Holding

Remission of sentence under Section 432 CrPC and Article 161 does not apply to dowry death offences, so the husband and mother‑in‑law must serve the full sentence, while the acquittal of the three separate accused stands.

Summary

The appellant, brother of the deceased Anju Devi, challenged the High Court's order that acquitted three accused who lived separately and released the husband on the ground that he had already served his sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the three accused, finding that the evidence did not prove their participation beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the remission of sentence granted under the Punjab Government order, issued under Section 432 of the CrPC and Article 161 of the Constitution, does not apply to offences punishable under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). Consequently, the husband and his mother‑in‑law must surrender and serve the full seven‑year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the three accused who lived separately can be convicted for the dowry death.
Whether remission of sentence under the State Government order is applicable to offences under Section 304B IPC.
Whether the husband had already undergone the seven‑year sentence at the time of the High Court's decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

dowry deathremission of sentenceSection 304B IPCSection 432 CrPCArticle 161benefit of doubtacquittalrigorous imprisonmentcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 458

A DHARAM CHAND ~
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 5, 2008
B
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; S. 304 B: j
I
~

c Dowry death - Wife has been harassed by husband and
family members for demand of more and more dowry- They
allegedly killed her by burning - F.l.R. - Trial Court found
accused husband, his mother, two brothers and sister guilty
of killing her and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
D imprisonment for seven years - Acquitting brothers and sister ..
of accused husband, High Court confirmed conviction against
accused husband and his mother but released accused 't"""

husband on ground that he had already undergone
imprisonment in terms of State Government's order on
remission of sentence in certain cases - Correctness of -
E
Held: High Court was right in acquitting accused brothers and
sister of the accused husband of the deceased giving them
benefit of doubt as they were living separately - On facts, it
infers from the Affidavit submitted by the State that accused
husband was treated as having undergone imprisonment for
F ·?.
seven years by way of remission of sentence in terms of an
order of the State Government to that effect - However, in
terms of the order, remission could not be granted to an
accused of dowry death - Hence, accused husband and his
mother, in case benefit of remission has also been granted
G to her, directed to surrender to custody and undergo
remaining sentence in terms of order of the trial Court - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.432 - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 161 - Remission of sentence - Grant of -
,,
Power of State Government.
H 458
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 459

According to the prosecution, respondent No.2, in A
collusion with his family members, was harassing his wife
for demand of more and more dowry. They allegedly
burnt her alive causing her death. Appellant, brother of
the deceased, lodged an FIR in the Police Station and the
Police arrested the accused husband, A 1, his mother, A2, B
two brothers, A3 and A4, and sister, A5 for committing the
offence punishable under s.3048 IPC and, after
investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. The Trial Court
found all the accused persons guilty of committing the ·
offence punishable u/s.3048 IPC and sentenced them to · c
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to '
pay fine. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, all the
accused persons preferred appeals. High Courts
acquitted the accused brothers and sister of the accused
husband, viz. A3, A4 and AS giving them benefit of doubt,
0
as they were living separately from accused Nos. 1 and
2 and also released accused-husband observing that he
had already undergone imprisonment as sentenced by
the trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court E
HELD: 1.1. So far as acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5
is concerned, on re-appreciation of evidence, the High
Court rightly held that since they were staying separately,
it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
they were also party to the act in question and hence F
L benefit of doubt could be given to them. [Para 15] {465-
A, 8]
1.2. The High Court was right in dismissing the
appeal filed by accused No.1-husband and accused No.2- G
mother-in-law of deceased and in confirming the order of
conviction and sentence. [Para 17] (465-C, D]
•
-- 2.1. The High Court was wrong in observing that the
respondent No. 2, accused No. 1, husband of the
deceased had already undergone the sentence. From ~he H
'
-~
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A evidence, it is clear that the incident in question took ~
place on March 14, 2000 and the High Court decided the
matter on October 30, 2006. Hence, even if the first day,
i.e. date of offence and the last day, i.e. the date of
judgment by the High Court is taken, even then seven
8 years were not over. Seven years from the date of
incident would be over only on March 13, 2007. [Para 18)
(465-D-F]
2.2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it was i·
stated that it was as per the Order dated August 14, 2002
c issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of
Home affairs and Justice {Jails Branch) that accused
No.1 was treated as having undergone imprisonment for
seven years, A copy of the said order was also produced
along with the counter-affidavit. The Order was issued by
D the Government of Punjab in exercise of power conferred
by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
r
and Article 161 of the Constitution. Clause A of the said
order provides for remission of senten~e of imprisonment .
for life in certain cases. It is, however, expressly stated
E that the benefits referred to in that part of the Order would
not apply to certain cases including dowry death.Thus,
it is clear that in case of dowry death, an offence
punishaple under Section 3048 IPC, the benefit of
remission of Government Order does not apply. If it is so,
F the benefit could not be granted to the accused husband. ·';L
Hence, even if accused No.1 or accused No.2 had been
released before completion of seven years, such action J

could not be said to be legal and lawful. For the foregoing
reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is
allowed by directing accused husband to surrender to
G
custody and to remain in jail for a period of seven years
which he had to undergo as per the order of the trial ,
Court. If such benefit is granted to accused No. 2, she ·' - )

also has to surrender to custody till the period of seven
years is over. [Paras 20, 21, 22 & 23) [466-0-F; 467-A-D]
H
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 461

