Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University, Lucknow.
2017

Indian Penal Code

Project on

"Kuldip Singh And Anr. v State Of Punjab"

Submitted to, Submitted by,

Dr. Malay pandey Utkarsh kumar prajapati
Asstt. Prof. (Law) Roll On: 157
Dr. RMLNLU B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
4th Semester
Section-B
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend special thanks and gratitude to my teachers, Dr. Malay Pandey
and Dr. K.A. Pandey who gave me this golden opportunity to work on the case analysis
of “Kuldip singh and others and State of Punjab”
I’d also like to convey my regards to Library Staff of my university for helping me out
and getting relevant material for me.
I would also like to thank my parents, mentors and well-wishers who have been a
constant support and have time and again reviewed my work and have provided their
insights on the matter.
Chapterisation:

1- Introduction
2- Brief facts of the Case
3- Procedural history
4- Other important relating cases
5- Law laid down
6- Conclusion
7- Bibliography

Sources of data:
The following Secondary Sources of Data have been used in making this project:
1. Articles,
2. Books, and
3. Websites.

Research methodology:
The methodology of research followed for the course of this Project is Doctrinal.
 Case: Kuldip Singh and anr. v State Of Punjab

Citation of the Case: II (2004) DMC 628

Bench: Justice K. Garewal

1- Introduction:

Dowry deaths are deaths of young women who are murdered or driven to suicide by
continuous harassment and torture by husbands and in-laws in an effort to extort an
increased dowry. Dowry death is considered one of the many categories of violence
against women, alongside rape, bride burning, eve teasing and acid attack, It is
widespread in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and some regions of Africa.
Pakistan has the highest reported rates of dowry-related deaths of women in the world.
India has by far the highest number of dowry related deaths in the world according to
Indian National Crime Record Bureau, in 2010, 8391 dowry death cases were reported
across India. The party which is guilty for such death is penalized under sec. 304 of IPC.
It says:
1. ‘Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise 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 death", and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.1 Explanation for the
purposes of this sub- section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2
of 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’ 2
1
indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1754
2
Ibid.
 But at certain times it becomes difficult to decide that whether every case of violence
against women (here, wife) can be regarded as a case of dowry death or not. The law
states a condition that to be fulfilled in order a case to be of dowry death. That condition
is ‘cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry’. Cruelty
can happen for some certain other reasons too. But death caused on the grounds of cruelty
for reasons other than a demand for dowry cannot be included in the ambit of ‘dowry
death’.

2- Brief facts of the Case:

Resham Kaur alias Paramjit Kaur died on January 6, 1992. She had been married to
Kuldip Singh of Lachowal about three years before her death. Six months before her
death she had given birth to a son. Father of the deceased, Niranjan Dass filed a
complaint against the in-laws of her daughter. Kuldip Singh and his parents Balwant
Singh and Gurmit Kaur of Lachowal were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur and vide judgment dated January 6, 1993 they were found guilty for offence
under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years.

Kuldeep Singh appealed to High court for revision. Niranjan Dass, who was the
complainant in the case has fried criminal revision for enhancement of sentence which is
Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1993. The appeal as well as revision shall be disposed of
by this common judgment. The case was revised. It was noticed that there was a flaw in
the earlier judgment. The court was of the opinion that there may be a case of cruelty but
there was no relation between acts of in-laws and demand for dowry. Kuldeep Singh and
his family were acquitte

3- Procedural history:
Resham Kaur alias Paramjit Kaur was married three years prior to her death which
means that she was married in the winter of 1988-89 and the above complaint was
lodged with Niranjan Dass in the winter of 1989-90. About two years before her death
the deceased had complained to her father Naranjan Dass that the appellants were
maltreating her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Naranjan Dass stated that,
after six months of marriage. Kuldip Singh demanded money for going abroad and
asked for Rs. 1,000/-. Naranjan Dass paid him Rs. 800/-. This must have occurred
sometimes in summer of 1989. After another six months Kuldip Singh demanded Rs.
5,000/-. It was also paid. This demand probably coincided with the complaint which the
deceased had lodged with her father in the winter of 1989-90.

