Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 168
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali and A.S.Garg JJ.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Daljit Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1992,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1999
A demand for money to send the husband's brother abroad does not constitute dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and cannot be connected with dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 304-B, 498-A, IPC - DOWRY DEATH - ESSENTIALS - DEMAND OF DOWRY - DEFINITION - SECTION 2, DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - INTERPRETATION - DEMAND FOR MONEY TO SEND HUSBAND'S BROTHER ABROAD - WHETHER DOWRY - ACQUITTAL UNDER SECTION 304-B, IPC - JUSTIFIED - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 498-A, IPC - SUSTAINED - SENTENCE REDUCED.
Fact of the Case:
Lakhbir Kaur, wife of Khushkismat Singh, died under unnatural circumstances. Her brother, Gurpreet Singh, lodged a complaint with the police, alleging that the appellants, including Khushkismat Singh, his wife Amarjit Kaur, and his brother Khushwant Singh, had demanded a dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and harassed Lakhbir Kaur, leading to her death. The appellants were charged with offences under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC, but convicted them under Section 498-A, IPC, and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 304-B, IPC, while the appellants challenged their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC. Gurpreet Singh also filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by the appellants to send Khushwant Singh abroad constituted dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC, to sustain a conviction for dowry death. 3. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A, IPC, for cruelty was justified based on the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and held that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by the appellants to send Khushwant Singh abroad could not be connected with dowry as defined in the Act. The court reasoned that such a demand was not made as consideration for the marriage and was not related to the marriage in any way. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC, as there was no evidence of any demand of dowry before or after the marriage, and the demand for Rs. 50,000/- could not be connected with dowry. Therefore, the acquittal of the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC, was justified. 3. The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A, IPC, for cruelty, finding that the evidence on record, including the testimony of witnesses, established that the appellants had harassed Lakhbir Kaur due to the non-fulfillment of their demand for Rs. 50,000/-. The court rejected the appellants' explanation that Lakhbir Kaur had committed suicide due to the interference of her maternal uncle in her marriage plans.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appellants' appeal and reduced their sentence under Section 498-A, IPC, from three years to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also directed the appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 12,500/- each as compensation to the parents of Lakhbir Kaur. In case of default in payment of the fine, the appellants were to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court. The State's appeal against the acquittal under Section 304-B, IPC, was dismissed.
1. Daljit Singh along with his wife Amarjit Kaur and two sons, Khushkismat Singh and Khuswant Singh, were tried for an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. After resultant trial, whereas they were acquitted under Section 304-B, IPC, they were held guilty and convicted under Section 498-A, IPC and ordered to undergo R1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R1 for one year. Aggrieved, whereas, they have filed Crl. Appeal No. 386-SB of 1991 challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the State of Punjab has filed Crl. Appeal No. 124-DBA of 1992 seeking their conviction for the charge that was framed against them, i.e. under Section 304-B, IPC. Gurpreet Singh, for the same relief as also for enhancement of compensation has filed Crl. Revision No. 71 of 1992. By this judgment, we, thus, propose to decide two Criminal Appeals and revision, referred to above as they emanate from the same order of the learned Sessions Judge dated August 29, 1991.
2. The incident leading to unnatural death of Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Khushkismat Singh was reported to police by Gurpreet Singh, brother of the deceased on August 2, 1989 at 1.30 p.m. His statement was recorded by Surat Singh SI. As per the narration of events given by Gurpreet Singh, Lakhwinder Kaur died in the early morning of August 2, 1989. The special report with regard to incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 5.45 p.m. on August 2, 1989 itself.
3. Gurprit Singh stated that he was resident of village Bhamian Kalan and his sister Lakhbir Kaur was married with Khushkismat Singh Patwari son of Shri Daljit Singh of village Lal Kalan about four years back. They had given dowry at the time of marriage according to their financial status. Two daughters were born to her and they were aged two years and three years. Khushwant Singh, brother of Khushkismat Singh, intended to go abroad. Amarjit Kaur, mother-in-law of his sister, Daljit Singh, father-in-law of his sister and both the brothers started maltreating his sister asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents so that they could send Khushwant Singh abroad. About two months earlier, her in-laws maltreated her and sent her to parental house at village Bhamian Kalan. She narrated the entire matter to him and his brother Harpreet Singh and told that her-in-laws were demanding Rupees 50,000/- and in case the said demand was not met out, they would make her life miserable. They were not in a position to pay the said huge amount. He then narrated the said matter to Karam Singh Sarpanch. Karam Singh Sarpanch and he took his sister to village Lal Kalan and left her in her in-laws house after consoling her that they would do something to arrange the money. He told this fact to his maternal uncle Harjit Singh son of Jiwan Singh, resident of Chak Mafi. He told him that some days ago, Lakhbir Kaur had met him at bus stand Samrala and she had asked him weepingly that they should do something as her in-laws were demanding money from her parents for sending Khushwant Singh abroad. He consoled her and sent her to her in-laws house at village Lal Kalan. A day before the occurrence, he further stated, he had gone to his sisters house at village Lal Kalan where a quarrel was going on in the family. Her mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur, father-in-law Daljit Singh, her husband Khushkismat Singh and her husbands younger brother were taunting his sister. On seeing him, they asked her that her brother had come and that she should talk to him. His sister again told him about their demand of money and further told that they had made her life miserable on account of non-fulfilment of their demand of money. He tried to advise husband and in-laws of his sister but they remained adamant. He returned to his village and again talked to his brother Harpreet Singh about it and told him that they should do something for arranging the money. Their maternal uncle Harjit Sin
