KULWANT SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                       [2013] 5 S.C.R. 604

A                   KULWANT SINGH & ORS.
                                 v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1548 of 2007)
                          APRIL 02, 2013
B
         [A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3048 and 498A - Death of
  married woman within seven years of marriage at the house
C of her in-laws in suspicious circumstances - She died due to
  aluminium phosphide poisoning - Conviction of husband and
  parents-in-law u/ss.3048 & 498A - Justification - Held: On
  facts, justified - There was no delay in lodging the FIR -
  Evidence on record clearly indicates that the deceased was
D subje9ted to harassment for dowry not only by the husband
  (appellant no.1) but also by the parents-in-law (appellant nos.2
  & 3) - Deceased was harassed for dowry till almost
  immediately before her death - Presumption of dowry death
  can safely be drawn in the instant case - Evidence Act, 1872
E - s.1138.
       Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 - Death of married woman
  within seven years of marriage at the house of her in-laws in
  suspicious circumstances - Husband (appellant no.1) and
  parents-in-law (appellant nos. 2 & 3) convicted uls.3048 /PC
F and sentenced to 7 years RI - Plea of appellant nos.2 and 3
  for leniency in sentence considering their old age and
  physical disability - Held: Rejected - Law prescribes a
  minimum of seven years imprisonment for offence u/s.304-
  8 /PC - No provision for reducing the sentence for any reason
G whatsoever nor has any exception being carved out in law -
  Even though appellant nos. 2 and 3 are now aged, they were
  responsible for the death of the wife of appellant no. 1 through
  aluminium phosphide poisoning - Sentence I Sentencing.

H                               604
      KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                605


    Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138 - Presumption as to dowry   A
death - When can be safely drawn - Discussed - Penal
Code, 1860 - s.3048.

    A married woman died under suspicious
circumstances at the house of her in-laws due to
                                                             8
aluminium phosphide poisoning. The death occurred
within seven years of marriage. The deceased had been
allegedly harassed and maltreated by the husband
(appellant no.1), and the parents-in-law (appellant nos. 2
& 3) for bringing insufficient dowry. PW5 is the father of
the deceased. The appellants were convicted by the           C
courts below under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of
IPC.
     In the instant appeal, while challenging their
conviction under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of IPC,     D
the appellants made three submissions - firstly that there
was a delay in lodging the FIR by PW5; secondly, there
was a great deal of improvement in the case by PW5 and
other prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the FIR and
the statements recorded during investigations under          E
Section 161 CrPC did not mention anything about the
demand for dowry having been raised by the appellants
more particularly about a buffalo having been demanded
and given to the appellants and payment of Rs.6,000/-
again on the demand of the appellants; and thirdly, the
                                                             F
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were not made out
since the alleged demand for dowry was not proximate
to the death.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                             G
     HELD: 1. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The
facts reveal that PW-5 had made sufficient attempts to
have the FIR lodged but was unable to do so since the
report of the Chemical Examiner had not yet been
received by the concerned police station. In any event, it   H
    606     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A is also clear from the evidence of ASI (PW-12) that PWS
  had submitted an application which was marked by S.I.
  (PW-13) the Station House Officer of Police Station to him
  on 18th October 1989. PW13 also stated in his evidence
  that he had received an application made by PWS to the
B Senior Superintendent of Police and it was then that he
  registered the FIR on 2nd November 1988. As such, it
  cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the
  FIR. [Pars 28) [615-C-E]

      Gurrnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCALE 224
C and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204:
  2012 (4) SCR 408 - relied on.

