SRI CHAND AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 1 
SRI CHAND AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No 1816 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Dowry death 
A 
B 
-
Prosecution against husband and parents-in-law (the 
appellants) of the deceased - Conviction by Courts below -
C 
Appeal by the parents-in-law - Held: The act of the appellants 
indicate their guilty state of mind - Hence cannot escape 
liability for causing death of the deceased - Plea of alibi by 
one of the accused also not proved. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The fact that the accused persons were 
found missing from the house and also the fact that they 
refrained from intimating the death of the deceased to her 
parents are two strong facts which indicate the guilty E 
state of mind of the appellants, who cannot escape 
liability for causing death of the deceased while at the 
matrimonial house. The legal accountability for the well-
being of a bride squarely lies upon her husband and 
other members of his parental family, who are joint in F 
mess and residence, with the couple. There is no 
evidence to prove that the deceased and her husband 
were separate in mess and residence from the other 
accused persons. [Para 10] [7-C-F] 
2. Appellant No.1 though has tried to raise a plea of 
alibi by pleading that he was in employment elsewhere, 
he did not adduce any evidence to prove that he was at 
his place of job at the relevant point of time. [Para 11] [7-
G-H; 8-A] 
1 
G 
H --
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No 1816 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.09.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
. B 
No. 1044-SB of 1998. 
c 
P.N. Puri, Dhiraj for the Appellants. 
Ajay Bansal, AAG, Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Yadava for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 
D 
1998, whereby the High Court allowed appeal of one of the four 
accused persons and dismissed appeal of the other three 
accused persons (viz. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law 
of deceased lady). The appellants-accused persons were 
convicted by the trial court on the charges under Sections 304-
E 
B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and 
directed each of the accused persons to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.2000/-
each for the former offence and to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of one year for the latter offence with 
F 
fine of Rs.1000/- each with default clause. Prima facie, it will 
be appropriate to notice that on the appeal preferred by the 
aforesaid three accused persons under Article 136 of the 
Constitution, this Court on 12.5.2009, while directing issuance 
of notice in the matter, confined the appeal to accused nos.2 
G & 3 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the huslband-
accused no.1. 
2. The facts leading to the prosecution story are that on 
18.2.1997, Tarsem Ram alias Tarsem Lal, resident of Village 
Durgapur, made a statement before the S.H.O. of Police 
H 
Station Sadar, Nawanshahr that around 1Y:z months back on 
• 
• 
SRI CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
3 
20.12.1996, his daughter Harpal Kaur alias Palo was married 
A 
to one Jaswant Lal and though he gave dowry as per his 
financial capacity, her daughter's husband and in-laws were not 
satisfied with the adequacy thereof. Whenever his daughter 
would come to her parental house, she would inform the 
members of her parental family that the behavior of her husband 
towards her was not proper. Tarsem Lal impressed upon his 
son-in-law that the former was a poor person and what better 
B 
gift could he have given to him in the marriage was his daughter 
itself. On 15.2.1997, when his son-in-law and daughter again 
came to Durgapur, his daughter Harpal Kaur told her parents c 
that her father-in-law Sri Chand, mother-in-law Darshan Kaur, 
her husband's younger brother Nachhatter Lal and her husband 
Jaswant Lal are harassing her saying that they have not been 
given dowry according to their status. She further informed them 
that she would not go to her matrimonial house as she had an 
0 
apprehension that she would be done to death over there. 
Tarsem Lal and his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.