{"id":130997,"date":"2008-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-26T11:45:09","modified_gmt":"2017-05-26T06:15:09","slug":"mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008<\/div>\n
              Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n                           --1--\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n             CHANDIGARH\n\n                       Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n                       Date of Decision:04.10.2008\n\n1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son\nof Harnam Singh, 3- Karnail Singh son of Surjit Singh, all\nresidents of village Golewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.\n\n                                            .... Appellants\n                       Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab\n                                            .... Respondent\n\n2.                     Crl. Revision No. 698-SB of 1992\n\nNachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda\nRoad Hindaiya District Sangrur.\n                                      ... Petitioner\n          Versus\n\n1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam\nSingh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail\nSingh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.\n\n                                            .... Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:   Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate\n           for the appellants,\n           in Crl. Appeal No.363-SB of 1992.\n\n           Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab\n           for the respondent\n           in Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992.\n\n           Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate\n           for the petitioner in\n           Crl. Revision No. 698 of 1992.\n\n           Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate\n           for the respondents,\n           in Crl. Revision No. 698 of 1992.\n               Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n                           --2--\n\n\n                           ---\n\n\nSHAM SUNDER, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.<\/p>\n
363-SB of 1992 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur, Surjit Singh and<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, accused ( now appellants ), vide which they<\/p>\n
were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, for<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code, and sentenced as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      1-    Karnail Singh        RI-   5 years\n\n                                 Fine- 5000\/-\n\n                                 In default- RI, 6 months\n\n      2-    Surjit Singh         RI-   3 years\n\n                                 Fine- 5000\/-\n\n                                 In default- RI, 6 months\n\n      3-    Mukhtiar Kaur        RI-   3 years\n\n                                 Fine- 5000\/-\n\n                                 In default- RI, 6 months\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
and Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992, filed by Nachhatar<\/p>\n
Singh, complainant\/revision-petitioner, for enhancement of the<\/p>\n
substantive sentence and awarding compensation.\n<\/p>\n
               Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                           –3–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.                The facts, in brief, are that Amarjit Kaur<\/p>\n
( now deceased ) daughter of Sadhu Singh, was married to<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, accused of village Golewala on 05.03.1983.<\/p>\n
Sadhu Singh gave dowry, in the marriage, to Karnail Singh,<\/p>\n
accused, as per his financial status. Karnail Singh, his mother<\/p>\n
Mukhtiar Kaur and father Surjit Singh, were not happy with the<\/p>\n
dowry brought by Amarjit Kaur, at the time of marriage. A few<\/p>\n
days after the marriage, they started maltreating her. 1-1\/2<\/p>\n
years after the marriage, Amarjit Kaur gave birth to a son.<\/p>\n
After the birth of a son to her, Karnail Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur<\/p>\n
and Surjit Singh, demanded customary gifts, given at the time<\/p>\n
of birth of a child, (shushak) from the parents of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur. They gave the customary gifts (shushak) as per their<\/p>\n
financial status. The accused were, however, not satisfied with<\/p>\n
the quantum of the customary gifts, brought by Amarjit Kaur.<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh and Baljinder Singh, brothers of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur, came to village Golewala and requested Karnail Singh,<\/p>\n
his father and mother that they should not maltreat Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur. Six months prior to 19.06.1989, Karnail Singh’s elder<\/p>\n
brother, was married. His wife brought a lot of dowry, in the<\/p>\n
marriage. After the marriage of Karnail Singh’s elder brother,<\/p>\n
the demands of Karnail Singh, his father, and mother assumed<\/p>\n
greater proportions, and they became harsh towards Amarjit
\n               Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                           –4–\n<\/p>\n
\nKaur and started treating her with extreme cruelty. They asked<\/p>\n
her to bring more dowry. Thereafter, Amarjit Kaur along with<\/p>\n
her child came to village     Handiaya, in the house of her<\/p>\n
parents. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh, his son Nachhatar Singh and<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh’s brother-in-law Darshan Singh of Gulab-<\/p>\n
Garh and the husband of the sister of      father of Nachhatar<\/p>\n
Singh (phuphar) namely Darshan Singh came to Golewala<\/p>\n
along with Amarjit Kaur and her child. They requested the<\/p>\n
accused that they should not maltreat her. Surjit Singh and<\/p>\n
Mukhtiar Kaur, demanded Colour TV, VCR and Refrigerator.<\/p>\n
