RAJINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2007

Chandigarh in two separate Criminal Appeal Nos. 392­SB  JUDGMENT of 1995 and 151­SB of 1995, whereby the learned Single  Judge dismissed the appeals preferred by the accused  and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the  Additional Session Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. 2.The   appellants   were   tried   for   offences   under  Sections 498­A , 304­B and 201/34 IPC and after  hearing the parties the learned Additional Session  Judge,   Jagadhri     by   its   judgment   dated   22nd  February,   1995   convicted   the   appellant   Rajinder  Page 1 2 Singh for the offences under Sections 498­A , 304­ B and 201 IPC  whereas other appellants, namely,  Surinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Gurvinder Singh were 

undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a  fine of Rs.500/­ for offence under Section 498­A  IPC,   in   default   of   payment   of   fine,   he   had   to  undergo   further   RI   for   six   months;   for   offence  under   Section   304­B   IPC   he   was   sentenced   to  undergo RI for a period of seven years and for the  offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentence to  undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a  fine of Rs.500/­ in default of payment of fine, he  was   to   undergo   further   RI   for   a   period   of   six  months. The other accused, namely, Surinder Singh,  Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh were sentenced to  undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a  JUDGMENT fine   of   Rs.500/­   each   for   the   offence   under  Section 201/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine  they   were   to   undergo   RI   for   a   period   of   six  months. Accused, Madan Lal had been acquitted by  that judgment. During the pendency of the appeal before the High  Court,   appellant­Pritam   Singh   died   and   his   case   got  Page 2 3 abated. Thus the case was confined   to  rest of   the  accused. 3. The case of the prosecution against the accused­

accused­appellant on 22nd April, 1992.  Sufficient  dowry   articles   were   given.     On   11th   December,  1992, accused­appellant left his wife Santosh Kaur  in her parents house for one month when Santosh  Kaur told her father­ Nahar Singh that her father­ in­law;   Pritam   Singh,   husband­Rajinder   Singh,  brother­in­laws;   Gurvinder   Singh   and   Surinder  Singh and Madan Lal, brother­in­law of her husband  has   been   harassing   her   for   bringing   less   dowry.  She   also   told   that   they   were   demanding  Rs.25,000/­   and asked her to bring that amount  when she came back to her in­law's house on Lohri.  JUDGMENT Nahar   Singh   was   not   in   a   position   to   pay   the  amount demanded and assured his daughter that he  might arrange some money when she would go back to  her­in­law's house.   On 15th January, 1993, when  Sukhbir Singh, brother of Santosh Kaur, was taking  her to her­in­law's house, his father­Nahar Singh  told him to make the accused understand that some  money would be sent by 20th January,1993  and that  they should not harass her. He also informed  this  Page 3 4 fact   to   Sucha   Singh,   Sarpanch   of   the   village.  Finally,   money   could   not   be   arranged   by   20th  January, 1993. On 24th January, 1993, one Pritam 

died   during   the   intervening   night   of   23rd/24th  January, 1993 and she had also been cremated in  the   morning   of   24th   January,   1993.   On   25th  January, 1993, Nahar Singh,  Sucha Singh, Sukhbir  Singh   and   some   other   family   members   went   to  Mamliwala to the house of the accused and after  verifying the facts, lodged a report before Police  Station, Chhachhrauli.  A case was registered and  accused were sent for trial. 4. After trial, case was found to be proved against  Rajinder Singh for the offence under Sections 498­ A,304­B   and   201   IPC   and   against   Surinder   Singh,  JUDGMENT Pritam Singh and Gurvinder Singh for the offence  under   Section   201/34   IPC;   hence   they   were  convicted   for   the   same   whereas   Madan   Lal   was  acquitted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  no demand of dowry and threat was ever made to the  deceased   or   her   family   members.     In   fact   no  complaint   in   this   regard   was   ever   made     by   the  complainant or the deceased or by anybody else to  Page 4 5 the police.  No letter was written by the deceased  about the demand of dowry or cash. Therefore, the  impugned order is liable to be set aside.

the   fact   that   the     cremation   was   never   done  secretly.   Cremation   ceremony   was   attended   by  persons very much close to the complainant family.  The   deceased­   Santosh   Kaur   never   complained   to  anybody   at   neighborhood   about   her­in­laws   or  about torture or harassment or demand of dowry or  cash by them.   Therefore, the present case was a  false and concocted story made by the prosecution.  Further,   according   to   him   PW­2,   Nahar   Singh,  father   of   the   deceased   in   his   deposition   stated  that his daughter after marriage never complained  about the accused­appellant. JUDGMENT 7. Learned   counsel   for   the   prosecution   per   contra  relied   upon   the   evidence   and   submitted   that   the  ingredients   necessary   for   the   application   of  Section   304­B   IPC   were   established   beyond  reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption under  Section   113­B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act   arises  and hence it is proved  that the accused­appellant  caused the dowry death. Page 5 6 8. The admitted position in the present case is that  the   deceased   was   married   with   the   accused­ appellant   on   22nd   April,   1992.   She   died   in   the 