On January 7, 1992 Naranjan Dass came to know that Resham Kaur alias Paramjit
Kaur had died. Naranjan Dass went to Lachowal and found his daughter's dead body
lying in the Baithak but the appellants were absconding from the house. Naranjan Dass
suspected foul play and reported the matter to the police. Case was registered on the basis
of his statement recorded by ASI Sucha Singh at 1.00 p.m. The FIR was renngistered at
3.30 p.m. at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur and investigation was commenced. ASI
Sucha Singh (RW.-4) visited the place of the occurrence accompanied by Naranjan Dass
(P.W.-2) and found the dead body lying in the Baithak of the house of the appellant. The
Investigating Officer prepared inquest report, recorded the statements of the witnesses
and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Dr. Gurdev Singh (P.W.-1)
conducted the post-mortem on the dead body on January 8, at 10 a.m. The Medical
Officer recorded the following findings in his reports:

"The body was moderately built and moderately nourished of a young female wearing
‘greyish jumper’ and ‘salvar’ and ‘white banyan’, ‘black and green shawl’ (flowered).
Eyes and mouth were closed, rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs and diminishing
in the upper limb had started. P.M staining present on back and dependent parts. Pleurae
congested--both lungs congested. Pericardium congested. Stomach congested as such
with its contents sent to the Chemical Examiner. Small and large intestines congested and
a piece of each with contents sent to the Chemical Examiner. Bladder was empty. All
other organs were healthy and as described in post-mortem report." After the Medical
Officer received the report of the Chemical Examiner he found that the cause of death
was aluminium phosphide poisoning.

The appellants were arrested and after completion of the investigation they were sent
up for trial. At the trial charge was framed against the appellants under Section 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution examined Dr. Gurdev Singh (P.W.-1), Naranjan Dass (PW.-2), Gurdial Singh
(P.W.-3), ASI Sucha Singh (P.W.-4) and Draftsman Paramjit Singh (P.W.-5). The accused
were examined without oath under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Kuldip Singh appellant admitted
the factum of marriage, birth of son but denied all other items of prosecution evidence.
He pleaded innocence and made the following statement in defence:
"I had returned from abroad about a month prior to my marriage and thereafter
remained in India and had never approached my father-in-law for getting any money to
go abroad nor was any amount ever paid to me. We were having cordial relations with
the deceased and she was never harassed or maltreated on account of dowry. My wife
was under depression and for that reason may have ended her life by taking some poison.
I was living with my wife at Hoshiarpur as I am serving at 'Lachhman Kohlu Ghar'. My
elder brother is living at Nangal. My parents live in village Lachowal and I and my wife
only occasionally used to go to Lachowal. We were to celebrate the Lohri on 13.1.1992
and had sent a message to my father-in-law. My brother-in-law Kulwinder Singh had sent
greetings card Ex. DA to us at the eve of New Year. I had informed my father-in-law
about the death of my wife and my father-in-law and his brother Shangara Singh had
come with me to Lachowal. I had also advised my father-in-law to report the incident to
the police, and had accompanied him, when the police met us. My father-in-law, lodged a
wrong report at the instigation of others. We are innocent."

The other appellants also gave similar statements. The accused were called upon to
enter defence and examined Sarpanch Surjit Singh (D.W.-1), Vinod Kumar (D.W.-2) of
Hoshiarpur.

