KASHMIR KAUR & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 12-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 11 S.C.R. 802 
KASHMIR KAUR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 915-916 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 12, 2012 
[DR.B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Dowry death - Applicability 
C of s.3048 - Main ingredient of the offence to be established 
- Held: Is that soon before the death of the deceased, she 
was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with 
demand of dowry - Expression "soon before" - Meaning - It 
is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of 
D each case - Proximity test - There must be existence of a 
proximate or life link between the effect of cruelty based on 
dowry demand and the concerned death - Words and 
Phrases - ·soon before" - Meaning of. 
E 
Penal Code, 1860- s.3048 - Dowry death - Exception 
to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence - Concept 
of deeming fiction - Held: s.3048 is an exception to the 
cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in 
the Indian Law is entitled to protection of Article 20 of the 
Constitution, as well as, presumption of innocence in his 
F favour - Concept of deeming fiction applied by Legislature 
to the provisions of s.3048 - Once the ingredients of s.3048 
are satisfied it will be called dowry death and by deemed 
fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to 
have committed that offence -
Such deeming fiction, 
G however, is a rebuttable presumption and the husband and 
his relatives, can, by leading their defence prove that the 
ingredients of s. 3048 were not satisfied - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 20 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138. 
H 
802 
KASHMIR KAUR & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
803 
Penal Code, 1860- s.3048 r/w s.34 and s.49BA - Dowry A 
death - Death of ma"ied woman 11 months after marriage -
Complaint against the in-laws - Conviction of accused-
appel/ants - Justification - Held: Justified - The death was 
not normal as evidenced by the version of PW1 postmortem 
doctor, the post mortem certificate and also the report of B 
Chemical Examiner - Ante mortem injuries and other 
abnormalities found on the body of the deceased - Possibility 
of death due to poisoning - Evidence of PW2 (deceased's 
father) and PW3 read alongwith the letters written by the 
deceased to PW2 disclosed that the accused were c 
demanding Rs.30,0001- in cash apart from a stereo set and 
a scooter - According to PW2, few days prior to the death, 
deceased came to his house and expressed her dire need 
for payment of Rs.30,000/- as demanded by her in-Jaws and 
that she was being harassed on that score - Evidence of PW3 
0 
to the effect that on the date of the death, he witnessed the 
torture meted out to the deceased at the hands of her in-laws 
- In facts and circumstances of the case, legal requirements 
for offence falling u/ss.3048 and 49BA /PC with the aid of 
s.1138 of the Evidence Act conclusively proved - Evidence 
E 
Act, 1972 - s.1138. 
The daughter of PW.2 died about 11 months after her 
marriage. There were ante-mortem injuries and other 
abnormalities on the body of the deceased. The 
prosecution case was that the deceased was being 
F 
repeatedly harassed and tortured by her mother-in-law, 
brother-in-law (appellant no.2) and his wife (appellant 
no.1) for cash, scooter and other articles, as they were 
not satisfied with the amount of dowry given in the 
marriage. The mother-in-law of the deceased passed G 
away in the meantime. 
The trial Court convicted the two appellants under 
Section 3048 read alongwith 34 IPC as well as under 
Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to seven years 
rigorous imprisonment under Section 3048 IPC and two 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 
A years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC. 
The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The 
order was affirmed by the High Court and therefore the 
instant appeals. 
B 
Meanwhile appellant no.1 died and therefore, the SLP 
filed on his behalf became infructuous. However, 
appellant no.1 made a prayer to substitute her as the legal 
representative of appellant no.2 and pursue his appeal as 
well in order to enable her to get the monetary benefits 
C from the employer of appellant no.2. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The following principles can be culled out 
in regard to Sections 3048 and 498A IPC and Section 
0 1138 of the Evidence Act: 
E 
(a) 
To attract the provisions of Section 3048 IPC 
the main ingre

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