of   24th   January,   1993   without   waiting   for   the  parents   of   the   deceased.     Pritam   Singh(PW­7)  stated   in   his   deposition   that   about   about   12.00  noon,   he   was   standing   on   the   bus   stand   of  Khizrabad and was talking with  some people. Then  he came to know that Santosh Kaur, daughter­in­law  of Pritam Singh had died and was cremated. Then  he told this fact  to Nahar Singh(PW­2), father of  the deceased who stayed in the Village Kotian. On  the   next   day,     PW­2   alongwith   Sucha   Singh   and  other   persons   went   to   Village   Mamliwala   and  verified the fact that Santosh Kaur had died and  has also been cremated. The distance between the  JUDGMENT villages Mamliwala and  Kotian was not so much and  it was only about 17­18 kms. It was winter season;  month of January   but it has not been made clear  why     the   accused­appellant   cremated   the   body   of  the deceased in the early morning of 24th January,  1993   without   even   calling   the   parents   of   the  deceased   which   shows   that   there   was   something  which the accused­appellant wanted to conceal.   Page 6 7 9. As   per   statement   of   Nahar   Singh(PW­2),   Sukhbir  Singh(PW­3) who were the father and the brother of  the   deceased,   accused­appellant   Rajinder   Singh 

daughter­Santosh Kaur told him that her father­in­ law;   Pritam   singh,   husband,   Rajinder   Singh,  brother­in­laws;   Gurvinder   Singh   and   Surinder  Singh and Madan Lal, brother­in­law of her husband  were   harassing   her   for   bringing   less   dowry.   She  also   told   that   they   were   demanding     Rs.25,000/­  and told her to bring that amount when she came  back on Lohri.   Nahar Singh(PW­2)   was not in a  position to meet the said demand at that stage. He  assured   his   daughter   that   he   would   arrange   some  money and give her by the time she leaves back to  her matrimonial house. On 15th January, 1993, his  son Sukhbir Singh took Santosh Kaur to her­in­laws  JUDGMENT house.  He told him to make the accused understand  that they would pay some money by 20th January,  1993 and they should not harass her. This fact was  also   informed   to   Sucha   Singh,   Sarpanch   of   the  village.   But the money could not be arranged by  20th January, 1993 and after about  3­4 days, i.e.  on 24th January, 1993, Pritam Singh (PW­7) came to  PW­2   and   told   about   the   death   of   Santosh   Kaur  Page 7 8 whose   death   took   place   during   the   intervening  night of 23rd/24th January, 1993. 10. Sukhbir Singh (PW­3), brother of the deceased also 

her husband Rajinder Singh, brother­in­laws; Gurvinder  Singh and Surinder Singh, father­in­law; Pritam Singh  and   Madan   Lal,   brother­in­law   of   her   husband   were  harassing   her   for   not   bringing   sufficient   dowry.   He  further   told   that   they   were   demanding     Rs.25,000/­.  PW­3     then   told   her   sister   that   they   would   pay   the  amount by 20th January, 1993.   Then on 15th January,  1993 he took her sister to the house of her­in­laws and  came back next day after telling his sister that the  amount of 25,000 will be paid by 20th January, 1993.  PW­3   further   stated   that   the   accused   were   harassing  his sister even prior to 11th December, 1992. He also  JUDGMENT stated  that on hearing about her death,  he alongwith  his father, Pritam Singh (PW­7), Sucha Singh, Sarpanch  of the village, went to the village Mamliwala.   They  found the accused weeping and it was found that the  dead   body   of   his   sister   had   already   been   cremated  before they reached there.   Then his father reported  the matter to the police. 11. Pritam   Singh(PW­7)   stated   that   on   24th   January,  1993  he came to Khizrabad to see his  brother­in­law.  Page 8 9 At   12.00   noon   while   standing   on   the   bus   stand   of  Khizrabad, he heard some people talking that Pritam's  Singh   dauther­in­law   Santosh   Kaur   died   and   had   been 

village Mamliwala alongwith 10 other persons where they  came to know that Santosh Kaur had been cremated.  Then  all   of   them   went   to   Police   Station   and   lodged   the  report. 12. Nar   Singh   (PW­9),   SHO,   Police   station  Parakhpur,   stated   that   on   25th   January,   1993   he  was   posted   as   SI/SHO   of   Police   Station,  Chhachhrauli. On that day, complainant (PW­2) came  to police station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P.B.). He  recorded   statement,   inspected   the   spot   and   the  place of occurrence and took into possession the  clothes of the deceased vide memo(Ex.P.E.) which  JUDGMENT was stained with “vomiting and latrine”. Clothes  were sealed  into a parcel with the seal of the 6­ B.R., which was handed over to Sucha Singh(PW­4).  Ex.P.E.   was   attested   by     Sucha   Singh(PW­4)   and  Sukhbir   Singh(PW­3).   Thereafter   he   went   to   the  place   of   cremation   and   prepared   the   rough   site  plan of the cremation ground (Ex.P.M.).   The ash  and bones were taken into possession vide recovery  memo (Ex.P.E.) which was also attested by   PW­4  Page 9 10 and   PW­3.     Statements   of   PW­3   and   PW­4   were  recorded (Ex.P.N.). He arrested the  accused. The  parcel   of   clothes   and   ash   &   bones   were   sent   to 