The learned trial Judge commenced the consideration of the facts of the case by
recounting the provisions of Section 304-B, I.P.C., Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge concluded that the deceased
had died of aluminium phosphide poisoning within three years of her marriage and,
therefore, two ingredients of Section 304-B stood fully established. The learned Judge
was seemingly conscious of the various ingredients of the provisions relating to dowry
death, therefore, he should have proceeded to examine the evidence of the prosecution
with regard to cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased in connection with
demand for dowry. Somehow the learned Judge did not enter into an inquiry of cruelty in
relation to dowry demands but dealt with the matter in a routine way. He first discussed
the question of law in lodging the matter to the police and found that there was no undue
delay which may afford scope for concocting false version or manipulating evidence. The
testimony of Naranjan Dass was examined but not in the manner in which the evidence
should be examined in dowry death cases. The learned Judge was convinced of the
truthfulness of the testimony of the single witness and conviction under Section 304-B
was recorded.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Trial Court has
overlooked the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. Kuldip Singh had
returned after spending some years abroad, therefore, the prosecution case that he had
demanded Rs. 1,000/- for going abroad and then demanded Rs. 5,000/-, could not be
accepted. It was also submitted that the Court seemed to have assumed that the charge
stood proved because Resham Kaur alias Paramjit Kaur had died an untimely death. The
absence or lack of evidence against Balwant Singh and Gurmeet Kaur was completely
overlooked. Only one witness had been produced with regard to the
maltreatment/harassment, the evidence of this witness was unreliable, had improvements
and could not be accepted. All the instances of so called dowry demands and
maltreatment were at least 2 years old, therefore, it could not be said that the deceased
had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. Although the relations
between deceased and her in-laws were not smooth initially, the fact came out that later
(1990-1992) there was harmony among them. Also, the above mentioned medical report
suggest that she was no mistreated.

Dowry death cases are a phenomenon peculiar to our country. The man-woman,
husband-wife relationship has been subject to many psychological, sociological and
philosophical debates and studies. If the relationship is an unhappy one and beyond repair
then the parties acting sensibly separate from each other. If the parties are married they
try to reconcile the differences either through mediators, relations or friends. They even
attempt conciliation through concealing and iron out their differences. When the
differences are deep and there has been much acrimony, one of the parties to the marriage
approaches the divorce Court and the other party either contests divorce or submits to
divorce by mutual consent. Often the wife presents a complaint alleging that her husband
had subjected her to cruelty or has misappropriated her property. This gives rise to cases
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and/or Section 406, I.P.C. Dowry death is
the ultimate tragedy and it usually occurs when the parties have simply failed to reconcile
their differences and have also failed in sorting each other out in the divorce/criminal
Courts.

From marriage to dowry death there would usually be a well-chronicled account of the
events touching of the husband-wife relationship or the wife and parents-in-law
relationship. It is the duty of the investigator to explore as accurately as possible what had
gone wrong with the marriage before claiming down a dowry death case under Section
304-B, I.P.C. based on a few instances of dowry demands. It is the duty of the
investigator to be fair not only to the prosecution but also to the defense. The Investigator
must act impartially and not as a biased or a sided inquirer. The reason why one has to
record these observations is that death of a wife, within seven years of marriage,
howsoever sad it may be, is not always dowry death. Modern life puts all kinds of
pressures on the husband-wife relationship and often it is the upbringing and background
of the parties which plays a prominent part. Some husbands may have been spoiled sons
of dotting parents. Their wives may have been insecure daughters of uncaring parents
who had been longing for sons but had a daughter instead. Such a couple would be quite
unable to cope with pressures of daily life and if the husband shows weakness then the
wife has to bear added pressure. However, if the wife is already a weak and a docile
person she may not be able to bear the pressure and may crack up. Therefore, such a wife
may commit suicide finding it an honorable way to leave the world and escape a
miserable life. Such a case would not amount to dowry death at all. However, if the
investigator introduced a few demands of dowry, a few instances of cruelty and
harassment, then a suicide simplicity would assume the shape of dowry death. Since the
dowry death is a special offence, its investigation must also be done carefully and with
great sensitivity.

From above, it could be understood what could be the possible reasons for a bride to
commit suicide other that dowry demand. Here, the deceased gave birth to a son, which
eventually freed her from the burden of the society (if any). There might be some other
reasons which may be unknown to everyone involved in the case which forced her to take
such extreme action.

4- Other important relating cases

In “Kans Raj v State of Punjab”3 the Supreme Court made the following observations:

In cases where such accusation made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than
husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death.
A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the
deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to
affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over-enthusiasm
and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weakens
the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in
the instant case.