....,, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 1731 of 2008.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 992-SB and 1012-SB of 2002. 8
K.K. Khurana, A.A.G., Brijendra Chahar, Ashok K.
Mahajan, Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Verma, Dr. Kailash Chand,
l Shikha Roy Pabbi, K.R. Anand, Ajit Kumar, S. Sabharvval, B.R.
Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, A.K. Mehta and Kuldip Singh,
for the appearing parties. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by the complainant, brother D
-y of deceased Anju Devi against the judgment and order dated
r October 31, 2006 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 992-SB of 2002 and 1012-SB of 2002.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal
No. 1012-SB/2002 filed by Vinod and partly allowed the appeal E
No. 992-SB/2002 filed by other accused and acquitted some
of the respondents-accused for offences with which they were
charged reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial
Court .
.lit:
f
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellant
.. _
herein, a de facto complainant is brother of one Anju Devi
('deceased' for short). Acr.ording to the appellant, his sister Anju
Devi got married to Accused No. 1, Jolly Singla on May 18,
1997. Accused No. 2 Reshma Devi is mother in law of
deceased Anju Devi. Accused No. 3 Rajesh and accused No. G
4 Vined are brothers of accused No. 1 Jolly Singla and accused
No. 5 Kiran is wife of accused No. 3-Rajesh.
""'t ""
4. It was the case of the prosecution that at the time of
marriage, the parents of the deceased Anju Devi spent an H

""
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
,'-

A amount Of Rs.3,50,000/-. They also paid substantial amount of ~
dowry to the accused. Anju Devi delivered a female child
Diksha who was about two years of age at the time of incident.
The allegation of the prosecution was that immediately after
marriage of Anju Devi, her in-laws were harassing Anju Devi
8 by making demands of dowry. At several occasions, deceased
Anju Devi made complaints about such demands. It was stated
that though substantial amount was paid by the parents of
deceased Anju Devi, her in-laws were insisting for more and
more amount. They were also demanding scooter, colour
i .
!

c television, etc. As per the prosecution, parents of Anju Devi had '
assured in-laws of Anju Devi that their demands will be steadily
met with but they should wait for some time considering the
capacity of parents of Anju Devi.

5. It is alleged by the prosecution that on March 14, 2000,
D at about 9.00 a.m., deceased Anju Devi telephoned the
appellant (her brother) that accused were harassing her and '(
giving her beatings and were asking her to leave matrimonial
home. Such cruel treatment and demand for dowry was made
by all the accused. According to the appellant, he came along
E with his brother Jai Bhagwan, Sarpanch Harbans Singh and
some other people to persuade the in-laws of deceased Anju
Devi, but when they reached at the house of the accused, they
found dead body of deceased Anju Devi lying burnt in bath
room. First Information Report was lodged being FIR No. 81
under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ll?C). :A
F

6. The accused were arrested. Usual investigation was
made and charge was framed. The accused pleaded not-guilty
to the charge and claimed to be tried.
G 7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Sessions
Case No. 16 of 2000 decided on June 13, 2002 held that it
was proved by the prosecution that the deceased died 7>
homicidal. death and all the accused were responsible for
committing the said crime. They were heard on the question
H of sentence and the Court ordered them to undergo rigorous

'
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 463
-< [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

#t' imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- A
each and in default, they were ordered to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for eight months.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, all the accused preferred appeals before the High
B
Court. The High Court allowed the appeals filed by Rajesh,
accused No. 3, Vinod, accused No. 4 and Kiran, accused No.
5 on the ground that they were residing separate from accused

-"
~ Nos. 1 and 2. It, however, dismissed the appeal filed by
accused No. 1, Jolly Singla, husband of deceased Anju Devi
and accused No. 2 Reshma De'Ji, mother in law of deceased
Anju Devi. So far as respondent No. 1 Jolly Singla, accused
No. 1-husband of deceased Anju Devi is concerned, the High
'C
'

Court observed that he had already undergone the
imprisonment and was released. The said order is challenged
by the complainant by filing the present appeal. D
....
J 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the order of conviction and sentence recorded
E
by the trial Court was in accordance with law and ought not to
have been set aside by the High Court. It was also submitted
that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the
trial Court held that it was a case of homicidal death. The dead
_. body of Anju Devi was found in the bath room. The trial Court
F
was wholly right in observing that normally accidental fire takes
place in a kitchen and not in a bath room. It was, therefore, held
that it was not a case of accidental fire, but with intent to cause
death, all the accused had commiited the act in question. It was
also submitted that from the evidence, it was clearly established
that there was demand of dowry and deceased Anju Devi was <3
harassed. The said fact was proved from sworn testimony of
prosecution witnesses. The High Court was wholly in error in
~
acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 who were convicted by the trial
Court observing that they were staying separately which was
factually incorrect. It was also submitted that once the incident H
,
. 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

