REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1731 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 1062 OF 2007

DHARAM CHAND … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  present  appeal  is  filed  by  the

complainant,  brother  of  deceased  Anju  Devi

against the judgment and order dated October

31, 2006 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana

in  Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  992-SB  of  2002  and

1012-SB of 2002.  By the impugned judgment, the

High Court allowed the appeal No. 1012-SB/2002

filed by Vinod and partly allowed the appeal

No.  992-SB/2002  filed  by  other  accused  and

acquitted some of the respondents-accused for

offences with which they were charged reversing

the order of conviction recorded by the trial

Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in short

is  that  the  appellant  herein,  a  de  facto

complainant  is  brother  of  one  Anju  Devi

(‘deceased’  for  short).  According  to  the

appellant, his sister Anju Devi got married to

Accused No. 1, Jolly Singla on May 18, 1997.

Accused No. 2 Reshma Devi is mother in law of

deceased Anju Devi.  Accused No. 3 Rajesh and

accused No. 4 Vinod are brothers of accused No.

1 Jolly Singla and accused No. 5 Kiran is wife

of accused No. 3-Rajesh.

4. It  was  the  case  of  the  prosecution

that at the time of marriage, the parents of

the  deceased  Anju  Devi  spent  an  amount  of

Rs.3,50,000/-.  They  also  paid  substantial

amount  of  dowry  to  the  accused.  Anju  Devi

2

delivered a female child Diksha who was about

two years of age at the time of incident. The

allegation  of  the  prosecution  was  that

immediately after marriage of Anju Devi, her

in-laws  were  harassing  Anju  Devi  by  making

demands  of  dowry.  At  several  occasions,

deceased Anju Devi made complaints about such

demands.  It was stated that though substantial

amount was paid by the parents of deceased Anju

Devi, her in-laws were insisting for more and

more amount. They were also demanding scooter,

colour television, etc. As per the prosecution,

parents of Anju Devi had assured in-laws of

Anju Devi that their demands will be steadily

met with but they should wait for some time

considering  the  capacity  of  parents  of  Anju

Devi.

5. It is alleged by the prosecution that

on March 14, 2000, at about 9.00 a.m., deceased

Anju  Devi  telephoned  the  appellant  (her

brother) that accused were harassing her and

giving  her  beatings  and  were  asking  her  to

3

leave matrimonial home.  Such cruel treatment

and  demand  for  dowry  was  made  by  all  the

accused. According to the appellant, he came

along with his brother Jai Bhagwan, Sarpanch

Harbans Singh and some other people to persuade

the in-laws of deceased Anju Devi, but when

they reached at the house of the accused, they

found dead body of deceased Anju Devi lying

burnt in bath room.  First Information Report

was lodged being FIR No. 81 under Section 304B

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

6. The  accused  were  arrested.  Usual

investigation was made and charge was framed.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge

and claimed to be tried.

7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala

in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2000 decided on June

13,  2002  held  that  it  was  proved  by  the

prosecution  that the  deceased died  homicidal

death and all the accused were responsible for

committing the said crime. They were heard on

the question of sentence and the Court ordered

4

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven

years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in

default, they were ordered to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for eight months.

8. Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of

conviction  and  sentence,  all  the  accused

preferred appeals before the High Court.  The

High Court allowed the appeals filed by Rajesh,

accused No. 3, Vinod, accused No. 4 and Kiran,

accused  No.  5  on  the  ground  that  they  were

residing separate from accused Nos. 1 and 2.

It,  however,  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by

accused  No.  1,  Jolly  Singla,  husband  of

deceased Anju Devi and accused No. 2 Reshma

Devi, mother in law of deceased Anju Devi. So

far as respondent No. 2 Jolly Singla, accused

No.  1-husband  of  deceased  Anju  Devi  is

concerned, the High Court observed that he had

already  undergone  the  imprisonment  and  was

released. The said order is challenged by the

complainant by filing the present appeal.

5

9. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently  contended  that  the  order  of

conviction and sentence recorded by the trial

Court was in accordance with law and ought not

to have been set aside by the High Court. It

was also submitted that on the basis of the

evidence  adduced  by  the  parties,  the  trial

Court  held  that  it  was  a  case  of  homicidal

death.  The dead body of Anju Devi was found in

the bath room. The trial Court was wholly right

in  observing  that  normally  accidental  fire

takes place in a kitchen and not in a bath

room.  It was, therefore, held that it was not

a case of accidental fire, but with intent to

cause death, all the accused had committed the

act in question. It was also submitted that

from the evidence, it was clearly established

that there was demand of dowry and deceased

Anju  Devi  was  harassed.  The  said  fact  was

proved  from  sworn  testimony  of  prosecution

6

witnesses. The High Court was wholly in error

in  acquitting  accused  Nos.  3  to  5  who  were

convicted  by  the  trial  Court  observing  that

they  were  staying  separately  which  was

factually incorrect. It was also submitted that

once the incident was established and the High

Court confirmed the finding of guilt against

the mother in law as well as husband of Anju

Devi, there was no reason to interfere with the

order  of  conviction  in  respect  of  other

accused.  It was, therefore, submitted that the

appeal deserves to be allowed by restoring the

order of conviction and sentence recorded by

the trial Court.

