KISHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KISHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKERANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.] 
B 
I 
,. 
Penal Code, 1860-ss 304B and 315-Dowry demand-
Conviction under-Correctness of-Held: Prosecution case clearly 
established beyond reasonable doubt that victim subjected to cruelty c 
and harassment based on dowry demand by accused-mother in law 
and father in law, soon before her death-There was repeated dowry 
demand-Death caused within seven years of marriage-Thus, 
conviction and sentence by courts below uls 304B and 306 justified-
However, High Court acquitted husband of victim under s. 498A since D 
.. 
there was no sufficient evidence of dowry demand against him-
Acquittal having not been challenged by State, has attained finality. 
.... 
Judicial restraints-Judicial restraints and discipline are equally 
necessary to orderly administration ofjustice-Court should not make E 
disparaging remark against the witness that there was falsehood on 
his part-Those remarks ordered to be deleted from the record 
R was married to M-accused No.1 who was serving in Army. 
According to the prosecution, R was subjected to cruelty and 
harassment by accused - husband, mother - in -law and father- in -
F 
-~ 
law in connection with demand of dowry from the day of her marriage. 
... 
R was told by the accused to get scooter and golden bangle from 
her parents and if the demands of the accused would not be met with, 
she should not come back to the matrimonial home. The demand was 
repeated from time to time. R disclosed the same to her parents G 
during her visit to matrimonial home. However, PW-2-mother ofR 
t 
and other family members repeatedly assured R that the demand 
would b~ met when M would come on leave and pacified her to return 
to matrimonial home. R died after consuming some poisonous 
155 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A substance. Dowry demand was repeated 14 clays before the inddent. 
Mother of R lodged FIR. At the time of death, R was pregnant with 
a child of about 12 weeks. Prosecution witnesses were examined. 
Accused were charged under sections 304B, 315 and 498A IPC. Trial 
Court convicted and sentenced accused No. 3-father-in-law ofR and 
B accused No. 4-mother-in-law ofR, under sections 304B and 315 IPC. 
With regard to accuS'ed No.1, trial Court found that he was serving 
in Army and was occasionally attending matrimonial home after 
taking leave and as such could not be convicted under ss. 304B and 
315 IPC. However, it held him liable under s 498A IPC. Aggrieved 
c accused filed appeal. High Court upheld the order of trial court with 
regard to accused Nos. 3 and 4; however acquitted accused No.1 
since from the evidence it was not proved that he was responsible 
for committing an offence punishable under s 498A IPC. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
D 
Appellants-accused contended that courts below erred in 
convicting them for offences punishable under sections 304B and 
315 IPC; that there was no demand of dowry by the accused and it 
could not be said that death of deceased was due to harassm~mt 
because of demand of dowry; that the evidence PW2-mother, PW4-
E cousin brother and PW7-real brother was not reliable and evidence 
ought not to have been believed by Courts below ; that there were 
material contradictions in their evidence as to when so called demand 
of scooter and golden bangle was made; and that from the evidence 
of DWl and DW2 it was proved that the accused were having 
F 
scooter an<! motorcycle, if it were so, there was no occasion to demand 
scooter. 
Respondent-State contended that the order. of conviction and 
sentence recorded by the trial ~ourt and upheld by the High Court 
did not call for interference; and that from the prosecution evidence, 
G it was clearly establi$hed that deceased was mat-treated and 
harassed for dowry. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No case has been made out by the appellants so 
H 
KISHANSINGHv. STATE 
157 
as to interfere with the decision of Courts below. Both the Courts A 
were wholly right and fully justified in recording an order of 
conviction and in imposing sentence on appellants-accused Nos. 3-
father-in-law and a~cused No. 4-mother-in-Iaw. There is no infirmity 
and the order of conviction and sentence is upheld. Since the 
appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender and to undergo B 
the remaining period of sentence. 
[Paras 18 and 29] [165-C; 168-G-H] 
1.2. From the evidence of PW3-doct

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