2021 INSC 0811
           NON­REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  572  OF 2012   
Kuljit Singh & Anr.           .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Punjab                      ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   dated
18.01.2011  passed  by   the   High   Court  of   Punjab   and  Haryana,
Chandigarh   in   CRA­S­307­SB   of   2002.   By   the   said   judgment
the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants
herein   and   upheld   the   conviction   of   the   appellants   ordered   by
the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions Case No.74 of
1999   registered   for   the   offence   under   Section   304­B   of   Indian
1

Penal   Code   (‘IPC’   for   short).   The   sentence   of   rigorous
imprisonment   for   8   years   imposed   on   both   the   appellants   by
the   learned   Sessions   Judge   was   however   modified.   In   that
regard,   the   period   of   imprisonment   to   be   undergone   by   the
appellant   No.2   –   Raj   Rani   alone   was   reduced   to   7   years.   The
appellants   thus   being   aggrieved   by   their   conviction   and
sentence are before this Court in this appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel for
the   appellants,   Ms.   Jaspreet   Gogia,   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent and perused the appeal papers.
3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant No.1 and the
deceased Manju i.e. the eldest daughter of Gurnam Singh were
married   in   the   year   1997.   The   incident   in   question   leading   to
the   death   of   Manju   had   occurred   on   02.03.1999   i.e   in   a   short
span  of   about   2  years   from   the   date  of   marriage.   The  death   of
Manju, the wife of the appellant No.1 was an unnatural death.
The   cause   of   death   as   spoken   to   by   the   expert   witnesses   was
due   to   consumption   of   insecticide.   Therefore,   ex   facie   it   is
noticed   that   the   circumstances   provided   under   Section   304­B
IPC   to   the   extent;   the   death   of   the   woman   being   caused
2

otherwise   than   under   normal   circumstances   and   such   death
having   occurred   within   7   years   of   her   marriage,   would   stand
established.
4. In that background, since the appellants were charged of
having   committed   the   offence   under   Section   304­B   IPC,   the
factual   aspects   which   were   required   to   be   established   by   the
prosecution   in   the   course   of   trial   is   about   the   deceased   being
subjected   to   cruelty   or   harassment   by   her   husband   or   any   of
his relatives and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in
connection with demand for dowry. 
5. In the instant facts, to establish this aspect of the matter,
the   father   of   the   deceased   (Gurnam   Singh)   was   examined   as
PW1   and   the   mother   of   the   deceased   (Charanjit   Kaur)   was
examined   as   PW8,   while   another   witness   Bidhi   Chand   was
examined as PW7. From the evidence of the said witnesses, the
trial court as well as the High Court has noted that the demand
for a television set and Rs. 10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousand) was
being put forth ever since the marriage of the deceased with the
appellant   No.1.   The   evidence   tendered   by   the   said   witnesses
has   stood   the   test   of   cross­examination   and   has   been   rightly
3

accepted  by  both  the  courts.  In  that  background,  the  evidence
of  Dr.  Gurnamjit  Rai  (PW2)  and  of  the  Sub­Inspector  (Jaswant
Singh)  (PW5) would establish  that  the  death had occurred  due
to   organo   phosphorous   poisoning.   Hence,   as   noted,   the   death
was   unnatural   and   there   was   demand   for   dowry.   In   those
circumstances,   the   further   evidence   of   PW1   and   PW8,   the
parents   of   the   deceased   would   also   refer   to   the   circumstances
when the deceased had been sent back to the parental home to
secure   fulfilment   of   the   said   demand,   but   the   parents   being
unable to fulfil the demand, had counselled and sent her back.
It   was   also   stated   by   them   that   during   such   visit   she   had
mentioned   about   the   ill­treatment   meted   out   to   her.   But   the
question would be as to whether such evidence will be sufficient
to hold both appellants guilty of committing the offence.
6. Considering   the   fact   that   on   all   these   aspects   of   the
matter, the trial court has referred to the evidence in detail and
the   High   Court   has   reappreciated   the   same   in   its   correct
perspective,   to   the   extent   of   both   the   courts   holding   the
appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   guilty,   convicting   him   and
imposing   the   sentence   in   the   manner   as   done,   is   justified   and
does not call for interference.
4

7. The only aspect which requires consideration herein is as
to   whether   the   conviction   and   sentence   handed   down   to   the
appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani)   is   justified   or   not?   The   learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   in   that   regard   has   strenuously
contended that except for making vague statements to the effect
that   the   husband   and   the   in­laws   of   their   daughter   had   made
demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court
had   not   referred   to   any   specific   instances   where   the   appellant
No.2   namely,   the   mother­in­law   of   the   deceased   had   been
ascribed any  specific role in making  the demand  and inflicting
cruelty.   As   noted   from   the   statement   recorded   under   Section
313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role
and had also contended that she was not present in the house
when death of her daughter­in­law had occurred. It is true that
the   appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   had   also   stated   that   he   was
not   present   when   the   death   had   occurred.   On   that   aspect,   as
rightly   noted   by   the   trial   court,   it   had   come   in   the   evidence
through   the   deposition   of   Bittu   (DW1)   that   he   and   appellant
No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   had   taken   the   deceased   to   Dr.   Kalsi   and
thereafter   to   Shri   Guru   Ram   Dass   Hospital,   Amritsar   though
the   version   given   by   the   said   witness   was,   because   she   was
5

pregnant. However, it has been established that such shifting to
the   hospital   was   after   the   deceased   had   collapsed   due   to   the
poisonous   substance   being   consumed.   Therefore,   though   the
presence   of   the   appellant   No.1(Kuljit   Singh)   was   established,
the   presence   of   the   appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani)   was   not   spoken
about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard
to   such   demand   being   made   by   the   appellant   No.2   or   cruelty
being   inflicted   by   her   pursuant   to   such   demand.   From   the
evidence   referred   by   the  trial   court,  it  is   noticed  that   wherever
this aspect has been referred to, a sweeping statement has been
made   that   the   husband   and   in­laws   of   the   deceased   had
inflicted cruelty or it has been stated that the husband and his
mother had done so, without specifying their roles. However, as
already noted, the said evidence would be sufficient to hold the
appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   guilty   but   same   would   be
insufficient to hold the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) guilty. Hence,
we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani)   is
entitled to be acquitted. 
8. For   the   reasons   stated   above,   the   conviction   and
sentence   imposed   on   the   appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   is
affirmed,   while   the   conviction   and   sentence   imposed   on   the
6

appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani)   is   set   aside.   The   judgment   dated
08.01.2002   in   Sessions   Case   No.74/1999   and   the   judgment
dated 18.01.2011 in CRA­307­SB of 2002 stand modified to the
above extent. 
9. The   appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   who   is   on   bail,   shall
surrender within two weeks from the date of this judgment and
serve  the  remaining  sentence.  The  appellant  No.2  (Raj  Rani)  is
set at liberty if not wanted in any other case and the bail bonds
executed by her is ordered to be cancelled.
10. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….………………….CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
 
..………………………...J.
                                       (A.S. BOPANNA)
                       …….……………………J.
   (HIMA KOHLI)
New Delhi,
December 08, 2021
7