MAJOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                   [2015] 5 S.C.R. 777


                 MAJOR SINGH & ANR.                         A
                            v.
                  STATE OF PUNJAB

           (Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2012)
                                                            B
                     APRIL 8, 2015

       [f. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI AND
                  AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
                                                            c
     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Dowry death -
Prosecution ulss. 3048 and 498A - Of husband, mother-in-
/aw, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased - Trial
court acquitted sister-in-Jaw of all the charges and convicted
the other accused only u/s. 3048 - High Court confirmed o
conviction of father and mother-in-laws while appeal of the
husband abated due to his death - On appeal, held:
Prosecution failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty and
that the deceased was subjected to dowry harassment 'soon
before her death' - Offence u/s. 3048 not made out against E
the appellants-accused, hence acquitted.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. To attract conviction under Section 3048
                                                          F
IPC, the prosecution should adduce evidence to show
that "soon before her death", the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment There must always
be proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the concerned death. G
[Para 15] [785-G-H]

   2. In the present case, there is no evidence as to the
demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased was
subjected to dowry harassment "soon before her H
                          777
778       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 5 S.C.R.

A death". Prosecution has not examined any independent
   witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was
   demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected
   to ill-treatment, especially when PW3 has specifically
   stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was
B informed to the Panchayatdars. The alleged ill-treatment
   or cruelty of the deceased by her husband or relatives
   could have been proved by examination of the
   Panchayatdars. Except the demand of scooter, there is
   nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of
C dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of
  dowry, it can only be attributed to the husband, who in
  all probability could have demanded the same for his
  use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased
  was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection
0
  with the demand of dowry "soon before her death" by
  the appellants, the co11viction of the appellants under
  Section 3048 IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court
  and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in
E the light of the essential ingredients of Section 3048 IPC
  and the conviction of the appellants under Section 3048
  IPC is liable to be set aside. [Paras 13 and 17] [784-F-H;
  787-G-H; 788-A-8]

F      Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi (2003) 8
  SCC 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734; State of A.P vs. Raj
  Gopal Asawa & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 470: 2004 (3) SCR 32;
  Ba/want Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 724;
  Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 9 SCC
G 157: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kam/esh
  Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388: 2005 (1) SCR
  903; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) 1 SCC 463:
  2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 629; Biswajit Halder@ Babu Halder
  & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2008) 1 SCC 202: 2007
H (4) SCR 120; Narayanamurthy vs. State of Kamataka & Anr.
        MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     779


(2008) 16 SCC 512:2008 (8) SCR 403 - relied on.             A

                 Case Law Reference

  2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734     relied on.     Para 15

  2004 (3) SCR 32             relied on.     Para 16        B

  (2004) 1 sec 724            relied on.     Para 16

  2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 1       relied on.         Para 16

  2005 (1) SCR 903            relied on.         Para 16    c
  2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 629      relied on.        Para 16

  2007 (4) SCR 120             relied on.        Para 16
                                                            D
  2008 (8) SCR 403             relied on.        Para 16

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1145 of 2012.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2010 ofthe E
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal'
Appeal No. S-1029-SB of 1998.

   Harikesh Singh, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the
Appellants.                                                  F

    Ajay Bansal, MG, Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.

    The judgment of the Court was delivered by

     R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been G
preferred against the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal
No.S-1029-SB of 1998 whereby the High Court confirmed the
conviction of the appellants under Section 3048 IPC and the
sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on each H
of them.
780         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 5 S.C.R.


 A        2. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as
     under: PW1-Sukhdev Singh's daughter Karamjit Kaur was
     married to accused Jagsir Singh son of Major Singh Jatt
     appellant No.1, resident of Badiala about 21/2 years back.
     Case of the prosecution is that Karamjit Kaur's husband and
 B her in-laws harassed his daughter in connection with demand
     of dowry. Deceased Karamjit Kaur informed PW1-Sukhdev
     Singh several times about the ill-treatment and harassment
     meted out to her and the demand of scooter raised by the
    accused. PW1-Sukhdev Singh reported that on 10.8.1996 at
 C about 10.00 a.m., he went to village Badiala to enquire about
    the well-being of his daughter and when he reached there he
    witnessed that Jagsir Singh, his father-Major Singh, his
    mother-Mohinder Kaur and his sister-Galo @ Jaspal Kaur all
    were dragging his daughter Karamjit Kaur towards the 'subat'
 0
    while she was struggling to breathe. On seeing PW1-
    Sukhdev Singh and his son PW3-Manga Singh, the accused
    persons ran away and Karamjit Kaur breathed her last. PW1
    informed Panchayat'that accused persons gave poison to his
.E daughter in greed of getting more dowry. Complainant left
    PW3-Manga Sing~ to guard the dead body of his daughter
   and went back to his village 8alianwali and gave information
   about the unnaturcrl. death of his daughter to his family and
   Panchayat. He gave his statement to Kirpal Singh Sub
 F Inspector of Police -PW6. On the basis of statement of PW1-
   Sukhdev Singh, F.l.R No.81dated14.8.1996 was registered
   under Section 3048 and 498A IPC against the accused
   persons. PW6 had taken up the investigation and conducted
   inquest and recorded statement of witnesses. He sent the
 G body of deceased-Karamjit Kaur for autopsy. After
   investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for
   offences punishable under Section 3048 and 498A IPC to
   which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
   trial.
H
          MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       781
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

