http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KAILASH KAUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1987

BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1368            1987 SCR  (2)1221  1987 SCC  (2) 631        JT 1987 (2)   278  1987 SCALE  (1)1172

ACT:     Indian Penal Code, 1860: s. 302--Bride Burning--Gruesome murder  of young wife--Barbaric act of pouring kerosene  oil and setting her on fire--Duty of the Court to award  maximum penalty. Criminal Dial. Dowry death--Necessity to award maximum punishment.

HEADNOTE:     The  prosecution alleged that on the evening of May  30, 1974  the appellant’s daughter caught hold of the  deceased, and the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set her  on fire. On hearing deceased’s screams the neighbours rushed to the  house and extinguished the flames. Thereafter, she  was taken to the hospital where on the basis of questions put by the  doctor (P.W. 2), Head Constable (P.W. 7)  recorded  her statement.  She  expired  on June 1, 1974.  It  was  further alleged that the husband and his parents were unhappy  about the  quantum of dowry brought by the deceased and  she  was, therefore being subjected to severe harassment and maltreat- ment. In a letter written by the deceased to her father  she had  set out the details of the iII treatment meted  to  her and expressed grave apprehension that her life was in  immi- nent danger.     The trial court convicted the appellant and her daughter of  the  offence  under s. 302 I.P.C. acting  on  the  dying declaration made by the deceased, the letter written by  her to  her father and his evidence as to the demands for  dowry and  the torture inflicted on his daughter. The husband  was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.     The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant but acquitted the daughter giving her benefit of doubt. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:  1.1. The conviction of the appellant by the  High Court was fully justified. The dying declaration made by the deceased wherein 1222 she  has given a clear and vivid account of the  pouring  of kerosene  oil  over her body and being set on  fire  by  the appellant,  has  the  ring of truth. The  testimony  of  the doctor  (P.W.  2) and the Head Constable  (P.W.  7)  clearly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

establishes  that  she was in a fit condition  to  make  the statement.  There was, therefore, no reason whatever not  to act upon it. [1224D; G]     1.2.  In addition, there was also  clear  circumstantial evidence furnished by the letter written by the deceased  to her  father  and the testimony of the father  regarding  the demands  for dowry and the harassment and torture  inflicted on  the  deceased as part of the endeavour to  extract  more dowry. [1224F-G]     2. Whenever a case of gruesome murder of a young wife by the  barbaric process of pouring kerosene oil over the  body and setting her on fire as the culmination of a long process of  physical  and mental harassment for extraction  of  more dowry comes before the court and the offence is brought home to  the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is the  duty  of the  court  to  deal with the case in the  most  severe  and strict  manner and award the maximum penalty  prescribed  by the law in order that it may operate as a deterrent to other persons  from  committing such anti-social  crimes.  [1222H; 1223A]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1978.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  30.3.1978  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252  of 1975.     A.N.  Mulla, R.L. Kohli, Harjinder Singh and R.C.  Kohli for the Appellants. R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. The. Judgment of the Court was delivered by     BALAKRISHNA  ERADI, J. This is yet  another  unfortunate instance of gruesome murder of a young wife by the  barbaric process  of pouring kerosene oil over the body  and  setting her on fire as the culmination of a long process of physical and mental harassment for extraction of more dowry. Whenever such cases come before the Court and the offence is  brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is the  duty of the Court to deal with it in most severe and 1223 strict  manner and award the maximum penalty  prescribed  by the law in order that it may operate as a deterrent to other persons from committing such anti-social crimes.     Amandeep Kaur, deceased, was married to Avtar Singh  who figured  as  the first accused in the case in  the  Sessions Court. Kailash Kaur, the appellant, is the mother-in-law  of the  deceased  and Mahinder Kaur who figured  as  the  third accused  in the case is the sister of Avtar Singh. The  hus- band and his parents were allegedly unhappy about the  quan- tum  of  dowry  brought by the deceased and  she  was  being subjected to severe harassment and maltreatment with a  view to  extract  more dowry from her parents. Exhibit  PK  is  a letter  written  by the deceased to her father  Avtar  Singh (P.W. 3) in which she has set out the details of the harass- ment  and maltreatment and expressed her grave  apprehension that  unless she was immediately taken back to the  father’s house,  her life itself was in imminent danger. On  may  30, 1974, in the evening. Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur started quarreling with the deceased and severely abused and threat- ened  her.  Thereupon,  the deceased went to  her  room  and bolted  its  door from inside. Sometime later  Avtar  Singh, husband  of  the  deceased, came to the  house  and  started knocking  at  the  door of the said room  with  great  force

