LexKULWANT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 604 KULWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1548 of 2007) APRIL 02, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048 and 498A - Death of married woman within seven years of marriage at the house C of her in-laws in suspicious circumstances - She died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning - Conviction of husband and parents-in-law u/ss.3048 & 498A - Justification - Held: On facts, justified - There was no delay in lodging the FIR - Evidence on record clearly indicates that the deceased was D subje9ted to harassment for dowry not only by the husband (appellant no.1) but also by the parents-in-law (appellant nos.2 & 3) - Deceased was harassed for dowry till almost immediately before her death - Presumption of dowry death can safely be drawn in the instant case - Evidence Act, 1872 E - s.1138. Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 - Death of married woman within seven years of marriage at the house of her in-laws in suspicious circumstances - Husband (appellant no.1) and parents-in-law (appellant nos. 2 & 3) convicted uls.3048 /PC F and sentenced to 7 years RI - Plea of appellant nos.2 and 3 for leniency in sentence considering their old age and physical disability - Held: Rejected - Law prescribes a minimum of seven years imprisonment for offence u/s.304- 8 /PC - No provision for reducing the sentence for any reason G whatsoever nor has any exception being carved out in law - Even though appellant nos. 2 and 3 are now aged, they were responsible for the death of the wife of appellant no. 1 through aluminium phosphide poisoning - Sentence I Sentencing. H 604 KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 605 Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138 - Presumption as to dowry A death - When can be safely drawn - Discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048. A married woman died under suspicious circumstances at the house of her in-laws due to aluminium phosphide poisoning. The death occurred 8 within seven years of marriage. The deceased had been allegedly harassed and maltreated by the husband (appellant no.1), and the parents-in-law (appellant nos. 2 & 3) for bringing insufficient dowry. PW5 is the father of the deceased. The appellants were convicted by the C courts below under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of IPC. In the instant appeal, while challenging their conviction under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of IPC, D the appellants made three submissions - firstly that there was a delay in lodging the FIR by PW5; secondly, there was a great deal of improvement in the case by PW5 and other prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the FIR and the statements recorded during investigations under E Section 161 CrPC did not mention anything about the demand for dowry having been raised by the appellants more particularly about a buffalo having been demanded and given to the appellants and payment of Rs.6,000/- again on the demand of the appellants; and thirdly, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were not made out since the alleged demand for dowry was not proximate F to the death. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The facts reveal that PW-5 had made sufficient attempts to have the FIR lodged but was unable to do so since the report of the Chemical Examiner had not yet been received by the concerned police station. In any event, it H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A is also clear from the evidence of ASI (PW-12) that PWS had submitted an application which was marked by S.I. (PW-13) the Station House Officer of Police Station to him on 18th October 1989. PW13 also stated in his evidence that he had received an application made by PWS to the B Senior Superintendent of Police and it was then that he registered the FIR on 2nd November 1988. As such, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR. [Pars 28) [615-C-E] Gurrnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCALE 224 C and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204: 2012 (4) SCR 408 - relied on. 2.1. It is true that in the FIR PWS did not give any specific instance of the demand for dowry made by the appellants D but he did categorically mention that there was a demand for more dowry by the appellants. Apart from the statement in the FIR, both the Courts have considered the overwhelming evidence of several prosecution witnesses to the effect that there was a demand for dowry made by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.