MAJOR SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 08-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 5 S.C.R. 777 
MAJOR SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2012) 
APRIL 8, 2015 
[f. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI AND 
AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 -
Dowry death -
Prosecution ulss. 3048 and 498A - Of husband, mother-in-
/aw, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased - Trial 
court acquitted sister-in-Jaw of all the charges and convicted 
the other accused only u/s. 3048 - High Court confirmed o 
conviction of father and mother-in-laws while appeal of the 
husband abated due to his death - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty and 
that the deceased was subjected to dowry harassment 'soon 
before her death' - Offence u/s. 3048 not made out against E 
the appellants-accused, hence acquitted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. To attract conviction under Section 3048 F 
IPC, the prosecution should adduce evidence to show 
that "soon before her death", the deceased was 
subjected to cruelty or harassment There must always 
be proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty 
based on dowry demand and the concerned death. G 
[Para 15] [785-G-H] 
2. In the present case, there is no evidence as to the 
demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased was 
subjected to dowry harassment "soon before her H 
777 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A death". Prosecution has not examined any independent 
witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was 
demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected 
to ill-treatment, especially when PW3 has specifically 
stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was 
B informed to the Panchayatdars. The alleged ill-treatment 
or cruelty of the deceased by her husband or relatives 
could have been proved by examination of the 
Panchayatdars. Except the demand of scooter, there is 
nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of 
C dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of 
dowry, it can only be attributed to the husband, who in 
all probability could have demanded the same for his 
use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased 
0 was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection 
with the demand of dowry "soon before her death" by 
the appellants, the co11viction of the appellants under 
Section 3048 IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court 
and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in 
E the light of the essential ingredients of Section 3048 IPC 
and the conviction of the appellants under Section 3048 
IPC is liable to be set aside. [Paras 13 and 17] [784-F-H; 
787-G-H; 788-A-8] 
F 
Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi (2003) 8 
SCC 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734; State of A.P vs. Raj 
Gopal Asawa & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 470: 2004 (3) SCR 32; 
Ba/want Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724; 
Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC 
G 157: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kam/esh 
Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388: 2005 (1) SCR 
903; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) 1 SCC 463: 
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 629; Biswajit Halder@ Babu Halder 
& Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2008) 1 SCC 202: 2007 
H (4) SCR 120; Narayanamurthy vs. State of Kamataka & Anr. 
MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
779 
(2008) 16 SCC 512:2008 (8) SCR 403 - relied on. 
A 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 
relied on. 
Para 15 
2004 (3) SCR 32 
relied on. 
Para 16 
B 
(2004) 1 sec 724 
relied on. 
Para 16 
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 
relied on. 
Para 16 
2005 (1) SCR 903 
relied on. 
Para 16 
c 
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 629 
relied on. 
Para 16 
2007 (4) SCR 120 
relied on. 
Para 16 
2008 (8) SCR 403 
relied on. 
Para 16 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1145 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2010 ofthe E 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal' 
Appeal No. S-1029-SB of 1998. 
Harikesh Singh, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the 
Appellants. 
F 
Ajay Bansal, MG, Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been G 
preferred against the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal 
No.S-1029-SB of 1998 whereby the High Court confirmed the 
conviction of the appellants under Section 3048 IPC and the 
sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on each 
H 
of them. 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Brief facts which led to the filing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.