STATE OF PUNJABversusGURMIT SINGH

                         [2014] 9 S.C.R. 182


A                       STATE OF PUNJAB
                                  v.
                           GURMIT SINGH
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2014)

B                           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
           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
                                                                  c
    with the High Court and, accordingly, it quashed the order
    summoning the respondent to face the trial.
I
      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,       E
    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         F
    shown that soon before the death the woman was
    subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or
    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] [188-G-H; 189-C]

          U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr.
F   (2009) 6 SCC 787 and Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi
    (2010)11 sec 618 - relied on. ·

       3. It is well known rule of construction that when the
  Legislature uses same words in different part of the
G statute, the presumption is that those words have been
  used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context.
  Nothing is found in context to deviate from the general
  rule of interpretation. Hence, the word "relative of .the
  husband" in Section 3048 IPC would mean such
H persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH                      185


The respondent is not related to the husband of the                  A
deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption. Hence,
the High Court did not err in passing the impugned order.
[Para 9] [189-G-H; 190-A-B]
                      Case Law Reference:
                                                                     B
   c2009) s sec 787             relied on        Para 7
   c2010)11 sec 618             relied on        Para 8

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :.Criminal Appeal
No. 1278 of 2014.                                                    C

    From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2005 in
Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2000 of the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh.
                                                                     D
    V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Cowshish, Kuldip Singh for the
Appellant.

    C.. D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered~                         E
     CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD J. 1. State. of Punjab
aggrieved by the order dated 7th of September, 2005, passed
by the Punjab'and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
320 of 2000 whereby H has set aside the order of the trial court
dated 24th of January, 2000 summoning the respondent Gurmit          F
Singh to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedur~. has preferred this special leave petition.

    2. Leave granted.
                                                                     G
       3. Facts lie in a very short compass. On the basis of a
report a case under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') was registered at Police Station, Kharar. In the
first information report, the names of various accused persons
figured including Gurmit Singh, the respondent herein. Police        H
    186      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A after usual investigation, submitted the charge-sheet in which
  the respondent did not figure as an accused. However, the
  respondent along with some other accused persons who were
  not charge-sheeted were summoned tO face the trial. They
  challenged the said order before the High Court in Criminal
B Misc. No. 1584-M of 1999 and the High Court by its order dated
  25th of February, 1999 set aside the order summoning those
  accused persons including the respondent but while doing so
  gave liberty to take recourse to'the provisions of Section 319
  of the Code of Cril'l'linal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as
c the 'Code', at an appropriate stage of the trial. During the
  course of trial, evidence of one Shakuntla Rani, PW-1 was
  recorded, who averred that the respondent herein was also
  responsible for the death of Gurjit Kaur, the wife of Paramjit
  Singh. Thereafter, an application was filed by the prosecution
  for summoning aforesaid Gurmit Singh and other accused
0
  persons before the trial court in exercise of the power under
  Section 319 of the Code. The trial court by its order dated 24th
  of January, 2000, summoned the respondent besides other
  accused persons to face trial, for commission of offence under
E Section 3048 IPC, inter alia, observing that the names of those
  persons figured in the FIR, statement of the ·witnesses recorded
  under Section 161 of the Code and the evidence of Shakuntla
  Rani, PW-1.

       4. Respondent challenged the aforesaid order in a revision
F application filed before the High Court inter alia on the ground
  that he cannot be tried for offence under Section 3048 of the
  Code because he is not a relative of .the husband of the
  deceased. It was pointed out that Paramjit Singh happened to
  be the husband of the deceased whereas the respondent is the
G brother of his aunt (chachi) and, therefore, cannot be said to
  be a relative of the deceased's husband. Aforesaid submission
  found favour with the High Court and, accordingly, it quashed
  the order summoning the respondent to face the trial. While
  doing so, the High Court observed as follows:
H
         STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH                     187
          [CHANDRAMAUU KR. PRASAD, J.]
     "Even the dictionary meaning of a relative is one who is        A
     related by blood or marriage. Gurmit Singh is certainly not
     related to Paramjit Singh either by blood or by marriage.
     Gurmit Singh would not fall in the category of relative of
     the husband. Therefore, Gurmit Singh must be excluded
     from the array of the accused. It is not necessary to try him   B
    .1;1nder Section 3048 l.P.C. for the dowry death of Paramjit
     Singh's wife.