11. The  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents, on the other hand, submitted that

reasons  recorded  by  the  High  Court  for

acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 cannot be said

to be illegal nor were based on irrelevant or

extraneous  grounds.  And  hence,  even  if  this

Court feels that two views are possible, a view

which  favours  the  accused  rather  than  which

7

goes against them, should be adopted.  When the

appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence

extended benefit of doubt in favour of three

accused, it cannot be said that by taking such

view, the High Court had not acted legally or

reasonably. It was, therefore, submitted that

to that extent, the order of the High Court

needs no interference.

12. So far as conviction of Jolly Singla-

accused No.1, husband of deceased Anju Devi and

Reshma  Devi,  mother-in-law  of  Anju  Devi  are

concerned, the High Court has confirmed their

conviction  and  there  is  no  appeal  on  their

behalf.  The  question  with  regard  to  their

conviction  and  sentence  is  not  the  subject

matter before this Court.

13. As  far  as  respondent  No.  2  Jolly

Singla,  husband  of  deceased  Anju  Devi  is

concerned, the High Court stated that he has

already undergone the sentence and hence, the

appeal so far as accused No. 1 is concerned,

had  virtually  become  infructuous.  It  was,

8

therefore,  submitted that  the present  appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

14. The learned counsel for the State also

supported the order passed by the High Court.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for

the  parties,  in  our  opinion,  the  appeal

deserves  to  be  partly  allowed.  So  far  as

acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned,

in  our  view,  the  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents is right in submitting that on re-

appreciation of evidence, the High Court held

that  since  they  were  staying  separately,  it

could  not  be  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt

that  they  were  also  party  to  the  act  in

question and hence benefit of doubt was given

to them.

16. We see no infirmity in the reasoning

of  the  High  Court  as  also  the  conclusion

arrived at.  We, therefore, see no ground to

interfere  with  that  part  of  the  order  of

acquittal recorded by the High Court so far

accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned.   

9

17. The  High Court, in our opinion, was

right in dismissing the appeal filed by accused

No.1-husband and accused No.2-mother-in-law of

deceased Anju Devi and in confirming the order

of conviction and sentence.

18. In  our  opinion,  however,  the  High

Court  was  wrong  in  observing  that  the

respondent No. 2 herein (accused No. 1) husband

of  Anju  Devi  had  already  undergone  the

sentence.  From the evidence, it is clear that

the incident in question took place on March

14, 2000 and the High Court decided the matter

on October 30, 2006.  Hence, even if we take

the first day, i.e. date of offence and the

last day, i.e. the date of judgment by the High

Court, even then seven years were not over.

Seven years from the date of incident would be

over only on March 13, 2007.

19. The  High  Court,  in  the  impugned

judgment, observed as under;

“From the above discussion, I am of  the  view  that  prosecution  case against  accused-appellants  Vinod,

1

Rajesh and Kiran for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not proved beyond doubt. They are entitled to acquittal and  are  acquitted.  Jolly  Singla happens to be husband and Reshma Devi is mother-in-law of the deceased. They were  residing  together  with  Anju, deceased.  Appeal  field  by  them  is dismissed.  Jolly Singla is stated to have  already  undergone  imprisonment and released”.

 (emphasis supplied)

20. From  the  above  observations,  it  is

clear  that  before  the  High  Court,  it  was

“stated” on behalf of the husband that he had

already  undergone  the  imprisonment  and  was

released.  When we asked the learned counsel

for respondent No. 2 as to how the High Court

recorded the above finding, he could not give

satisfactory reply on what basis it was stated

before  the  High  Court  that  accused  No.  1-

husband had already undergone imprisonment and

was released.  We, therefore, asked the learned

advocate for the State of Punjab to file an

affidavit stating the basis of the statement

and release of accused No.1. Such affidavit was

1

filed on behalf of the State and the learned

Government Pleader stated that it was as per

the Order dated August 14, 2002 issued by the

Government  of  Punjab,  Department  of  Home

affairs and Justice (Jails Branch) that accused

No.  1  was  treated  as  having  undergone

imprisonment for seven years.  A copy of the

said order was also produced along with the

counter-affidavit.

21. The Order was issued by the Government

of Punjab in exercise of power conferred by

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973  and  Article  161  of  the  Constitution.

Clause A provides for remission of sentence of

imprisonment for life in certain cases.  It is,

however,  expressly  stated  that  the  benefits

referred to in that part of the Order would not

apply to certain cases.  The said head reads

thus;

    “These  benefits  are  not admissible in the following cases”.

1

Sub-clause  (vii)  of  that  part  deals

with offences under  Section 304B, IPC, i.e. a dowry death. 22. It is, therefore, clear that in case

of  dowry  death,  an  offence  punishable  under

Section 304B, IPC, the benefit of remission of

Government Order does not apply.  If it is so,

in  our  opinion,  the  benefit  could  not  be

granted  to  respondent  No.  2–husband.  Hence,

even if accused No.1 or accused No.2 had been

released before completion of seven years, such

action  could  not  be  said  to  be  legal  and

lawful.  If  it  is  so,  obviously,  the  appeal

deserves to be allowed to that extent.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal

deserves to be partly allowed and is allowed by

directing  respondent  No.  2  Jolly  Singla  to

surrender to custody and to remain in jail for

a period of seven years which he had to undergo

as per the order of the trial Court. If such

benefit is granted to accused No. 2, she also

1

had to surrender to custody till the period of

seven years is over.

24. The appeal is accordingly allowed to

the above extent.

……………………………………………J. (C.K. THAKKER)

New Delhi, ……………………………………………J. November 05, 2008. (D.K. JAIN)

1