       2.1. It is true that in the FIR PWS did not give any specific
  instance of the demand for dowry made by the appellants
D but he did categorically mention that there was a demand
  for more dowry by the appellants. Apart from the statement
  in the FIR, both the Courts have considered the
  overwhelming evidence of several prosecution witnesses
  to the effect that there was a demand for dowry made by the
E appellants and concurrently held that the appellants had
  made a demand. There is no reason to interfere with this
  finding of fact. [Para 30) [615-H; 616-A-B]

      2.2. That apart, there is sufficient evidence on record
  that the appellants had demanded a buffalo from PWS
F and this demand was acceded to. There is also sufficient
  evidence that the appellants had demanded Rs.6;0001-
  from PWS and even this demand was acceded to with
  PW-11 giving the amount to the appellants. [Para 31] [616-
G C-D]
        3. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the
    deceased was subjected to harassment for dowry not
    only by appellant no.1 but also by his parents. In fact, the
    harassment continued, as stated by the members of the
H
      KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 607


Panchayat who visited the house of appellant no.1 on          A
13th September 1988 and also by PW-9 on 8th October
1988. The' deceased was, therefore, harassed for dowry
till almost immediately before her death. [Para 33] [617-
A-8]
                                                              8
     4. The presumption of a dowry death can be raised
in four circumstances, viz.: (1) The question before the
court must be whether the accused has committed the
dowry ·death of a woman. (This means that the
presumption can be raised only if the accused is being
tried for the offence under Section 304-8 IPC.); (2) The      C
woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives; (3) Such cruelty or harassment
was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry and
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
death. All these ingredients are present in this case and     D
a presumption of a dowry death can safely be drawn.
[Para 35] [617-F-H; 618-A-8]
    Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 155:
2008 (17) SCR 379 - relied on.
                                                              E
    Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC
721: 2007 (1) SCR 164; and Vipin Jaiswal v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 2013 (3) SCALE 525 - held inapplicable.
    Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana (2011) 4 SCC 427:
                                                              F
2011 (2) SCR ·627 - referred to.
     5.1. There is no doubt that insofar as the present
case is concerned, the deceased was harassed by her
husband and in-laws for dowry and that she died under
abnormal circumstances due to aluminium phosphide             G
poisoning. There is sufficient evidence to hold the
appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section
304-8 of the IPC and 498-A of the IPC. There is no reason
to disturb the conclusions concurrently arrived at by both
the Courts below. [Para 38] [618-H; 619-A-8]                  H
    608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A      5.2. The law prescribes a minimum of seven years
  imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B of the
  IPC. There is no provision for reducing the sentence for
  any reason whatsoever nor has any exception being
  carved out in law. Even though appellant nos. 2 and 3 are
B now aged, they were responsible for the death of the wife
  of appellant no.1 through aluminium phosphide
  poisoning. The deceased was a young lady when she
  died· and one can only guess the trauma .that her
  unnatural death would have caused tp her parents.
c Sympathizing with an accused person or a convict does
  not entitle to this Court to ignore the feelings of the victim
  or the immediate family of the victim. [Paras 40, 41) [619-
  D-F]
                        Case Law Reference:
D
          (2012) 11 SCALE 224 relied on              Para 29
          2012 (4) SCR 408       relied on           Para 29
          2008 (17) SCR 379      relied on            Para 35
E         2007 (1) SCR 164       held inapplicable    Para 36
          2011 (2) SCR 627       referred to          Para 36
          2013 (3) SCALE 525     held inapplicable    Para 37
F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1548 of 2007.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2007 of the High
  Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
G Criminal Appeal No. 356-SB of 1993.

         Nagendra Rai, Rishi Malhotra, Gopi Raman for the
    Appellants.

       V. Madhukar, AAG, Paritosh Anil, Anvita Cowshish,
H Srajita Mathur, Kuldip Sing for the Respondent.
       KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       609


    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        A

     MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The question before us is
whether the conviction of Kulwant Singh (appellant No.1 ), his
father Gurtehal Singh (appellant no.2) and his mother Harminder
Kaur (appellant no.3) for offences punishable under Section           8
304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) ought
to be sustained. In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence on
record to sustain their conviction.

The facts:
                                                                      c
     2. Rachhpal Kaur (deceased) married Kulwant Singh on
18th November 1984. It appears from the record that even
though she brought sufficient dowry, she was harassed and
maltreated by her husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient
dowry. The harassment and maltreatment continued resulting            o
in the intervention by the Panchayat on or about 13th
September 1988 to sort out the problem so that the couple
could live a normal married life. Unfortunately, the efforts of the
Panchayat did not yield any positive result and about a month
later on 14th October ·1988 Rachhpal Kaur died under                  E
suspicious circumstances.