       5. Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General
  appearing on behalf of the State submits that the High Court       C
  erred in holding that the respondent is not a relative of the
  h4sband of the deceased. He points out that Balbir Kaur is the
  wife of Paramjit Singh's father's brother and Gurmit Singh
  respondent herein happens to be Balbir Kaur's brother, hence,
  a relative of Paramjit Singh. According to him, the High Court
  erred in holding that he is not a relative of the husbanp of the   D
  deceased. Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
  of the respondent, however, submits that the respondent cannot
  be said to be related to the husband of the deceased in any
  manner and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted for offence under
  Section 3048 of the IPC, The rival submission necessitates the     E
. examination of Section 3048 of the IPC, same reads as
  follows:

     "3048. Dowry death.-ill Where the death of a woman
     is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise     F
     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             G
     death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
     have caused her death.

     Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry"
     shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
     Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961 ).                            H
    188       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A         (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."

          (underlining ours)
B         6. From a pl?in reading of the aforesaid provision it is
    evident that when a woman dies by any burns or bodily injury
    oc. otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
    years of the marriage, her husband or any relative of her
    husband shall be .deemed to have committed the offence of
C   dowry death if it is shown that soon before th~ death the woman
    was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or by
    any relative <:>f 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 death. Admittedly, the
D   respondent is not the husband of the woman 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. The provision with which we are concerned is a penal
E   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 dictionaries to find
    out the general sense in which the word is understood in
F   common parlance. In Ram·anatha Aiyar's, Advance Law
    Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the word relative means any person
    related by blood, marriage or adoption. A large number of
    dictionaries give this word relative, in context, same meaning.

       7. It is relevant here to state that the expression "relative
G of the husband" has been used in Section 498-A of the l.P.C.
    While interpreting the said expression, this Court in the case
    of U. Suvetha vs. S,tate by Inspector of Police and Anr.(2009)
    6 sec 787 held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage
    or adoption. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
H
        STATE.OF PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH                     189
         [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
     "10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term     A
     "relative" must be assigned a meaning as is commonly
     understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother,
     husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or
     niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the
     spouse of any person. The meaning of the word "relative"      B
     would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally
     includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption."

      8. The expression relative of the husband further came up
 for consideration in the case of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT    C
 of Delhi (2010)11 SCC 618 and while approving the decision
·of this Court in U. Suvetha (Supra), it was held that the word
 relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the
 relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the
 following passage from the said judgment:
                                                                   D
     "12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word
     "relative" and further relying on Ramanatha Aiyar's,
     Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the Court went
     on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal provision
     would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual     E
     meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said
     statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the
     Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT
     (2007) 7 sec 162. A reference was made to the decision
     in Shivcharan Lal Verma vs. State of M.P. (2007) 15           F
     SCC 369. After quoting from various decisions of this
     Court, it was held that reference to the word "relative" in
     Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood
     relations or the relations by marriage."

     9. It is well known rule of construction that when the        G
Legislature uses same words in different part of the statute,
the presumption is that those words have been used in the
same sense, unless displaced by the
                                  .               .
                                     context. We do not find
anything in context to deviate from the general rule of
interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the         H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A   word "relative of the husband" in Section 304 8 of the IPC would
    mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or
    adoption. When we apply this principle the respondent herein
    is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood
    or marriage or adoption. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court
8   did not err in passing the impugned order. We hasten to add
    that a person, not a relative of the husband, may not be
    prosecuted for offencer llllilO\:f Section 3048 IPC but this does
    not mean that such a person canrlot1be, p~osecuted for any other
    offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute
c   offence other than Section 3048 IPC.                   ' ·

          10. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and
    it is dismissed accordingly.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                              Appeal dismisse~.