REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  444        OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3699 of 2008)

Jagjit Singh …Appellant Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  State

questioning  the  judgment  of  acquittal  recorded  by  Additional  Sessions

Judge,  Amritsar.  The  appellant  and  two  others  faced  trial  for  alleged

commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

One Avtar Singh (Complainant) made a statement Ex P.A. before the

police on 18.3.1995 that his daughter Jasprit Kaur aged about 26 years was

married  to  accused  Jagjit  Singh on  26.12.1993  at  Amritsar.  Avtar  Singh

stated that he had given dowry to Jasprit Kaur at the time of her marriage

according to his capability. The accused Jagjit Singh, his father Gurmukh

Singh and his mother Raminder Kaur were not happy with the dowry given

by the parents  of Jasprit  Kaur and they used to taunt  her  off  and on for

bringing  lesser  dowry  at  the  time  of  her  marriage.  The  accused  started

maltreating Jasprit Kaur in connection with the demand of dowry. Jasprit

Kaur  informed  her  father  Complainant  Avtar  Singh  and  other  family

members that the accused were greedy and they were not behaving properly

with her. One Baba Charan Singh who was the mediator in the marriage of

Jasprit  Kaur  with  Jagjit  Singh  was  approached  by the  parents  of  Jasprit

Kaur.  He was  informed about  the maltreatment  and  harassment  given  to

Jasprit Kaur by the accused. Baba Charan Singh also advised and told the

accused to treat Jasprit Kaur property. Avtar Singh stated that on 17.3.1995

in  the  evening  at  about  5/6  P.M. Jasprit  Kaur  came to  the  house  of  the

2

Complainant.  She  was  frightened  and  was  depressed.  She  informed  her

parents  that the accused had asked her that  they were to purchase a new

house and that Jasprit  Kaur should bring money from her parents.  Jasprit

Kaur  had  also  informed  her  father  that  the  accused  had  made  her  life

miserable  at  their  house  and  had  made  living  there  impossible.  The

complainant Avtar Singh and his wife consoled Jasprit Kaur and sent her

back to the house of the accused by telling her that they will  inform her

about the demand in a day or two. Jasprit Kaur had given birth to a son on

25.12.1994 when also Avtar Singh had spent sufficient amount.  But neither

Jagjit Singh nor his parents became happy. On 18.3.1995 at about accused

3.30 P.M. Baba Charan Singh came to  the shop of  the Complainant  and

informed  him  that  Jasprit  Kaur  had  been  killed  by  the  accused  by

strangulation. The Complainant accompanied by his wife and his son went

to  the  house of the accused Jagjit  Singh where they found that  the  dead

body of Jasprit Kaur was hanging from the ceiling fan by a cloth wrapped

around her neck. At that time mother of the accused Jagjit Singh namely,

Raminder Kaur, was present at the house, while the other members of the

family were absent. The Complainant left his wife and son lnderjit Singh

near the dead body of Jasprit Kaur and proceeded to lodge a report with the

police.  The  police  met  Avtar  Singh  in  Chowk  Lachhmansar,  Amritsar,

3

where he made statement before the police which was read over to him and

was signed by him in token of its correctness. The Investigating Officer S.l.

Avtar Singh made his endorsement Ex.P.A./2 on the same and sent it to the

Police  Station  ‘C’ Division  where  formal  FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded by

AS.I.  Charanjit  Singh.  The  Investigating  Officer  accompanied  by  the

Complainant Avtar Singh went to the house of the accused where on the top

floor  of  the house,  the  dead body of  Jasprit  Kaur  was  hanging with  the

ceiling fan in the room. The photographs of the dead body were taken by the

photographer as directed by the Investigating Officer and after removing the

dead body from the ceiling fan, the cloth wrapped around the neck of the

deceased was taken into police possession. The inquest proceedings of the

dead body was prepared and the same was sent for post mortem examination

through  H.C.  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Constable  Suba  Singh.  After  post

mortem examination of the dead body, the clothes removed from the dead

body were taken into police possession by the Investigating Officer. All the

accused  were  arrested  and  on  completion  of  the  investigation  they were

challaned by SI. Paramjit Singh, S.H.O. P.S. ‘C’ Division, Amritsar.  