     3. The record indicates that Rachhpal Kaur was taken to
the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh after rigor mortis had set
in and there was froth coming from her mouth and nose. The
app.ellants submitted an application Exh. DC for taking F
possession of the corpse without a post-mortem examination
but that was not acceded to. A post-mortem examination was
conducted on 15th October 1988 which revealed that Rachhpal
Kaur was carrying a 26-week fetus. Some parts of her body
were then removed, sealed and sent for chemical examination G
to the Chemical Examiner to the Government of Punjab,
Patiala. The report of the Chemical Examiner, received much
later, indicated the presence of aluminium phosphide (a
pesticide) in the stomach of the deceased and phosphine, a
constituent of aluminium phosphide, detected in her liver, H
    610     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 5 S.C.R.

A   spleen, right kidney and right lung. According to Dr. Asha Kiran,
    Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh (PW-1) the
    contents were sufficient to cause the death of Rachhpal Kaur.
        4. Her younger sister Avtar Kaur (PW-9) gave intimation
    of Rachhpal Kaur's death on 15th October 1988 to her father
8
    Sukhdev Singh (PW-5). Thereupon Sukhdev Singh reached the
    hospital and claimed the body of Rachhpal Kaur and later
    cremated her. •

         5. Sukhdev Singh sought to lodge a first information report
C   (FIR) regarding the suspicious death of Rachhpal Kaur but could
    not do so. The police authorities declined to register the FIR
    since the report of the chemical examination was not available.
    However, Sukhdev Singh did make an application in the
    concerned police station which was marked for necessary
D   action to ASI Karnail Singh (PW-12) on 18th October 1988.

        6. Eventually, after the cause of Rachhpal Kaur's death
    was ascertained, FIR No.67/1988 dated 2nd November 1988
    was registered and investigations commenced by the police.

E         7. The FIR broadly stated that sufficient dowry had been
    given to the appellants at the time of Rachhpal Kaur's marriage
    with Kulwant Singh. However, a few days after her marriage she
    was maltreated for bringing insufficient dowry, treated with
    cruelty and beaten up several times. The FIR goes on to state
F   that a Panchayat had visited the house of Kulwant Singh but
    he and the other in-laws of the deceased informed the
    Panchayat that they would continue to maltreat Rachhpal Kaur
    until their demands for dowry were fulfilled.
         8. In the FIR, Sukhdev Singh stated that on 15th October
G   1988 he came to know from his daughter Avtar Kaur that
    Rachhpal Kaur had been murdered under suspicious
    circumstances. Sukhdev Singh was astonished to learn this
    and he reported the matter to the local police but they refused
    to take action since the report of the chemical examination had
H   not been received. According to Sukhdev Singh, the appellants
       KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    611
             [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
and other in-laws of Rachhpal Kaur had committed an offence        A
punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC
for causing the death of Rachhpal Kaur.

    9. Upon registration of the FIR and receipt of the report of
the Chemical Examiner, the local police carried out
                                                                   8
investigations and filed a charge sheet against the appellants
as well as Gurcharan Singh and Sukhwant Singh, brothers of
Kulwant Singh. The case was committed to the Sessions Court
and registered as Sessions Case No.35-T of 5.5.1989 by the
Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala.
                                                                   c
    10. After charges were framed, all the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

    11. The prosecution produced several witnesses to bring
home its case that the accused persons killed Rachhpal Kaur        0
by poisoning her. The defence also produced their witnesses.

Decision of the Trial Court:

    12. The Trial Judge, by his judgment and order dated 17th
September 1993 found the appellants Kulwant Singh, Gurtehal        E
Singh and Harminder Kaur guilty of an offence punishable
under Section 304-B of the IPC. They were then sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were also
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one         F
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The sentences were to run
concurrently.

