KULJIT SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

          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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2021.12.08 16:49:15 IST Reason: 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. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel for 2. the   appellants,   Ms.   Jaspreet   Gogia,   learned   counsel   for   the respondent and perused the appeal papers. The undisputed facts are that the appellant No.1 and the 3. 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. In that background, since the appellants were charged of 4. 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.  In the instant facts, to establish this aspect of the matter, 5. 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. Considering   the   fact   that   on   all   these   aspects   of   the 6. 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 The only aspect which requires consideration herein is as 7. 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.  For   the   reasons   stated   above,   the   conviction   and 8. 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.  The appellant No.1 (Kuljit Singh) who is on bail, shall 9. 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. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. 10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 11. ….………………….CJI. (N.V. RAMANA)   ..………………………...J.                                        (A.S. BOPANNA)                        …….……………………J.    (HIMA KOHLI) New Delhi, December 08, 2021 7