JAGJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                            [2009] 4 S.C.R. 75


                            JAGJIT SINGH                              A
'·                                V.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB
                   Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2009
                           MARCH 6, 2009
                                                                      B
          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                         SHARMA, JJ.]
           Penal Code, 1860: s.3048 - Dowry death - Deceased
~    allegedly tortured by husband in connection with demand of
     dowry - Dead body of deceased found hanging from ceiling c
     fan - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court -
     Appeal against conviction - Held: High Court analysed
     evidence of witnesses keeping in view parameters relating to
     scope of interference with judgment of acquittal - No infirmity
     in order of High Court so as to warrant interference - Conviction D
     upheld - Crime against women.
           Prosecution case was that deceased was ill treated
      by her husband and his parents, in connection with
     demand of dowry. On fateful day, father of deceased was
     informed that his daughter was killed by accused by E
     strangulation. He went to the house of accused where
     dead body of deceased was found hanging from the
     ceiling fan. Case was registered against appellant
     husband and his parents. The trial court found that
     evidence was insufficient to fasten the guilt on the F
     accused. On appeal, High Court held that the co-accused,
     who were parents of appellant were staying separately
     and, therefore, there was doubt about their participation
     in the commission of the offence, but found the appellant
     guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-B-IPC and G
 •   sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven
     years. Hence the present appeal.
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                   75                                H
               1



    76      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2009] 4 S.C.R

A       HELD: 1. The deceased breathed her last within
  about one year and three months from the date of marriage
  while living in the house of her in-laws. She was not
  suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and even after
  the marriage she continued to be hale and hearty. The
B father of the deceased stated that the deceased came to
  his house on 17.3.1995. She informed him that the
  accused persons were torturing her and were demanding
  Rupees one lac for purchasing a new house. To the similar
  effect was the evidence of the brother of the deceased.          ,.
c The agreement for purchase of house by father-in-law
  revealed that it was executed on 8.2.1995 and the sale
  deed was to be executed on 8.5.1995. The High Court
  noted that this document amply established that the family
  required money for purchase of plot. The High Court
  further noted that there was no material brought on record
D
  to show that the agreement was performed by the
  accused persons. The High Court found that there was
   presumptuous conclusion of the trial Court that there was
   no link of the demand for dowry with the said agreement.
   The High Court also noted that the trial Court erroneously
E concluded that the accused persons were rich persons
   and, therefore, there was no need for asking any dowry.
   [Para 6) [80-8-F]
        Appasahed and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (9)
F   sec 721- relied on.
         2. The High Court analysed the evidence of the
  witnesses clearly keeping in view the parameters relating
  to the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal.
  The analysis does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
G interference. Since the minimum sentence was awarded
  there is no scope to interfere in this appeal. [Para 8) [82-D]   •
                      Case Law Reference
         2001 (9) sec 121        relied on        Para 7
H
                  JAGJIT SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB                    77


          CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                  A
f.   No. 444 of 2009
          From the Judgement and Order dated 01.02.2008 of the
     High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
     Appeal No. 654-DBA of 1997.
                                                                           B
         Vikram Choudhary, Nikhil Jain, D. Mahesh Babu, for the
     Appellant.
          Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu, for
,,   the Respondent.
                                                                           c
          The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
          1. Leave granted.

            2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division   D
     Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the appeal
     filed by the State questioning the judgment of acquittal recorded
     by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The appellant and two
     others faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable
     under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860         E
     (in short the '!PC').
          3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
           One Avtar Singh (Complainant) made a statement Ex P.A.
     before the police on 18.3.1995 that his daughter Jasprit Kaur F
     aged about 26 years was married to accused Jagjit Singh on
     26.12.1993 at Amritsar. Avtar Singh stated that he had given
     dowry to Jasprit Kaur at the time of her marriage according to
     his capability. The accused Jagjit Singh, his father Gurmukh
     Singh and his mother Raminder Kaur were not happy with the G
     dowry given by the parents of Jasprit Kaur and they used to
     taunt her off and on for bringing lesser dowry at the time of her
     marriage. The accused started maltreating Jasprit Kaur in
     connection with the demand of dowry. Jasprit Kaur informed
     her father Complainant Avtar Singh and other family members
                                                                       H
    78       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009} 4 S.C.R.


A that the accused were greedy and they were not behaving
  properly with her. One Baba Charan Singh who was the mediator
  in the marriage of Jasprit Kaur with Jagjit Singh was approached
  by the parents of Jasprit Kaur. He was informed about the
  maltreatment and harassment given to Jasprit Kaur by the
B accused. Baba Charan Singh also advised and told the accused
  to treat Jasprit Kaur property. Avtar Singh stated that on
  17.3.1995 in the evening at about 5/6 P.M. Jasprit Kaur came
  to the house of the Complainant. She was frightened and was
  depressed. She informed her parents that the accused had
C asked her that they were to purchase a new house and that
  Jasprit Kaur should bring money from her parents. Jasprit Kaur
  had also informed her father that the accused had made her life
  miserable at their house and had made living there impossible.
  The complainantAvtar Singh and his wife consoled Jasprit Kaur
  and sent her back to the house of the accused by telling her that
0
  they will inform her about the demand in a day or two. Jasprit
  Kaur had given birth to a son on 25.12.1994 when also Avtar
  Singh had spent sufficient amount. But neither Jagjit Singh nor
  his parents became happy. On 18.3.1995 at about accused 3.30
  P.M. Baba Charan Singh came to the shop of the Complainant
E and informed him that Jasprit Kaur had been killed by the
  accused by strangulation. The Complainant accompanied by
  his wife and his son went to the house of the accused Jagjit
  Singh where they found that the dead body of Jasprit Kaur was
  hanging from the ceiling fan by a cloth wrapped around her neck.
F At that time mother of the accused Jagjit Singh namely,
  Raminder Kaur, was present at the house, while the other
  members of the family were absent. The Complainant left his
  wife and son lnderjit Singh near the dead body of Jasprit Kaur
  and proceeded to lodge a report with the police. The police
G met Avtar Singh in Chowk Lachhmansar, Amritsar, where he
  made statement before the police which was read over to him         •
  and was signed by him in token of its correctness. The
  Investigating Officer S.I. Avtar Singh made his endorsement
  Ex.P.A./2 on the same and sent it to the Police Station 'C'
H Division where formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded by AS.I.
             JAGJIT SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB                    79
                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.)

