1

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2003  

STATE OF PUNJAB                            .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAJWINDER SINGH @ RAJA & ORS.                  ....RESPONDENT(S)

O  R  D  E  R

The appellant has come up here challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the  

appeal filed by the State in limine.  In that appeal, the State Government has challenged the  

acquittal of the accused from the charges framed under Section 306/304-B/34 of Indian Penal  

Code.   The  trial  court  had  convicted  the  accused  Rajwinder  Singh  only  for  the  offence  

committed under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.   

Originally, as many as three accused persons were tried for the offence under Section  

306/304-B/34 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.   They being, Rajwinder Singh who  

was the husband, Nirmal Singh who was the father of accused No.1 and Jasmail Kaur who  

was  the  mother  of  accused  No.1.   Eventually,  the  trial  court  acquitted  the  accused  No.2  

(Nirmal Singh) and  accused No.3 (Jasmail Kaur).  Since the prosecution had not been able to  

prove the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C., the trial court merely convicted the accused No.1  

(Rajwinder Singh) for an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.  The acquittal  

from the offence under Section 306 is in challenge.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that accused  

No.1  (Rajwinder  Singh)  did  not  challenge  the  conviction and has  undergone  the  sentence  

which was three years with a fine of Rs.500/-.  Be that as it may, now the question is as to  

whether the acquittal of all the accused persons for the offence committed under Section 306  

of the Indian Penal Code was justified or not.  

2

We have closely examined the judgment.  The prosecution case was that Rajwinder  

Singh, respondent No.1 herein, was married to the deceased Paramjit Kaur alias Jeeta alias  

Sarabjit  Kuar  and  she  was  illtreated  by  all  the  three  respondents  on  account  of  dowry  

demands.  The First Information Report was lodged by one Jagtar Singh, son of Amar Singh,  

resident of village Chhiniwal Khurd who was the brother of the decease Paramjit Kaur in  

which he alleged that his sister who was having a male child out of the wedlock was maltreated  

by accused No.1 - Rajwinder Singh.  He further alleged that his sister was being ill-treated by  

the accused persons, the respondents herein.  He further alleged that he had gone to his sister's  

house on 11.12.2000 and on 12.12.2000, he received a telephonic call that Paramjit Kaur was  

beaten by Rajwinder Singh,  Nirmal Singh and Jasmail  Kaur and,  therefore,  the  deceased  

Paramjit Kaur left the house along with her child at 6.00 A.M. and was not reported anywhere  

and, therefore, he was searching his sister but he could not get any clue and then he came to  

know that she along with her child had jumped in the canal and committed suicide.  On this  

basis, further investigation started and the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under  

Section 304-B and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.   

On behalf of prosecution, Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) was examined to prove the  

death by drowning.  The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were P.W.3  

-Amar Singh father of Jagtar Singh, P.W.4-Darshan Singh who was the ex-sarpanch of village  

Chhiniwal,  Khurd.   The  other  witnesses  were  investigating  officers.  On  appreciation  of  

evidence, we find that the defence also examined witnesses namely, D.W.1, Karam Singh, who  

had stated  that  Rajwinder  Singh was married with Sarabjit  Kaur and after  marriage he  

maintained good relations with Sarabjit Kaur and he had never raised any demand of dowry  

articles from his wife and never harassed her on demand of dowry articles. He also deposed  

that after disappearance of Paramjit Kaur, the husband had been making enquiries about her  

disappearance.   

On appraisal of the evidence, Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the

3

prosecution had not proved that Paramjit Kaur alias Jeeta alias Sarabjit Kaur was treated  

with cruelty or was harassed on account of demand of dowry as a result of which she had died  

unnatural death by jumping into the canal.  The evidence of Jagtar Singh as also his father  

was not believed by the Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge.  It was further found by the Ld.Addl.Sessions  

Judge that there was no ante mortem injury on the body of Paramjit Kaur on the basis of  

which Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that immediately before her death she  

was not subjected to the cruelty.  The Addl.Sessions Judge also disbelieved the other witnesses  

and has given valid reasons for the same.  The ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal  

Code have also been appreciated and considered by the Addl.Sessions Judge and he came to  

the conclusion that the deceased was not treated cruelly nor was she subjected to any violence  

prior  to  her  death.   Insofar  as,  the  offence  under  Section  306  I.P.C.  is  concerned,  the  

Addl.Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there could not have been any abetment on  

the part of the accused for committing suicide by the deceased.  The learned Addl.Sessions  

Judge also found that P.W.1 – Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta also admitted in his cross-examination  

that there was neither poison nor any injury found on the body of  the deceased Paramjit  

Kaur.  From all these circumstances, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge came to the conclusion  

that  all  that  it  was proved was that  the  accused and particularly  accused No.1 alone had  

committed the offence under Section 498-A.  He, therefore, acquitted the other two accused  

persons under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted accused No.1 (Rajwinder  

Singh) under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.   

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State  argues before us that the  

Addl.Sessions Judge had not considered the  ingredients of Section 113A of Evidence Act and  

further he has not given any reason as to why he had acquitted the accused persons under  

Section  306  IPC particularly  when  he  had  convicted  the  accused  No.1  for  offence  under  

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.  In our opinion, the Addl.Sessions Judge had given  

good  reasons  as  to  why  the  presumption  would  not  arise  under  Section  113A.  The  

Addl.Sessions Judge has recorded the finding that there was no material to prove that there

4

was any demand of dowry made by the husband or by father-in-law or by mother-in-law.  

Learned Addl.Sessions Judge has also further found that there was no material on record to  

prove that there was any cruelty meted out to the deceased Paramjit Kaur to commit suicide.  

We are generally satisfied with the order of the Sessions Judge and we have closely considered  

the judgment as also the evidence.

The High Court had not given reasons and had chosen to dismiss the said appeal in  

limine refusing the leave to file appeal against the acquittal.  We are not happy with the course  

adopted by the High Court.  Ordinarily, the High Court should have given good reasons even  

before refusing the leave to file an appeal against the acquittal.  That is the established law  

now.  However, sending back the matter again to the High Court would be hazardous as about  

ten years have elapsed since the death of the deceased.  We have chosen to examine the records  

ourselves and we have, for that purpose,  examined the correctness of the judgment of the  

Addl.Sessions Judge in the light of evidence.  After overall consideration, we are of the view  

that the Addl.Sessions Judge was correct in acquitting the respondents -accused under Section  

306 IPC and the High Court was also correct to  refuse the State to file an appeal against the  

acquittal  although the  High Court  should  have  given reasons.   The  appeal  is  accordingly  

dismissed.    

                ............................J.                            ( V.S.SIRPURKAR )

                ............................J.                            ( R.M.LODHA )

NEW DELHI; MAY 26, 2009.