SURINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 13-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 14 S.C.R. 825 
SURINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Dowry death 
- Conviction of husband by courts below - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution successfully proved its case against the 
husband-accused - The deceased died on account of burns 
in the house of the accused otherwise than under normal 
circumstances within 94 days of her marriage - The PWs 
(brothers of deceased) proved that she was unhappy in the 
matrimonial house being ill-treated for having brought 
· insufficient dowry - Conviction upheld. 
Presumption - Dowry death - Presumption uls. 1138 of 
Evidence Act and s. 3048 /PC - When can be raised - Held: 
Such presumption can be raised when it is shown that cruelty 
or harassment was caused soon before death of the 
deceased -
'Soon before' is a relative term - The time-lag 
may differ from ca~~ to case - In the present case, the bride 
died within 94 days of her marriage, the cruelty meted out to 
her any time during this period would be construed as 'soon 
before'. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Penal statutes - Interpretation 
of - Held: Penal statute, even if has to be strictly construed, 
must be so construed as not to defeat its purport -
The 
provisions in ss. 1138 of' Evidence Act and 3048 of /PC, 
being beneficent provisions, even though construed strictly, 
care will have to be taken to see that their object is not 
825 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 14 S.C.R. 
A frustrated - Meaning to be applied to each word of these 
provisions, has to be in accord with the legislative intent. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Dowry' - Meaning of, in the context of s. 3048 /PC and 
B Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
'Soon before' - Explained in the context of s. 1138 of 
Evidence Act and s. 3048 of Penal Code. 
C 
Appellant-accused No.1 was tried alongwith his 
other relatives i.e. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the 
offences punishable u/ss. 498A and 3048 IPC for killing 
his wife. 
The prosecution case was that the accused were not 
D satisfied with the dowry and on that account they used 
to ill-treat and harass the deceased. The deceased had 
informed her brothers (PWs 4 and 6) and her father about 
the same. On the day of the incident, accused No.3 came 
to the house of the parents of the deceased and informed 
E her brothers and father that the deceased had committed 
suicide by burning herself. After reaching the spot of 
occurrence, brother of the deceased lodged FIR 
narrating ill-treatment meted out to the deceased. The 
accused denied the allegations and stated that after her 
F abortion, the deceased was in depression and therefore, 
she committed suicide. 
Trial court convicted all the accused u/s. 3048 IPC 
and sentenced them to 7 years RI, and further convicted 
them u/s. 498A IPC and sentenced them to RI for 2 years, 
G and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause. High Court, in 
appeal, confirmed the conviction of appellant-accused 
and acquitted the other accused. Hence the present 
appeal by the appellant accused. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
SURINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
827 
HELD: 1. Penal statute, even if it has to be strictly 
A 
construed, must be so construed as not to defeat its 
purport. Harassment of a married woman in an Indian 
household is a peculiar phenomenon. In most cases it is 
seen that the husband or the members of his family are 
never satisfied with what they get as dowry. The wife's 
B 
family is expected to keep fulfilling this insatiable demand 
in some form or the other for some period of time after 
marriage. Such demands are also fulfilled by parents of 
the wife for fear of their daughter being ill-treated. The 
courts of law cannot lose sight of these realities. The c 
presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act, 
1872 and the presumption under Section 3048 of the IPC 
have a purpose. These are beneficent provisions aimed 
at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely 
in an Indian household. The meaning to be applied to 0 
each word of these provisions has to be in accord with 
the legislative intent. Even while construing these 
provisions strictly care will have to be taken to see that 
their object is not frustrated. [Para 19) [844-A-D] 
Appasaheb and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 
E 
SCC 721: 2007 (1) SCR 164; Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs. 
State of Maharashtra (1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.