Nachhatar Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2005

NACHHATTAR SINGH & ORS. ...... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of

the following facts:

Balbir Kaur, the deceased, was married with

Nachhattar Singh appellant about five years prior to

the date of occurrence. Out of the wedlock, the couple

bore a female child. About 2 or 3 years after the

marriage, the appellant and his parents(the three

accused) started making demands for dowry on the

allegation that Balbir Kaur's parents had not given

sufficient amounts at the time of marriage, but as the

demands could not be satisfied she was maltreated which

led the deceased to leave the matrimonial home on

several occasions. It appears, however, that on the

intervention of well-wishers on both sides she returned

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

2

to the matrimonial home. The ill-treatment however,

continued unabated and whenever Balbir Kaur's brother

Sukhmander Singh, P.W. 6, would meet her she would

complain that she was not being treated properly. On

the 25th December, 1987 at about 7:00a.m. information

with regard to Balbir Kaur's unnatural death was

received by her parents on which Sukhmander Singh,

P.W., along with other family members rushed to the

house of the accused. They saw Balbir Kaur lying dead

on her cot. The police were informed and a First

Information Report was registered. The dead body was

despatched for its post mortem examination. The

viscera was also sent to the Chemical Examiner who

rendered an opinion that the death had been caused by

poisoning. A criminal complaint was also filed by P.W.

6 Sukhmander Singh against the appellant in the

meanwhile. The complaint case as well as the case

arising out of the First Information Report were

clubbed together and on the completion of the

investigation a charge under Section 302 read with

Section 34 and 304B IPC was framed against the accused.

The prosecution relied primarily on the evidence

of P.W. 6, the complainant, P.W. 1, Dr. Yashpal Garg

who had performed the post mortem of the dead body,

P.W. 2 the Chemical Examiner and P.W. 7 Sajjan Singh, a

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

3

resident of Moga who deposed to the demands for dowry

made by the accused even a day before the incident.

The prosecution case was then put to the accused and

they denied the allegations levelled against them and

on the contrary pleaded that as Balbir Kaur was a

qualified Steno-typist she wanted to join service and

live at Moga but as her parents-in-law were old they

had insisted that she stay at home to look after the

house hold chores and this frustration had led her into

a depression and finally to suicide. The trial court,

on a consideration of the evidence, acquitted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34

of the Indian Penal Code but convicted them for the

offence punishable under section 304B and awarded a

sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal

was thereafter filed by the accused before the High

Court. The High court partly allowed the appeal

inasmuch that it held that a case under Section 304B of

the IPC was not made out but the accused were

nonetheless liable to conviction under Section 306 for

having abetted the suicide of Balbir Kaur. The Court

found as a fact that there was absolutely no evidence

to show that Balbir Kaur's suicide was a dowry death as

the evidence with respect to the demands for dowry were

both vague and stale and could not form the basis for

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

4

conviction. This is what the Court had to say:

"Analysis of statements of prosecution witnesses, referred to above, clearly indicates that allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased are in general terms and vague. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated as to when, in which year, date and month, any act of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry was committed by any fo the appellants against the deceased. Not even a single witness had given any specific instance in that regard.

None of them except Sajjan Singh (PW &) had stated that soon before death, acts of cruelty in connection with demand of dowry were committed by the appellants against the deceased."

The Court nevertheless went on to hold that

though there were no specific instances of demands of

dowry yet an inference that certain demands had been

made was available from their testimony and the other

documentary evidence on record and particularly, that

no woman who had a young child would commit suicide (as

had happened in the present case) unless she had been

driven to it by the ill treatment meted out to her.

The accused were, accordingly, acquitted of the

offences under Section 304B of the IPC but convicted

under Section 306 IPC and awarded a sentence of four

years. It is the conceded case that a Special Leave

Petition filed by Nachhattar Singh, the husband, has

since been dismissed. The present appeal is thus

confined only to the in-laws i.e. Nirmal Singh and

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

5

Harbans Kaur, the appellants before us.

We have gone through the evidence as also the

reasons given by the High Court to arrive at its

conclusions. It will be seen that the allegations

against the accused were that they had driven the

deceased to suicide on account of cruelty which

included demands for dowry. The High Court has

rejected the story about the demands for dowry but has

drawn an inference that there must have been some

cruelty which had forced a young woman to suicide

despite the fact that she had a young child. We find

that in the background of the findings recorded while

acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 304B

of the IPC, no inferences or presumptions can be drawn.

Moreover, a perusal of Section 498A IPC would show that

cruelty would mean any wilful conduct which was of such

a nature as was likely to drive a woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health whether mental or physical) to the

woman. We find no evidence on this score and it has

been so found by the High Court. On the contrary, a

perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6 shows that the

defence story is in fact reflected in his cross-

examination. He initially testified that it was wrong

to suggest that she did not want to stay in the village

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

6

or that she wanted to join service but in the very next

line he admitted that the reason that the deceased was

not encouraged to shift to Moga was that as the

appellants were old they had wanted her to work in the

house and to look after them. In this view of the

matter, we find that the wilful conduct referred to

above should be of such a nature as would provoke a

person of common prudence to commit suicide and a

difference of opinion within a family on everyday

mundane matters would not fall within that category.

We find that merely because the appellants were of the

opinion that the deceased, as a good daughter-in-law,

should look after them in old age could not be said to

an abetment of suicide. The presumption against the

appellants raised under Section 113A of the Evidence

Act, 1872 cannot thus be drawn. We are, therefore, of

the opinion that the High Court's judgment suffers from

serious contradictions. We, accordingly, allow this

appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants

before us. Their bail bonds be discharged.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. No. 808 of 2005 REPORTABLE

7

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 03, 2011.