LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus GURMIT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 9 S.C.R. 182 STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2014) JULY 2, 2014 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Dowry death - Prosecution c of respondent - Legality - Word "relative of the husband" - Meaning of - Held: The word "relative of the husband" in s. 304 8 would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption - Respondent not husband of the deceased and also not related to husband of the deceased 0 either-by blood or marriage or adoption - Since respondent not related to husband of the deceased in any manner, he could not be prosecuted for offence u/s.3048 /PC - High Court justified in quashing the trial court order summoning the respondent to face trial. E Words and Phrases - Expression "relative of the husband" - Meaning of - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048 and 498A. Interpretation of Statutes - When words of a statute not F defined - Held: Such words to be understood in their natural, ordinary or p.opular sense - Reference may be made to dictionaries tofind out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance. · Interpretation of Statutes - Use of same words in different G part of the statute - Held: In such a case, the presumption is that those words have been used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context. H 182 I STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH 183 In a case registered under Section 3048 IPC, the trial A court ·summoned the respondent besides other accused persons to face trial under Section 319 of CrPC, observing that the names of those persons figured in the FIR, statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the evidence of PW-1. B Respondent challenged the aforesaid order in a revision application file~ before the High Court inter alia on the ground that he could not be tried for offence under Section 3048 IPC because he was not a relative of the husband of the deceased. The submission found favour with the High Court and, accordingly, it quashed the order summoning the respondent to face the trial. c The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the High Court erred in D ~ holding that the respondent was not a relative of the husband of the deceased. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. From a plain reading of Section 304-8 IPC, it is evident that when a woman dies by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances \,yithin seven years of the marriage, her husband or any relative of her husband shall be deemed to have committed the offence of dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or E F by any relative of her husband. This section therefore, exposes the husband of the woman or any relative of her husband for the commission of offence of the dowry G death. Admittedly, the respondent is not the husband of the ~oman who died and, therefore, the question which falls for determination is as to whether he comes within the ambit of "any relative of her husband". The expression "relative" has not been defined in the IPC. . - H 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A The provision concerned is a penal provision which deserves strict construction. It is well settled that when the words of a statute are not defined, it has to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense. For this purpose, it shall be permissible to refer to B dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance. In Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advance Law Lexicon, the word relative means any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large number of dictionaries give this word relative, in c context, same meaning. [Para 6) [188-8-F] Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.) - referred to. 2. The expression "relative of the husband" has D been ,used in Section 498A of the l.P.C. While interpreting the said. expression, this Court in the case of U. Suvetha held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The expression relative of the 'husband further came up for consideration In the case of Vijeta Gajra and E while approving the decision of this Court in U. Suvetha it was held that the word relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. [Paras 7,8]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.