………………........………………..J.

                        (A.K.PATNAIK)

………........……………………………………….J.

                       (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI,

JULY 3, 2013.