GURMEET SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 28-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
GURMEET SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2010)
MAY 28, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Death of married woman after
she consumed poison in her matrimonial home – Conviction of
appellant-husband by Courts below – Challenge to – Held: On facts,
not acceptable – Death was caused within seven years of marriage
in “otherwise than under normal circumstances” – Consistent and
confidence inspiring testimony of deceased’s father (PW4) about
continuing harassment meted out to deceased on account of dowry
– Prosecution having satisfied the necessary ingredients u/s.304B
IPC, the presumption u/s.113-B, Evidence Act took full effect, which
was not rebutted by the appellant – Courts below did not err in
convicting appellant u/s.304-B, IPC as appellant failed to discharge
the burden u.s.113-B, Evidence Act – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304B and 498A – Plea that conviction
u/s.304B cannot be sustained without any charges u/s. 498A – Held:
Is not tenable – Offences u/s.498A and s.304B, IPC are distinct in
nature – Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the
offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and
must be proved separately by the prosecution – If a case is made
out, there can be a conviction under both the sections.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Conviction under – Necessary
ingredients –Ingredient as to existence of dowry demand “soon before
her death” – Interpretation of – Held: The expression “soon before”
cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”, rather the
prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate and live
link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim
– Words and Phrases – Expressions “soon before”, “immediately
before” and “proximate and live link”.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 153
153
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Guidelines issued by Supreme
Court in Satbir Singh case relating to trial u/s.304B – Re-iterated.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113B – Presumption of causation –
Held: Once the necessary ingredients u/s.304-B, IPC stand satisfied,
a presumption of causation arises against the accused u/s.113-B,
Evidence Act and the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption
– Penal Code, 1860 – s.304B.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Section 304-B(1), IPC defines ‘dowry death’
of a woman. It provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a
woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage,
and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Further, Section
304-B(2), IPC provides punishment for the aforesaid offence.
[Para 9][159-D-F]
1.2. In the present case, admittedly, the marriage between
the deceased and the accused-appellant took place on 23.11.2004,
and the death of the deceased occurred in 2008 after she consumed
poison in her matrimonial home. Therefore, the first two
ingredients as to death under otherwise than ‘normal
circumstances’ within seven years of marriage stand satisfied.
[Para 10][160-C-D]
1.3. The next important ingredient which needs to be
established is the existence of dowry demand “soon before her
death”. This court in catena of judgments have held that, “soon
before” cannot be interpreted to mean “immediately before”,
rather the prosecution has to show that there existed a “proximate
and live link” between the cruelty and the consequential death of
the victim. [Para 11][160-D-E]
1.4. PW4 (Complainant), the father of the deceased, has
clearly stated that after the marriage the deceased had
telephonically informed him about the consistent demand of a car
or equivalent cash by the accused. In 2007, when the complainant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
visited India, the deceased had also expressed her unhappiness
due to constant harassment. Moreover, when he returned to the
country in July, 2008, the deceased had reiterated the factum of
demands before him. The complainant also stated as to how the
families attempted to mediate the dispute themselves and on
multiple occasions he gave certain gifts to the appellant and his
family to ameliorate the situation. Another important circumstance
is that the mother of the deceased had informed the father 15-20
days prior to the inci

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.