In “Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana”,4 the opinion of the Supreme court was:

This places an arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders.
Hence the Courts have to deal such cases with circumvention, sift through the evidence
with caution, and scrutinize the circumstances with utmost care. The present matter is one
such where similar questions have been raised including questions of interpretation of the
stringent law.

In “Salamat Ali v. State of Bihar”,5 the following observations were made:

3
AIR 2000 SC 2324
4
(1998) SLT 525=1 (1998) DMC 165 (SC)=I (1998) CCR 365 (SC)=AIR 1998 SC 958
5
AIR 1995 SC 1863
The allegations against the appellants are general in nature attributed to the husband's
family. They have been identified because they are members of his family. It is not clear
on the record as besides them who else were members of the family. It thus appears to us
that in the absence of clear and pointed evidence it would be unsafe to maintain the
conviction of the parents on vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by the
husband's family members.

Supreme Court in “Satbir Singh v. State of Punjab”6 said:

‘It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand
for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened
soon before her death. The said phrase, no doubt is an elastic expression and can refer to
a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks
before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by the expression. The
legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before
her death" is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been
the aftermath or such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible
nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If
the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is
wide the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would
not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the
facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was
sufficient to pull its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'.

The present case is not at all a case of dowry death. This case illustrates how a suicide
case got converted into a case of dowry death by introducing a few irrelevant demands of
money from his father-in-law. Thereafter for two years there had been no demand of
dowry or a demand for anything resembling dowry. There is also no evidence that the
appellant had driven her to suicide by making a dowry demand of the type mentioned in
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that harassment and cruelty are
inflicted and dowry demands are made within the confines of unhappy homes but to
record conviction there has to be harassment and cruelty in connection with a demand for
dowry made soon before the death of the deceased under unnatural circumstances. Unless
all ingredients are present and unless the harassment and cruelty was soon before the
death, the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code would not be made out.

5- Law laid down:

The following sections of the Indian Penal Code:
6
II (2001) DMC 734=VI (2001) SLT 803-IV (2001) CCR 75 (SC)=AIR 2001 SC 2828
  Sec 304 B:

Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
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 death", and such husband or relative 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 the “dowry prohibition act,1961” (28 of 1961). 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.

 Section 498A:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

Section 4 in “The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961”:

Penalty for demanding dowry. If any person, after the commencement of this Act,
demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as
the case may be, any do”, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except with
the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government
may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf.

6- Conclusion:
The revision of the earlier decision was fair. In India, dowry death is very common. It
is not deniable that we have a number of cases each year. Women are subjected to a lot
by her in-laws when they do not receive the desired amount. Each case of suicide of a
married woman cannot be a case of dowry death, even though she died within the period
of seven years. As mentioned above, dowry demand and harassment related to it can’t be
the only reason which can force a married woman to commit suicide. There could be
possible other reasons. For ex; there might not be an understanding between the husband
and wife, maybe the marriage wasn’t of their choice, or not conceiving a son could also
bring a woman under pressure of her in-laws if they expected one and the future of the
relationship between them is entirely depend upon it.

Even in this case, it could not be said that there was harassment in relation to demand
for dowry. Two or three instances of demanding of some amount of money and building
of complications on this issue couldn’t be said as a case of dowry death. The reason why
Kuldeep Singh and family were convicted before revolves around the society. Most of
the times we tend to ignore the facts floating in the background of the situation and
judge on the basis of unfiltered facts which end up with wrong judgment. I, myself find
the revision of the case justified. Justice K.S. Garewal delivered a fair judgment which
others might still argue to be unfair. Law cannot be based on the psychology of the
society. Principles are well established and clear enough to avoid any confusion. This
judgment is a good case law considering sec 304b of IPC.

7- Bibliography

1- http://wcd.nic.in/act/dowry-prohibition-act-1961

2- http://indianlawcases.com/Act-Indian.Penal.Code,1860-1754

3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_system_in_India

4- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763444/
5- Book- “Ratanlal and Dheerajlal’s book on Indian penal code, editor- varsha

vahini”