examination of prosecution witnesses. 13. The accused in their examination under Section 313  Cr.P.C. admitted the factum of marriage but denied the  allegation relating to demand of dowry.   In reply to  question no. 14, accused­Rajinder Singh stated that his  wife Santosh Kaur died a natural death on account of  heavy vomiting and loose motions.  He also stated that  they neither demanded  any dowry nor pressurized her to  bring Rs.25,000/­ from   her father and that they were  falsely implicated in the case. 14. Admittedly,   Santosh   Kaur   died   in   the  intervening night of 23rd/24th January, 1993 and  JUDGMENT she   was   cremated   in   the   early   morning   of   24th  January,   1993.   The   distance   between   Village  Mamliwala and Kotian was not much  and it was just  17­18kms. It was the month of January and winter  season, the necessity of the accused­appellant to  cremate the dead body   within few hours of death  in the early morning of 24th January, 1993 without  informing the parents of the Santosh Kaur has not  been   explained.   The   Police   took   into   possession  Page 10 11 the ash and bones from the cremation ground and  clothes of the deceased and sent the same to the  Deputy Director­cum­Assistant Chemical Examiner to 

detected   on   the   salwar   stained   with   dirty   brown  material,   one   printed   lady's   shirt   stained   with  dirty brown material and one green coloured woolen  shawl of the deceased. As per report of F.S.L. (Ex  P.L.1), the bones were found of the human being.  Therefore,   it   is   clear   that   Santosh   Kaur   died  other   than   under   normal   circumstances.   The  accused­appellants have also failed to explain the  presence   of   an   “Organo   Phosphorus   Pesticide”   in  the vomiting of the deceased. 15.Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve  the burden of prosecution to prove guilt of the  JUDGMENT accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt   but     where   the  prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from  which   a   reasonable   inference   can   be   drawn  regarding the existence of certain other facts and  the   accused   by   virtue   of   special   knowledge  regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation  then the Court can draw a different inference.   16. The ingredients necessary for application of  Section 304­B IPC and the applicability of Section  Page 11 12 113­B of the Evidence Act was discussed by this  Court in  State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram, (2008)12  SCC   51.   In   the   said   case,   this   Court   held   as  follows:

  application of Section 304­B IPC are:     1.  that the death of  a  woman  has been  caused   by   burns   or   bodily   injury   or  occurs   otherwise   than   under   normal  circumstances;    2. that such death has been caused or has  occurred   within   seven   years   of   her  marriage; and     3.  that soon before her death the woman  was subjected to cruelty or harassment by  her   husband   or   any   relative   of   her  husband in connection with any demand for  dowry.   12.  Section 113­B of the Evidence Act lays  down   that   if   soon   before   her   death   a  woman   is   subjected   to   cruelty   or  harassment for, or in connection with any  demand   for   dowry   by   the   person   who   is  accused   of   causing   her   death   then   the  court shall presume that such person has  caused  the dowry death. The presumption  under Section 113­B is a presumption of  law and once the prosecution establishes  the   essential   ingredients   mentioned  therein it becomes the duty of the court  to raise a presumption that the accused  caused the dowry death. JUDGMENT    13.   A conjoint reading of Section 304­B  IPC and Section 113­B, Evidence Act shows  that   in   order   to   prove   the   charge   of  dowry death, prosecution has to establish  Page 12 13

17. In the present case, the prosecution proved that  the death of Santosh Kaur has occurred otherwise than  under   normal   circumstances.   Such   death   has   occurred  within a period of 9 months of her marriage  i.e. much  before seven years. The statements of PW­2 and PW­3 are  trust­worthy   and   they   stated   that   Santosh   Kaur   was  subjected   to   harassment   by   her   husband   and   other  accused relatives in connection with demand for dowry  just prior to death. The prosecution having established  essential ingredients, it becomes the duty of the Court  JUDGMENT to raise a presumption   that the accused caused dowry  death. 18. In the present case,   the accused has failed to  explain as to why he was in a hurry to cremate the  deceased   in   the   early   morning   of   24th   January,   1993  while she died  in the mid night of 23rd/24th January,  1993 i.e. within few hours.  The village of deceased's  parents was just 17­18kms far from the  village of the  accused but the reason as to why they were not informed  Page 13 14 about the incident on the same day and why the accused  had not waited for them to come is not explained. The  accused has also failed to explain  as to why according 

the   Trial   Court   rightly   drew   an   inference   that   the  accused­appellants were guilty of the offence for which  they were charge. 19. Hence,   we   find   no   merit   in   these   appeals.  These are accordingly, dismissed.   Bail bonds of  the appellants are cancelled. They shall surrender  within   a   period   of   two   weeks   to   undergo   the  remaining sentence. ………………………………………………………………………………J.        (A.K.PATNAIK) JUDGMENT ………………………………………………………………………………J.           (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY 3,2013. Page 14