·A was established and the High Court confirmed the finding of ~
guilt against the mother in law as well as husband of Ahju Devi,
there was no reason to interfere with the order of conviction in
respect of other accused. It was, therefore, subm_itted that the
appeal deserves to be allowed by restoring the order of
8 conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, submitted that reasons recorded by the High Court for
acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 5 cannot be said to be illegal nor ~
were based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds. And hence,
c even if this Court feels that two views are possible, a view which
favours the accused rather than which goes against them,
should be adopted. When the appellate Court on re-
appreciation of evidence extended benefit of doubt in favour
of three accused, it cannot be said that by taking such view,
D the High Court had not acted legally or reasonably. It was,
therefore, submitted that to that extent, the order of the High y-
Court needs no interference. ..
12. So far as conviction of Jolly Singla-accused No.1,
E husband of deceased Anju Devi and Reshma Devi, mother-in-
law of Anju Devi are concerned, the High Court has confirmed
their conviction and there is no appeal on their behalf. The
question with regard to their conviction and sentence is not the
subject matter before this Court.
-;;a
F 13. As far as respondent No. 1 Jolly Singla, husband of
deceased Anju Devi is concerned, the High Court stated that
he has already undergon_e the sentence and hence, the appeal
so far as accused No. 1 is concerned, had virtually become
infructuous. It was, therefore, submitted that the present appeal
G deserves to be dismissed.

14. The learned counsel for the State also supported the
order passed by the High Court. ~ "'

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our
H
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 465
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as A
acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned, in our view, the
learned counsel for the respondents is right in submitting that
on re-appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that since
they were staying separately, it could not be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that they were also party to the act in question B
and hence benefit of doubt was given to them.

16. We see no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court
as also the conclusion arrived at. We, therefore, see no ground
to interfere with that part of the order of acquittal recorded by C
the High Court so far accused Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned.

17. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in dismissing
the appeal filed by accused No.1-husband and accused No.2-
mother-in-law of deceased Anju Devi and in confirming the
order of conviction and sentence. D

18. In our opinion, however, the High Court was wrong in
observing that the respondent No. 1 herein (accused No. 1)
husband of Anju Devi had already undergone the sentence.
From the evidence, it is clear that the incident in question took E
place on March 14, 2000 and the High Court decided the matter
on October 30, 2006. Hence, even if we take the first day, i.e.
date of offence and the last day, i.e. the date of judgment by
the High Court, even then seven years were not over. Seven
years from the date of incident would be over only on March
13, 2007. F.

19. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, observed
as under;

"From the above discussion, I am of the view that G
prosecution case against accused-appellants Vined,
Rajesh and Kiran for the offence under Section 304-B IPC
is not proved beyond doubt. They are entitled to acquittal
and are acquitted. Jolly Singla happens to be husband and
Reshma Devi is mother-in-law of the deceased. They were H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 $.C.R.

'
A residing together with Anju, deceased. Appeal field by ~
-them is dismissed. Jolly Sing/a is stated to have already
undergone imprisonment and released".

(emphasis supplied)
B 20. From the above observations, it is clear that before the
High Court, it was "stated" on behalf of the husband that he had
already undergone the imprisonment and was released. When
we asked the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as to how i ~

the High Court recorded the above finding, he could not give
c satisfactory reply on what basis it was stated before the High
Court that accused No. 1-husband had already undergone
imprisonment and was released. We, therefore, asked the
learned advocate for the State of Punjab to file an affidavit
stating the basis of the statement and release of accused No.1.
D Such affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and the learned
Government Pleader stated that it was as per the Order dated
August 14, 2002 issued by the Government of Punjab,
Department of Home affairs and Justice (Jails Branch) that
l
accused No. 1 was treated as having undergone imprisonment
I-
E for seven years. A copy of the said order was also produced
along with the counter-affidavit.

21. The Order was issued by the Government of Punjab
in exercise of power conferred by Section 432 of the Code of

F
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution. .,. ~

Clause A provides for remission of sentence of imprisonment
for life in certain cases: It is, however, expressly stated that the
benefits referred to in that part of the Order would not apply to l_

certain cases. The said head reads thus;

G "These benefits are not admissible in the following
cases".

Sub-clause (vii) of that part deals with offences under .....
Section 3048, /PC, i.e. a dowry death.
H

"-
DHARAM CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 467
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

22. It is, therefore, clear that in case of dowry death, an A
offence punishable under Section 3048, IPC, the benefit of
remission of Government Order does not apply. If it is so, in
our opinion, the benefit could not be granted to respondent No.
1-husband. Hence, even if accused No.1 or accused No.2 had
been released before completion of seven years, such action B
could not be said to be legal and lawful. If it is so, obviously,
the appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed and is allowed by directing respondent No. 1 Jolly . C
Singla to surrender to custody and to remain in jail for a period
of seven years which he has to undergo as per the order of the ·
trial Court. If such benefit is granted to accused No. 2, she also
had to surrender to custody till the period of seven years is over.

24. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. D

S.K.S. Appeal .Partly allowed.