Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Kailash Kaur under Section 302 IPC, finding the dying declaration and corroborating evidence reliable, and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

Amandeep Kaur was brutally murdered by being doused with kerosene and set alight by her mother-in‑law, Kailash Kaur, and sister‑in‑law Mahinder Kaur, allegedly to extract additional dowry. The deceased’s dying declaration, a letter to her father detailing dowry harassment, and medical and police testimony formed the basis of the prosecution’s case. The trial court convicted Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur under Section 302 IPC; the High Court upheld Kailash Kaur’s conviction but acquitted Mahinder Kaur. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the dying declaration and corroborating circumstantial evidence were reliable and that the conviction of Kailash Kaur was fully justified, while noting that the State had not appealed the acquittal of Mahinder Kaur. The Court emphasized the duty to impose the maximum penalty in such dowry‑related murders and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration of the deceased.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, including the dowry‑harassment letter, to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the conviction of the mother‑in‑law for murder is justified on the evidence presented.
The scope of the Supreme Court’s power to interfere with the High Court’s acquittal of a co‑accused when the State does not appeal.
The appropriate quantum of punishment in dowry‑related murder cases.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

dowry deathdying declarationmurderSection 302 IPCmaximum penaltydowry harassmentcriminal appealIndian Penal Code

Judgment

KAILASH KAUR A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

""' APRIL 28, 1987

[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860: s. 302-Bride Burning-Gruesome
murder of young wife-Barbaric act of pouring kerosene oil. and setting
t

-
her on fire-Duty of the Court to award maximum penalty..

,., Criminal Trial. c'
Dowry death-Necessity to award maximum punishment.

• The prosecution alleged that on the evening of May 30, 1974 the
appellant's daughter caught hold of the deceased, and the appellant
poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. On hearing deceased's D
screams the neighbours rushed to the house and extinguished the
flames. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital where on the basis of
questions put by the doctor (P.W. 2), Head Constable (P.W. 7)
recorded her statement. She expired on June 1, 1974. It was further
alleged that the husband and his parents were unhappy about the
quantum of dowry brought by the deceased and she was, therefore E
+
-
being subjected to severe harassment and maltreatment. In a letter
written by the deceased to her father she had set out the details of the
ill treatment meted to her and expressed grave apprehension that her life
was in imminent danger.
~'
The trial court convicted the appellant and her daughter of the F
offence under s. 302 I.P .C. acting on the dying declaration made by the
deceased, the letter written by her to her father and his evidence as to
the demands for dowry and the torture inflicted on his daughter. The
husband was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant but G
acquitted the daughter giving her benefit of doubt.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: 1.1. The conviction of the appellant by the High Court
was fully justified. The dying declaration made by the deceased wherein H
1221
1222 SUPREME COURT ~PORTS [1987] 6 ~.C.R.

A she has given a clear and vivid aceount uf the pouring of kerosene oil
uver her body and being set on fire by the appellant, has the ring
)r
of truth. The testimony of the doctor (P.W. 2) and the Head Constable
(P. W. 7) clearly establishes that she was In a fit condition to make
the statement. There was, therefore, no reason whatever not to act
upon it. [1224D; G] '
B
1.2. In addition, there was also clear circumstantial evidence
furnished by the letter written by the deceased to her father and the
testimony of the father regarding ti!~ demands for dowry and the
harassment and torture inflicted Ill' !be !lec~ased as part pf !he eg,
deavour to extract more dowry. [1224F·G]

c 2. Whenever a case of gruesome m0 r&er of a young wife by the
barbaric process of pouring kerosene oil over the body and setting her
on fire as the culmination of a long process of physical and mental
harassment for extraction of more dowry comes before the court and
the offence is brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it
O . is the duty of the court to deal with the case in the most severe and strict
manner and award the maximum penalfy prescribed by the law in
order that it may operate as a deterrent to other persons from commit·
ting such anti-social crimes. [12228; 1223A]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 221of1978.
+
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.1978 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1975.

' Kohli, Harjinder Singh and R.C. Kohli for the
A.N. Mulla, R.L.
f Appella11ts.

RS.' Sodhi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This is yet another unfortunate
instance of gruesome murder of a young wife by the barbaric process -"'f
of pouring kerosene oil over the body and setting her on fire as the
culmination of a long process of physical and mental harassment for
.extraction of more dowry. Whenever such cases come before the
Court and the offence is brought home to the accused beyond reason·
H able doubt, it is the duty of the Court to deal with it in most severe and
KAILASH KAUR v. STATE (ERADI, J.! 1223

strict manner and award the maximum penalty prescribed by the law in A
order that it may operate as a deterrent to other persons from commit-
ting such anti-social crimes.