     3. To bring home the guilt of the accused in the trial court, A
prosecution has examined nine witnesses and three defence
witnesses. The accused were questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and the
evidence and the accused denied all of them. In his statement,
appellant-Major Singh stated that none of them knew how to B
drive a scooter and therefore question of demand of the
scooter did not arise. He further stated that PW1-Sukhdev
Singh owned only 2 acres of land and having a large family
of eight members, he was not in a position to give anything
and therefore there was no question of demand of dowry.            C

    4. The trial court vide judgment dated 27 .11.1998
convicted and sentenced the accused Jagsir Singh (husband),
Major Singh (father-in-law), Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law)
under Section 3048 IPC and sentenced each of them to D .
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.500/- each with default clause. The trial court, however,
gave benefit of doubt to accused Golo @ Jaspal Kaur (sister
of Jagsir Singh) and acquitted her and also acquitted all the
accused under Section 498A IPC.                               E

     5. Aggrieved by their conviction, appellants approached
the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the
High Court, Jagsir Singh (husband of the deceased) died and
appeal against Jagsir Singh abated and appeal survived qua F
the appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in- law. High Court
vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2010 confirmed the
conviction of the appellants under Section 3048 IPC and
sentence of imprisonment imposed on each of them.
Aggrieved by the same, appellants who are father-in-law and G
mother-in-law are before this Court assailing the correctness
of the impugned judgment.

     6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
                                                                  H
782         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A evidence of PWs 1 and 3 father and brother of the deceased
  cannot be relied upon as both are interested witnesses. It was
  submitted that absolutely there is no evidence to establish that
  the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in
  connection with demand of dowry and in the absence of proof
8 of essential ingredients of Section 3048 IPC, courts below
  erred in convicting the appellants. It was further submitted that
  the daughter of the deceased who is now 18 years of age is
  under the care and protection of the appellants and that they
  are the only persons to take care of the daughter of the
C deceased.

       7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
  contended that deceased-Karamjit Kaur died in connection
  with demand of dowry within 21/2 years of marriage. It was
D contended that even though PWs 1 and 3 are father and
  brother of the deceased, their evidence is consistent and
  credible and amply establishes that she was subjected to
  harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry
  and based on their evidence, courts below rightly convicted
E the appellants under Section 3048 IPC and the concurrent
  findings cannot be interfered with.

          8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
      perused the evidence on record and the impugned judgment.
F
           9. To sustain the conviction under Section 3048 IPC, the
      following essential ingredients are to be established:-

        (i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
G           bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal
            circumstance'

        (ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years
             of her marriage;

H       (iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
         MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        783
                [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      by her husband or any relative of her husband;            A

  (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
       connection with demand of dowry and

  (v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted    B
       out to the woman soon before her death.

     10. If any death is caused in connection with dowry
demand, Section 113B of the Evidence Act also comes into
play. Both these Sections 304B IPC and Section 113B of the
Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition C
(Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the
increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B reads as
follows:-

     "1138: Presumption as to dowry death.- When the D
     question is whether a person has committed the dowry
     death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
     death such woman has been subjected by such person
     to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
     demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such E
     person had caused the dowry death.

     Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section, 'dowry
     death' shall have the sc:me meaning as in Section 304B,
     of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."                    F

    It is imperative to note that both these sections set out a
common point of reference for establishing guilt of the
accused person under Section 304B, which is "the woman
must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty G
or harassment 'for or in connection with the demand of
dowry'".

    11. It is not disputed that Karamjit Kaur died on
14.8.1996. Further fact that she died due to organo             H
784       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A phosphorus poisoning is also not disputed. Now looking into
  the evidence on record, we have to see whether death of
  Karamjit Kaur occurring within seven years of marriage is due
  to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry
  and whether there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged
B harassment and death.

