RAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 26-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 2 S.C.R. 835 
RAJINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2321 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2015. 
[T.S. THAKUR, R.F. NARIMAN AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
A 
B 
c 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 - Dowry death - Conviction 
by courts below - Held: In the facts of the case it is proved 
that it was a case of dowry death - Conviction upheld. 
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.2 - Dowry- Meaning 
of - Held: Any money/property/valuable security demanded D 
by any persons mentioned in s.2 of the Act, at/before/any 
time after marriage which is reasonably connected to the 
death of a married woman, would be in connection with the 
marriage, unless unequivocally pointed otherwise. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Dowry' - Meaning of, in the context of s.2 of Dowry 
Prohibition Act, 1961. 
E 
"Soon before her death" - Meaning of, in the context F 
of s.3048 of /PC - Discussed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There are four ingredients of the offence G 
u/s. 3048 IPC and they are said to be that (a) death of 
a woman must have been caused by any burns or 
bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise 
835 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must 
have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) 
soon before her death, she must have been subjected 
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative 
of her husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment 
B must be in connection with the demand for dowry. [para 
9) [846-8-D] 
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 (7) SCR 1119 
= (2010) 12 SCC 350; Bachni Devi & Anr. v. State of 
C Haryana 2011 (2) SCR 627 = (2011) 4 SCC 427, Pathan 
Hussain Basha v. State of A.P. 2012 (7) SCR 290 = (2012) 
8 SCC 594, Ku/want Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab2013 
(5) SCR 604 = (2013) 4 SCC177, Surinder Singh v. State 
of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129, Raminder Singh v. State of 
D Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 582, Suresh Singh v. State of 
Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 353, Sher Singh v. State of 
Haryana 2015 1 SCALE 250 - relied on. 
2. The word "soon" occurring in s.3048 of IPC 
E does not mean "immediate". A fair and pragmatic 
construction keeping in mind the great social evil that 
has led to the enactment of Section 3048 would make 
it clear that the expression is a relative expression. 
Days or months are not what is to be seen. Time lags 
F may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is 
that the demand for dowry should not be stale but 
should be the continuing cause for the death of the 
married woman under Section 3048 IPC. [para 23) [858-
8-C] 
G 
H 
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 129; 
Sher Singh v. State of Haryana 2015 (1) SCALE 250 -
relied on. 
Dinesh v. State of Haryana, 2014 (5) SCALE 641 -
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
837 
held not correct law. 
A 
3. Section 3048 of IPC is a stringent provision, 
meant to combat a social evil of alarming proportions. 
In order to give a fair, pragmatic, and common sense 
interpretation so as to fulfill the object sought to be B 
achieved by Parliament, it is held that any money or 
property or valuable security demanded by any of the 
persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the 
marriage which is reasonably connected to the death C 
of a married woman, would necessarily be in 
connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, 
the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point 
otherwise. [paras 13 and 20] (847-H, 854.-G-H; 855-A-B] 
M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kera/a, 1963 Supp. 
(2) SCR 724; Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of 
Enforcement 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 49 = (2005) 4 SCC 530 
- followed. 
Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) SCR 164 
= (2007) 9 SCC 721; Vipin Jaiswal vs. State of Andhra 
Pradesh 2013 (3) SCR 449 = 2013 (3) sec 684 - held not 
correct law. 
D 
E 
Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana 2011 (2) SCR 627 = F 
(2011) 4 SCC 427; Ku/want Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 
2013(5) SCR 604 = (2013) 4 SCC 177; Surinder Singh v. 
State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 129; and Raminder Singh 
v. State of Punjab (2014) 12 SCC 582; K. Prema S. Rao 
and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others 2002 (3) G 
Suppl. SCR 339 = (2003) 1 SCC 217; Reema Aggarwal v. 
Anupam 2004 (1) SCR 378 = (2004) 3 SCC 199- referred 
to. 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4. In the present case, demands for money were 
made shortly after one year of the marriage. A she-
b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.