     13. The Trial Court held that there was no delay in lodging
the FIR by Sukhdev Singh. In fact, soon after the cremation of G
Rachhpal Kaur he went to the concerned Police Station at
Amloh and apparently reported the suspicious circumstances
under which his daughter had died. However, a case was not
registered since the chemical examination report had not been
received. Sukhdev Singh also moved an application before
senior police officers and even appeared before the Senior H
    612     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   Superintendent of Police at Patiala and it is then that the FIR
    was registered on 2nd November 1988. On these facts the Trial
    Court concluded that there was no delay in lodging the FIR by
    Sukhdev Singh.

          14. On the issue of a demand for dowry, maltreatment and
8
    harassment of Rachhpal Kaur, the Trial Court relied on the
    evidence of Sukhdev Singh (PW-5), his daughter Avtar Kaur
    (PW-9) his son Jasbir Singh (PW-11) and more importantly the
    members of the Panchayat, Sohan Singh (PW-7) and Darshan
C   Singh (PW-8) who had gone to Kulwant Singh's house to sort
    out the issues between him and Rachhpal Kaur. The members
    of the Panchayat categorically stated (and this was believed
    by the Trial Court) that when they met Rachhpal Kaur on 13th
    September 1988 she was crying and had told them that the
    appellants demanded more dowry from her. She also stated
D   that the appellants were given a buffalo and Rs.6,000/- in cash
    over and above the dowry given at the time of marriage but the
    appellants still complained that the dowry was insufficient.

        15. Avtar Kaur (PW-9) had met Rachhpal Kaur on 8th
E   October 1988 and was told by the deceased that her husband
    and members of his family were harassing her for dowry. The
    appellants subjected her to beating and that she wanted to be
    taken away from the house of her in-laws.

F      16. Jasbir Singh (PW-11) was believed by the Trial Court
  when he stated that he had borrowed Rs.6,000/- to give to the
  appellants as demanded by them. It was contended that
  Sukhdev Singh owned sufficient land and therefore, there was
  no need for his son to borrow Rs.6,000/- against a promissory
  note for payment to the appellants. The Trial Court did not
G accept this contention and found that since Sukhdev Singh had
  a very large family, it was not unnatural if his son had borrowed
  some money to give to the appellants.

         17. The Trial Court also concluded that Rachhpal Kaur had
H   died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning and the ingredients
        KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   613
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
  of Section 304-B of the IPC had been made out and A
  additionally the ingredients of Section 498-A had also been
· made out. It was held that Rachhpal Kaur's death was not a
  case of suicide.

     18. On the above findings, the Trial Court concluded that 8
the appellants were guilty of the offences that they were charged
with. However, it was held that the prosecution had not been
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sukhwant Singh
and Gurcharan Singh had committed any offence. On this basis,
they were found not guilty while the appellants were awarded C
the punishment as mentioned above.

 Decision of the High Court:
      19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order as well
 as the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, the appellants D
 preferred Criminal Appeal No.356-SB of 1993, which was
 heard and dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
 by its judgment and order dated 2nd May 2007.

      20. The High Court independently examined the evidence
 on record and concluded that the prosecution had led sufficient E
 evidence to show that the appellants, on account of a demand
 for dowry, maltreated Rachhpal Kaur and that she died under
 a.bnorrnal circumstances at the house of her in-laws. The High
 Court believed the witnesses who had consistently supported
 the prosecution version of harassment, maltreatment and F
 misbehavior by the appellants with Rachhpal Kaur on account
 of her allegedly bringing insufficient dowry.

     21. The High Court also believed the case put forward by
 the prosecution that in addition to the dowry brought by G
 Rachhpal Kaur at the time of her marriage, the appellants had
 been given a buffalo and Rs.6,00p!- in cash by Sukhdev Singh
 (PW-5) and Jasbir Singh (PW-1f).

      22. The High Court considered and rejected the contention
 of the appellants that the demand for dowry was an afterthought   H
    614      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A   since it did not find any mention in the FIR. The High Court noted
    that the FIR ciearly records that Rachhpal Kaur had mentioned
    the demand for dowry to the members of the Panchayat and
    her immediate family. Though the demand for dowry was not
    specific, there was undoubtedly a demand made by the
B   appellants and which was satisfied by Rachhpal Kaur's family.