On their appearance before the committing Magistrate, the accused

were furnished copies of the documents mentioned in Section 207 of the

4

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) and the case against

them was committed for trial.

The trial Court found that the evidence was insufficient to fasten the

guilt on the accused.  

Questioning  the  correctness  of  the judgment  of  acquittal,  the  State

filed an appeal. By the impugned judgment the High Court found that the

co-accused  Gurmukh  Singh  and  Raminder  Kaur  were  staying  separately

and, therefore, there was doubt about their participation in the commission

of  the  offence.   But  the  present  appellant  was  found  guilty  of  offence

punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for seven

years.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the

trial Court was well reasoned and the High Court should not have interfered

with  the  judgment  of  acquittal  recorded,  more  particularly,  when  the

acquittal in respect of co-accused persons was affirmed.  

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported

the judgment of the High Court.  

5

6. It is to be noted that the deceased breathed her last within about one

year and three months from the date of marriage while living in the house of

her in laws. She was not suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and

even after the marriage she continued to be hale and hearty.  The evidence

of PW-3, the father of the deceased is very significant.  According to him on

17.3.1995  the  deceased  came  to  his  house.  She  informed  him  that  the

accused was torturing her as they had to purchase a new house they were

demanding Rupees one lac from her.  To the similar effect is the evidence of

PW-4 the brother of the deceased.   Prosecution had pressed into service the

agreement deed Ex.PB for the purchase of house by Gurmukh Singh from

one Sapan Dass  (PW-2). Said agreement reveals  that  it  was executed  on

8.2.1995 and the sale deed was to be executed on 8.5.1995. The High Court

noted that this document amply established that the family required money

for purchase of plot from Sapan Dass. The High Court further noted that

there was no material  brought on record to show that the agreement was

performed  by  the  accused  persons.  The  High  Court  found  that  the

presumptuous  conclusion of  the trial  Court  that  there was no link of the

demand for dowry with the said agreement. The High Court also noted that

6

the trial Court had erroneously concluded that the accused persons were rich

persons and, therefore, there was no need for asking any dowry.  

7. In Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007 (9) SCC 721) it

was inter-alia held as follows:

“9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or  occurs  otherwise than  under  normal  circumstances, and (ii)  woman is  subjected  to  cruelty or  harassment  by her husband or any relative of her husband for,  or in connection with, any demand for “dowry”. The explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 304-B IPC says that “dowry” shall have  the  same  meaning  as  in  Section  2  of  the  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

10. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under: “2.  Definition  of  ‘dowry’.—In  this  Act,  ‘dowry’  means  any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly— (a)  by  one  party  to  a  marriage  to  the  other  party  to  the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.”

11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word “dowry” any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be

7

given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties  and  a  correlation  between  the  giving  or  taking  of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry  is  a  fairly  well-known  social  custom  or  practice  in India. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that if  the  Act  is  passed  with  reference  to  a  particular  trade, business or  transaction and words are used which everybody conversant  with  that  trade,  business  or  transaction  knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are  to  be  construed  as  having  that  particular  meaning.  (See Union  of  India v.  Garware  Nylons  Ltd. and  Chemical  and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India.) A demand for money on account  of  some  financial  stringency  or  for  meeting  some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for  dowry as  the  said  word is  normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore,  show that  any  demand  for  “dowry”  as  defined  in Section  2  of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act  was  made  by  the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry  is  not  established,  the  conviction  of  the  appellants cannot be sustained.”

8. The High Court  has analysed the evidence of the witnesses clearly

keeping in view the parameters relating to the scope of interference with the

judgment of acquittal.  The analysis  does not  suffer  from any infirmity to

warrant  interference.  Since  the  minimum sentence  has  been  awarded  we

find no scope to interfere in this appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.

8

…..…....…………………….….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…...……………………..………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, March 06, 2009   

9