DHAIN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 10-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHAIN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 10, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Ss. 304-B and 201-Dowry death-Bride died of burn injuries 2Y: 
years after her marriage-Injured not admitted in hospital-Body cre-
C mated without informing relatives of deceased and police-Conviction of 
husband-Contention that there was no evidence to show demand of 
dowry; and .that there must be proximate connection between alleged 
cruelty and death of the deceased-Held, it is proved that deceased died 
of burn injuries and it was not under normal circumstances and that the 
D husband caused harassment-S.113-B of Evidence Act could be invoked 
against the husband and he was rightly held guilty of the offences 
charged-Evidence Act, 1872-S. 113-B. 
S.201-Dowry death-Injured not admitted in hospital-Body cre-
E mated without informing relatives of deceased and police-Conviction-
Accused, paternal uncle of'deceased's husband, pleading that mere 
participation in cremation was not sufficient to prove that he committed 
offence u/s. 201-Held, the evidence shows that everything was done in 
clandestine and secret manner and circumstances would show that accused 
was party to the secret disposal of the body-Hence knowledge can be 
F attributed to him that he knew well that an offence had been committed 
and he caused disappearance of the evidence-There is no illegality in 
conviction of the accused under ·s.201. 
Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1952) SC 354, 
G distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 
of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2002 of the Punjab and 
H Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 495-SB of 1989. 
442 
DHAIN SINGH v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 
443 
Kuldip Singh and Raj K. Pandey for the Appellant. 
Arun K. Sinha, 
Rakesh Singh and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
B 
The appellants challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed 
against them by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Patiala which was 
confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The first appellant 
was convicted under Sections 304-B and 201 !PC and was sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for a period often years and rigorous imprisonment C 
for a period of two years respectively. The second appellant was found 
guilty under Section 20 I IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 
for a period of two years. 
The incident happened on 13.10.1988. Shinder Kaur the daughter of D 
PW-2 was married to the first appellant Dhian Singh about two and a half 
years prior to her death. After the marriage Shinder Kaur stayed with her 
husband for about one year. It was alleged that the first appellant, the 
husband, wanted more dowry and started harassing her so she left her 
matrimonial home and started staying with her perents. Then at the E 
intervention of the local panchayatdars a settlement was effected and about 
two months prior to her death, she left her parents' house and again started 
staying with the appellant Dhian Singh. On 22.10.1988, PW-2 came to 
know that his daughter Shinder Kaur was burnt to death. He immediately 
went to the police station and gave information to the police. The police F 
registered a case and started investigation and during investigation it was 
revealed that the accused had disposed off the dead body on 13.10.1988 
itself by cremating the body. 
On the side of the prosecution PW-I to PW-8 were examined and on 
the defence side DW-1 Tara Singh was examined. The Sessions Court held G 
that the deceased Shinder Kaur died of burn injuries and the first appellant 
Dhian Singh was responsible for cruelty on account of demand for dowry 
and thus committed the offence under Section 304-B !PC. The first 
appellant was also held responsible for committing the offence under 
Section 201 !PC. 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
We heard learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the 
respondent. 
The counsel for the appellant urged before us that there was abso-
lutely no evidence to show that the first appellant had ever demanded any 
B dowry from PW-2. It was also contended that the prosecution failed to 
produce any evidence to show that there was any cruelty on the part of 
the first appellant. The contention of the appellant is not correct. PW-2 gave 
evidence to the effect that the appellant had demanded dowry and he 
demanded tele
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.