          23. The High Court found that the death of Rachhpal Kaur
    was due to aluminium phosphide poisoning and that there was
    sufficient evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty of the
C   offences that they were charged with. Accordingly, the appeal
    filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court.

         24. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal
    is before us.

0   Submissions and discussion:

         25. Learned counsel for the appellants made three
    submissions before us. It was firstly submitted that there was
    a delay in lodging the FIR by Sukhdev Singh inasmuch as the
    incident occurred on 14th October 1988 but the FIR was lodged
E   on 2nd November 1988; secondly, there was a great deal of
    improvement in the case by Sukhdev Singh and other
    prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the FIR and the statements
    recorded during investigations under Section 161 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure did not mention anything about the
F   demand for dowry having been raised by the appellants more
    particularly about a buffalo having been demanded and given
    to the appellants and payment of Rs.6,000/- again on the
    demand of the appellants. It was contended, in other words, that
    a completely new story was set up by the prosecution witnesses
G   and for this reason they should not be believed; thirdly, the
    ingredients of Section 304-8 of the IPC were not made out
    since the alleged demand for dowry was not proximate to the
    death of Rachhpal Kaur.

          26. We are unable to agree with learned counsel for the
H
       KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    615
             [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
appellants in respect of any of the submissions advanced by A
him.

     27. As far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned,
we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial
Court that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. It may be
mentioned that the argument of delay in lodging the FIR was        B
not raised before the High Court.

     28. Be that as it may, the facts reveal that Sukhdev Singh
(PW-5) had made sufficient attempts to have the FIR lodged
but was unable to do so since the report of the Chemical C
Examiner had not yet been received by the concerned police
station. In any event, it is also clear from the evidence of ASI
Karnail Singh (PW-12) that Sukhdev Singh had submitted an
application which was marked by S.I. Balbir Singh (PW~13) the
Station House Officer of Police. Station Amloh to him (Karnail D
Singh) on 18th October 1989. S.I. Balbir Singh also stated in
his evidence that he had received an application made by
Sukhdev Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police at
Patiala and it was then that he registered the FIR on 2nd
November 1988. As such, it cannot be said that there was any E
delay in lodging the FIR.

     29. We may also mention that the issue about the delay
in lodging an FIR has been dealt by this Court ad nauseum
and we should not make a fetish out of any perceived delay in
lodging the FIR. Some time back, one of us (Madan B.Lokur, F
J.) had occasion to deal with this issue in Gurrnail Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCALE 224 and it is not necessary
to repeat the conclusions arrived at nor is it necessary to
reaffirm the principle that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a
ground for throwing away the entire prosecution case as held G
in Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 204.

    30. The second· contention urged by the appellants also
does not merit any serious consideration. It is true that in the
FIR Sukhdev Singh did not give any specific instance of the        H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   demand for dowry made by the appellants but he did
    categorically mention that there was a demand for more dowry
    by the appellants. Apart from the statement in the FIR, both the
    Courts have considered the overwhelming evidence of several
    prosecution witnesses to the effect that there was a demand
B   for dowry made by the appellants and concurrently held that the
    appellants had made a demand. We do not see any reason to
    interfere with this finding of fact.

         31. That apart, there is sufficient evidence on record that
    the appellants had demanded a buffalo from Sukhdev Singh
C   and this demand was acceded to. There is also sufficient
    evidence that the appellants had demanded Rs.6,000/- from
    Sukhdev Singh and even this demand was acceded to with
    Jasbir Singh (PW-11} giving the amount to the appellants.

D        32. The final contention urged on behalf of the appellants
    also requires to be rejected. Section 304-B of the IPC reads
    as follows:

          "304-8. Dowry death.-(1} Where the death of a woman
          is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
E
          than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
          marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
          was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
          any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
          demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
F
          death", and such husband or r-elative shall be deemed to
          have caused her death.

               Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section,
          "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
G         the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

          (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
          imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
          years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
H         33. There is no dispute that Rachhpal Kaur died under
       KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    617
             [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
abnormal circumstances due to aluminium phosphide                  A
poisoning within seven years of her marriage. The evidence on
record clearly indicates that she was subjected to harassment
for dowry not only by Kulwant Singh but also by his parents. In
fact, the harassment continued, as stated by the members of
the Panchayat who visited Kulwant Singh's house on 13th            B
September 1988 and .also by Avtar Kaur (PW-9) on 8th
October 1988. Rachhpal Kaur was, therefore, harassed for
dowry till almost immediately before her death.

    34. We may also make a reference to Section 113-B of           C
the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows:-

    "113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the
    question is whether a person has committed the dowry
    death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
    death such woman had been subjected by such person to          D
    cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
    demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
    person had caused the dowry death.

          Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry   E
    death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304-8
    of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

     35. The presumption of a dowry death can be raised in
four circumstances given below and which have been
mentioned in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC         F
155:

     "(1) The question before the court must be whether the
     accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
     (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the    G
     accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-
     8 IPC.)

     (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
     her husband or his relatives.
                                                                   H
    618      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
          with, any demand for dowry.

          (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."

        All these ingredients are present in this case and a
8   presumption of a .dowry death can safely be drawn.

       36. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to
  Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721
  wherein it was held that asking the wife to bring money for
c meeting domestic expenses on account of financial stringency
  and for purchasing manure cannot be held as a demand for
  dowry. We are unable to see how this decision· has any
  relevance to the facts of the present case or to the controversy
  that we are concerned with. In any event, the observations made
o in Appasaheb were explained in Bachni Devi v. State of
  Haryana, (2011) 4 sec 427 wherein it was held that the
  observations in Appasaheb were required to be understood in
  the context of the case. It was held that Appasaheb cannot be
  read as laying down an absolute proposition that a demand for
E money or some property or valuable security on account of
  some business or financial requirement could not be termed
  as a demand for dowry.

       37. Finally, reference was made to Vipin Jaiswal v. State
  of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (3) SCALE 525 which also has no
F relevance to the present case since in that case the ingredients
  of harassment or cruelty had not been made out. Vipin
  Jaiswal's wife committed suicide and left behind a note to the
  effect that nobody was responsible for her death and that her
  parents and family members had harassed her husband and it
G is because of this that she was fed up with her life and the
  quarrels taking place.

       38. There is no doubt that insofar as the present case is
  concerned, Rachhpal Kaur was harassed by her husband and
H in-laws for dowry and that she died under abnormal
         KULWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     619
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
circumstances due to aluminium phosphide poisoning. In our            A
opinion, there is sufficient evidence to hold the appellants guilty
of offences punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and
498-A of the IPC. We see no reason to disturb the conclusions
concurrently arrived at by both the Courts below.
                                                                      8
     39. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that Gurtehal Singh is today about 80 years old and
his legs have been amputated because of severe diabetes. It
was also submitted that Harminder Kaur is about 78 years of
age and she needs to look after Gurtehal Singh. In these
circumstances considering their age and physical disability, a        C
sympathetic view should be taken in the matter as far as they
are concerned.

     40. We have given considerable thought to this submission
but find that the law prescribes a minimum of seven years             o
imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.
There is no provision for reducing the sentence for any reason
whatsoever nor has any exception being carved out in law.
Consequently, we cannot accept this plea.

     41. We must not lose sight of the fact that even though          E
Gurtehal Singh and Harminder Kaur are now aged, they were
responsible for the death of Rachhpal Kaur through aluminium
phosphide poisoning. Rachhpal Kaur was a young lady when
she died and we can only guess the trauma that her unnatural
death would have caused to her parents. Sympathizing with an          F
accused person or a convict does not entitle to us to ignore the
feelings of the victim or the immediate family of the victim.

Conclusion:
                                                                      G
    42. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly
dismissed.

B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.

                                                                      H