         12. PW1-Sukhdev Singh, father of the deceased, has
  stated that after marriage his daughter Karamjit Kaur was
  being ill-treated and subjected to cruelty in connection with
C demand of dowry and that the accused were demanding
  scooter and that his daughter used to complain about the ill-
  treatment by the accused. PW1-Sukhdev Singh further stated
  that he informed the conduct of the accused demanding dowry
  to the village Panchayat and that he took Panchayat to village
D Badiala and thereafter he left his daughter at the house of the
  accused about one week prior to the occurrence. PW3-
  Manga Singh, brother of the deceased, had also spoken
  about the demand of dowry and that the accused had been
  ill-treating his sister In connection with demand of dowry and
E that they were demanding a scooter.

       13. Prosecution has not examined any independent
  witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was demand
  of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment.
F Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being
  committed within the four corners of a house and normally
  direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the
  woman by her husband or relatives of the husband is not
  available. But when PW3 has specifically stated that the
G demand of dowry by the accused was informed to the
  Panchayatdars and that Panchayat was taken to the village
  Badiala, the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur
  by her husband or relatives could have been proved by
H examination of the Panchayatdars. The fact that deceased
          MAJOR SINGH v. STATEOF PUNJAB                      785
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with A
demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution. It is also
pertinent to note that both the courts below have acquitted all
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A
 IPC.
                                                                B
      14. Insofar as the occurrence on 14.08.1996, PWs 1 and
3 have stated that they saw the accused dragging Karamjit
Kaur towards a room inside the house and that Karamjit Kaur
was trembling and on seeing PWs 1 and 3, all the .four
accused persons ran away and after taking last breath C
Karamjit Kaur expired. Subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3
raises serious doubts about their presence in the house of
the accused at the time of occurrence and witnessing accused
dragging deceased-Karamjit Kaur. That PWs 1 and 3 have
not raised any alarm nor tried to chase the accused ·and that D
PW1 did not inform anyone in the village of the accused looks
quite unnatural. The subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3
raises doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence
and the prosecution version. But the fact remains that
deceased-Karamjit Kaur died within 21/2 years of marriage E
otherwise under normal circumstances. As pointed out earlier,
in the cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show
that "soon before the occurrence" deceased was subjected
to cruelty or harassment. In the absence of proof that F
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment "soon
before her death", the conviction of the appellants cannot be
sustained.
    15. To attract conviction under Section 304B IPC, the
prosecution should adduce evidence to show that "soon G
before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. There must always be proximate and live link
between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and
the concerned death. In the case of Hira Lal & Ors. vs. H
786      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80, in paragraph
  (9) it was observed as under:-

        "9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence
        Act and Section 304- B IPC shows that there must be
B       material to show that soon before her death the victim
        was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution
        has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental
        death so as to bring it within the purview of "death
        occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The
c       expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section
        113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are
        pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to
        show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty
        or harassment and only in that case presumption
D       operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the
        prosecution. "Soon before" is a relative term and it
        would depend upon the circumstances of each case and
        no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what
        would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
 E      It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and
        that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for
        the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for
        raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the
        Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death"
 F
        used in the substantive Section 304-B lPC and Section
        113- B of the Evidence [pic]Act is present with the idea
        of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated
        and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A
G       reference to the expression "soon before" used in
        Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is
        relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a
        man who is in the possession of goods "soon after the
        theft, is either the thief or has received the goods
 H      knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for
          MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        787
                 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

     their possession". The determination of the period which    A
     can come within the term "soon before" is left to be
     determined by the courts, depending upon facts and
     circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
     indicate that the expression "soon before" would
     normally imply that the interval should not be much         B
     between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the
     death in question. There must be existence of a
     proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
     based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the
     alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has       C
     become stale enough not to disturb the mental
     equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
     consequence."

     16. Same principle was also expressed in State of A.P.      D
vs. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 470; Balwant
Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724,
Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC
157; Kamesh Panjiyar@ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar,
(2005) 2 SCC 388; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006)       E
1 SCC 463; Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State
of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 and Narayanamurthy vs.
State of Karnataka &Anr, (2008) 16 SCC 512.

     17. Applying these principles to the instant case, we find F
that there is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty
and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry
harassment "soon before her death". Except the demand of
scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the
allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was G
demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the
husband-Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have
demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any
evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or H
788         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015) 5 S.C.R.


 A harassment in connection with the demand of dowry "soon
   before her death" by the appellants, the conviction of the
   appellants under Section 3048 IPC cannot be sustained. The
   trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence
   in the light of the essential ing·redients of Section 3048 IPC
.8 and the conviction of the appellants under Section 3048 IPC
   is liable to be set aside.

       18. In the result, conviction of the appellants under Section
   3048 IPC is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant
 C No.2-Mohinder Kaur is on bail and her bail bonds stands
   discharged. Appellant No.1-Major Singh who is in custody is
   ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

 D    Kalpana K. Tripathy                            Appeal allowed.