Amandeep Kaur, deceased, was married to Avtar Singh who
figured as the first accused in the case in the Sessions Court. Kailash
Kaur, the appellant, is the mother-in-law of the deceased and Mahin- B
der Kaur who figured as the third accused in the case is the sister of
Avtar Singh. The husband and his parents were allegedly unhappy
about the quantum of dowry brought by the deceased and she was
· being subjected to severe harassment and maltreatment with a view to
extract more dowry from her parents. Exhibit PK is a letter written by
the deceased to her father Atar Singh (P.W. 3) in which she has set out C
the details of the hatassment and maltreatment and expressed her
grave apprehension that unless she was immediately taken back to the
father's house, her life itself was in imminent danger. On may 30,
1974, in the evening. Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur started quar-
reling with the deceased and severely abused and threatened her.
Thereupon, the deceased went to her room and bolted its door from D
inside. Sometime later Avtar Singh, husband of the deceased, came to
the house and started knocking at the door of the said room with great
force because of which the door got unbolted. It would appear that
after the door was opened Avtar Singh went away from the house. It is
the prosecution case that immediately thereafter Mahinder Kaur
caught hold of the deceased and Kailash Kaur (appellant) poured E
kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The deceased started screaming
on hearing which the people residing in the locality rushed to the
house. Avtar Singh, the husband also reached there in the meantime.
As she was engulfed in flames, somebody put a blanket on Amandeep
Kaur and extinguished the flames. Thereafter she was carried to the
Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Dr. Har Parkash Bhatia (P.W. 2), who F
examined her sent information to the local police station on receipt of
which Head Constable Naranjan Singh (P.W. 7), went over to the
hospital. The doctor sent everybody other than the Head Constable
out of the room where the patient was lying. He told the deceased that
he would put her questions about the cause of her death. On the basis
of the questions put by the doctor, Head Constable Naranjan Singh G
(P.W. 7) recorded her statement, on the basis of which formal First
Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Hoshiarpur.
Amandeep Kaur expired on June 1, 1974.

At the trial the prosecution relied on Ex.PF/3, th_e dying declara-
tion made by the deceased-Amandeep Kaur, the letter Ex. PK writ- H
1224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A ten by her to her father Atar Singh (P. w, 3) and the evidence of P. W.
3 wherein he stated that the appellant, her son and daughter were ).- -
dissatisfied about the quantum of dowry brought by Amandeep Kaur
and on that account they had been torturing her. The learned trial
Judge acting on the aforesaid evidence convicted Kailash Kaur and
Mahinder Kaur of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C .. and acquitted
B
Avtar Singh, the husband, accused giving him the benefit of doubt.

Kailash Kaur and Mahinder Kaur carried the matter in appeal ~

before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court con-
firmed the conviction of the appellant-herein namely, Kailash Kaur,
but acquitted Mahinder Kaur giving her the benefit of doubt.
'""\ -
c Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this
appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave.
,',J.
Notwithstanding the learned and persuasive arguments advanced
before us by Shri A.N. Mulla, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. There is no
D reason whatever not to act upon the dying declaration of the deceased
wherein she has given a clear and vivid account of the pouring of
kerosene oil over body and her being set on fire by the appellant. She
had also implicated Mahinder Kaur as the person who held her while
the kerosene oil was being poured on her body by the appellant. We
E
have very grave doubts about the legality, propriety and correctness of +
the decision of the High Court in so far as it has acquitted Mahinder >-
Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt. But since the State has not
preferred any appeal, we are not called upon to go into that aspect any
further.

In addition to the dying declaration there is also clear circum-
F stantial evidence furnished by the letter Ex. PK and the testimony of
Atar Singh (P.W. 3) father of the deceased regarding the demands for
dowry and the harassment and torture inflicted on the deceased by the
accused as part of the endeavour to extract more dowry. The dying
declaration made by the deceased has the ring of truth and the testi-
mony of the doctor-P.W. 2 and of the Head Constable-P.W. 7
G clearly establishe<> that she. :was in a fit condition to make the state-
ment. The conviction of the appellant by the High Court was, there-
fore, fully justified and there is absolutely no ground for interference
with· the same by this Court. We only express our regret that the
Sessions Judge did not treat this as a fit case for awarding the
H maximum penalty under the law and that no steps were taken by the
kAILASH KAUR v. STATE (ERADI, J.l U25

State Government before the High Court for enhancement of the A
sentence.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of the. appel-
lant will stand cancelled and ahe will be taken into custody forthwith to
serve out the remaining portlun of her sentence.
B
P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
+

-

\