Charanjit Singh. The Investigating Officer accompanied by the A
ComplainantAvtar Singh went to the house of the accused where
on the top floor of the house, the dead body of Jasprit Kaur was
hanging with the ceiling fan in the room. The photographs of the
dead body were taken by the photographer as directed by the
Investigating Officer and after removing the dead body from the B
ceiling fan, the cloth wrapped around the neck of the deceased
was taken into police possession. The inquest proceedings of
the dead body was prepared and the same was sent for post
mortem examination thro,ugh H.C. Lakhwinder Singh an{]
Constable Suba Singh. After post mortem examination of the C
dead body, the clothes removed from the dead body were taken
into police possession by the Investigating Officer. All the
accused were arrested and on completion of the investigation
they were challaned by SI. Paramjit Singh, S.H.O. P.S. 'C'
Division, Amritsar.
                                                                 D
       On their appearance before the committing Magistrate,
the accused were furnished copies of the documents mentioned
in Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short the 'Code') and the case against them was committed for
trial.                            -                              E
     The trial Court found that the evidence was insufficient to
fasten the guilt on the accused.
      Questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal,
the State filed an appeal. By the impugned judgment the High         F
Court found that the co-accused Gurmukh Singh and Raminder
Kaur were staying separately and, therefore, there was doubt
about their participation in the commission of the offence. But
the present appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under
Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for seven years.
                                                                     G
     4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
judgment of the trial Court was well reasoned and the High Court
should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal
recorded, more particularly, when the acquittal in respect of co-
accused persons was affirmed.                                        H
    80        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A        5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
    hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
           6. It is to be noted that the deceased breathed her last
    within about one year and three months from the date of
    marriage while living in the house of her in laws. She was not
8
    suffering from any ailment prior to marriage and even after the
    marriage she continued to be hale and hearty. The evidence of
    PW-3, the father of the deceased is very significant. According
    to him on 17.3.1995 the deceased came to his house. She
C   informed him that the accused was torturing her as they had to
    purchase a new house they were demanding Rupees one lac
    from her. To the similar effect is the evidence of PW-4 the brother
    of the deceased. Prosecution had pressed into service the
    agreement deed Ex.PB for the purchase of house by Gurmukh
D   Singh from one Sapan Dass (PW-2). Said agreement reveals
    that it was executed on 8.2.1995 and the sale deed was to be
    executed on 8.5.1995. The High Court noted that this document
    amply established that the family required money for purchase
    of plot from Sapan Dass. The High Court further noted that there
E   was no material brought on record to show that the agreement
    was performed by the accused persons. The High Court found
    that the presumptuous conclusion of the trial Court that there
    was no link of the demand for dowry with the said agreement.
    The High Court also noted that the trial Court had erroneously
    concluded that the accused persons were rich persons and,
F   therefore, there was no need for asking any dowry.
         7. In Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2007
    (9) sec 721) it was inter-alia held as follows:
         "9. Two essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, apart
G        from others, are (1) death of woman is caused by any
         burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal     •
         circumstances, and (i1) woman is subjected to cruelty or
         harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband
         for, or in connection with, any demand for "dowry''. The
H
                               JAGJIT SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB                   81
                                     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

                        explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 304-       A
                        8 IPC says that "dowry" shall have the same meaning as
                        in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

                        10. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:

                        "2. Definition of 'dowry'.-ln this Act, 'dowry' means any     B
                        property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
                        either directly or indirectly-

           '            (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
  !
, ......                marriage; or
               "                                                                      c
J                       (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any
                        other person, to either party to the marriage or to any
                        other person,

                        at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
                        with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include   D
                        dower or ma hr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
                        personal law (Shariat) applies."
                        11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry"
                        any property or valuable security should be given or agreed
                        to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any
                                                                                       E
                        time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage
                        of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of
                        property or valuable security must have some connection
                        with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between
                        the giving or taking of property or valuable security with F
                        the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal
                        provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly
                        well-known social custom or practice in India. It is well-
                        settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act
                        is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or G
                   ,.   transaction and words are used which everybody
                        conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows
                        or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the
                        words are to be construed as having that particular
                        meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. and H
    82         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A          Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India.) A
           demand for money on account of some financial stringency
           or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for
           purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for
           dowry as the said word is normally understood. The
B          evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore,
           show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section
           2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants
           as what was allegedly asked for was some money for
           meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.
C          Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz.
           demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the
           appellants cannot be sustained."
       8. The High Court has analysed the evidence of the
                                                                         l
  witnesses clearly keeping in view the parameters relating to
D the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal. The
  analysis does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
  Since the minimum sentence has been awarded we find no
  scope to interfere in this appeal. The same is dismissed
  accordingly.

    D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.