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

because of which the door got unbolted. It would appear that after  the  door was opened Avtar Singh went away  from  the house. It is the prosecution case that immediately  thereaf- ter  Mahinder Kaur caught hold of the deceased  and  Kailash Kaur  (appellant) poured kerosene oil on her and set her  on fire.  The deceased started screaming on hearing  which  the people  residing in the locality rushed to the house.  Avtar Singh,  the husband also reached there in the  meantime,  As she was engulfed in flames, somebody put a blanket on  Aman- deep  Kaur and extinguished the flames. Thereafter  she  was carried  to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Dr. Har  Parkash Bhatia  (P.W. 2), who examined her sent information  to  the local  police  station on receipt of  which  Head  Constable Naranjan  Singh  (P.W. 7), went over to  the  hospital.  The doctor  sent everybody other than the Head Constable out  of the  room where the patient was lying. He told the  deceased that  he  would  put her questions about the  cause  of  her death. On the basis of the questions put by the doctor, Head Constable Naranjan Singh (P.W. 7) recorded her statement, on the  basis  of  which formal First  Information  Report  was lodged at Police Station, Hoshiarpur. Amandeep Kaur  expired on June 1, 1974.     At  the  trial the prosecution relied on Ex.  PF/3,  the dying  declaration made by the deceased--Amandeep Kaur,  the letter Ex. PK writ- 1224 ten  by her to her father Atar Singh (P.W. 3) and  the  evi- dence  of P.W. 3 wherein he stated that the  appellant,  her son  and  daughter were dissatisfied about  the  quantum  of dowry brought by Amandeep Kaur and on that account they  had been  torturing her. The learned trial Judge acting  on  the aforesaid evidence convicted Kailash Kaur and Mahinder  Kaur of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.-and acquitted  Avtar Singh, the husband, accused giving him the benefit of doubt.     Kailash  Kaur  and Mahinder Kaur carried the  matter  in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court  confirmed  the conviction  of  the  appellant--herein namely, Kailash Kaur, but acquitted Mahinder Kaur giving her the  benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the said  judgment,  the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court  after obtaining special leave.     Notwithstanding  the  learned and  persuasive  arguments advanced  before us by Shri A.N. Mulla, Senior  Counsel  ap- pearing  on behalf of the appellant, we find  absolutely  no merit in this appeal. There is no reason whatever not to act upon  the dying declaration of the deceased wherein she  has given  a clear and vivid account of the pouring of  kerosene oil  over body and her being set on fire by  the  appellant. She had also implicated Mahinder Kaur as the person who held her  while the kerosene oil was being poured on her body  by the appellant. We have very grave doubts about the legality, propriety and correctness of the decision of the High  Court in  so far as it has acquitted Mahinder Kaur by  giving  her the benefit of doubt. But since the State has not  preferred any  appeal, we are not called upon to go into  that  aspect any further.     In addition to the dying declaration there is also clear circumstantial  evidence furnished by the fetter Ex. PK  and the testimony of Atar Singh (P.W. 3) father of the  deceased regarding  the  demands  for dowry and  the  harassment  and torture inflicted on the deceased by the accused as part  of the  endeavour to extract more dowry. The dying  declaration made by the deceased has the ring of truth and the testimony of  the  doctor--P.W. 2 and of the  Head  Constable--P.W.  7 clearly establishes that she was in a fit condition to  make

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  statement. The conviction of the appellant by the  High Court was, therefore, fully justified and there is absolute- ly  no ground for interference with the same by this  Court. We  only express our regret that the Sessions Judge did  not treat  this as a fit case for awarding the  maximum  penalty under the law and that no steps were taken by the 1225 State  Government before the High Court for  enhancement  of the sentence.     The  appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail  bond  of the  appellant  will stand cancelled and she will  be  taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of her sentence. P.S.S.                                        Appeal    dis- missed. 1226