They, in clear-cut terms, stated that, in case, these items were<\/p>\n
not provided, in the shape of dowry, then they should take<\/p>\n
back Amarjit Kaur, or she could go and die as they did not<\/p>\n
need her and would marry Karnail Singh again elsewhere.<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh and Sadhu Singh, agreed to give Colour TV,<\/p>\n
Refrigerator and VCR to the accused and left Amarjit Kaur, in<\/p>\n
her matrimonial home.\n<\/p>\n
3.                On 18.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his<\/p>\n
brother-in-law Darshan Singh came to village Golewala, to<\/p>\n
enquire about the welfare of Amarjit Kaur. They asked the<\/p>\n
accused about Amarjit Kaur and her child. The accused, did<\/p>\n
not give them any satisfactory reply. They felt that Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur and her child had been murdered by the accused. From
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                            –5–\n<\/p>\n
\nvillage Golewala, they returned to village       Handiaya, and<\/p>\n
narrated the entire episode, to the inmates of the house. They,<\/p>\n
then searched Amarjit Kaur, in their relations, but she was not<\/p>\n
available.\n<\/p>\n
3-A.               On 20.06.1989, Nachhatar Singh and his<\/p>\n
father Sadhu Singh came to Police Station, Sadar, Faridkot.<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh lodged FIR Ex.PJ. The Police, Nachhatar<\/p>\n
Singh and Sadhu Singh searched Amarjit Kaur and when they<\/p>\n
came just near the gate of the Police Station, the husband of the<\/p>\n
sister of the father of Nachhatar Singh, namely Darshan Singh<\/p>\n
met them and told that the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, had<\/p>\n
been found near the bridge of canal, in the area of village<\/p>\n
Machaki Mal Singh. They along with the Police then went to<\/p>\n
the spot. Dead body of Amarjit Kaur was lying on the bank of<\/p>\n
the canal. By the side of the dead body, Balwinder Singh son<\/p>\n
of Sadhu Singh and Darshan Singh, brother-in-law of<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh, were found present.\n<\/p>\n
3-B.               Karnail Singh, was earlier engaged in<\/p>\n
village Handiaya to the daughter of Zora Singh. The marriage<\/p>\n
party came back from village Handiaya, without the bride, as<\/p>\n
some dispute had arisen there. Cloth was purchased from M\/s<\/p>\n
Kaur Sain Jagan Nath of Barnala for the marriage of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur. Other articles and ornaments were also purchased from
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                            –6–\n<\/p>\n
\nvarious shops. Later on, the dead body of the child of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur was also recovered, from the canal.\n<\/p>\n
3-C.              Post-mortem examination, on the dead body<\/p>\n
of Amarjit Kaur was performed by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior<\/p>\n
Lecturer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guru Gobind<\/p>\n
Singh Medical College, Faridkot, on 20.06.1989 at 1.30 PM.<\/p>\n
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as<\/p>\n
a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed between the<\/p>\n
injuries and death, was within few minutes and between the<\/p>\n
death and post-mortem was within 48 to 72 hours.<\/p>\n
3-D.              On 22.06.1989, at about 9.00 AM, the<\/p>\n
doctor performed post-mortem examination on the dead body<\/p>\n
of Soni son of Karnail Singh, aged about 4-1\/2 years. In the<\/p>\n
opinion of the doctor, the death of the     child was due to<\/p>\n
aphsyxia, as a result of drowning which was sufficient to cause<\/p>\n
death, in the ordinary course of nature. The time that lapsed<\/p>\n
between the injuries and death was within few minutes and<\/p>\n
between the death and post-mortem was within 3 to 5 days. It<\/p>\n
was further opined by the doctor that drowning was ante-<\/p>\n
mortem in nature, in both the cases.        The accused were<\/p>\n
arrested.   The statements of the witnesses were recorded.<\/p>\n
After the completion of       investigation, the accused were
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                            –7–\n<\/p>\n
\nchallaned.\n<\/p>\n
4.                 On their appearance, in the Court, the<\/p>\n
accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon<\/p>\n
by the prosecution. Charge under Section 304-B of the IPC,<\/p>\n
was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty and claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
5.                  The prosecution, in support of its case,<\/p>\n
examined Dr. K. K. Aggarwal, Senior Lecturer, department of<\/p>\n
Forensic Medicine, GGS Medical College, Faridkot, (PW-1),<\/p>\n
Surjit Singh, Patwari, Halqa Machaki Mal Singh, (PW-2),<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh, (PW-3), Zora Singh, (PW-4), Bhim Singh,<\/p>\n
(PW-5 ), Tek Chand,       (PW-6), Jaswant Singh, ( PW-7 ),<\/p>\n
Darshan Singh, ( PW-8 ), Gurcharan Singh, ( PW-9 ) , who<\/p>\n
was wrongly mentioned as PW-10, Harbans Lal, ( PW- 10 ),<\/p>\n
who was also wrongly mentioned as PW-11, Manohar Lal,<\/p>\n
( PW- 11 ), who was wrongly mentioned as PW-12, and<\/p>\n
Raghbir Singh, Inspector, ( PW- 12 ), who was wrongly<\/p>\n
mentioned as PW-13.         Thereafter, the Additional Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.<\/p>\n
6.                 The statements of the accused, under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were<\/p>\n
recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances,<\/p>\n
appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                            –8–\n<\/p>\n
\npleaded false implication.    It was stated by Mukhtiar Kaur<\/p>\n
that marriage of co-accused Karnail Singh, took place on<\/p>\n
04.03.1982. She further stated that Karnail Singh was never<\/p>\n
engaged to the daughter of Zora Singh. It was further stated<\/p>\n
by Mukhtiar Kaur that Amarjit Kaur was of queer habits. She<\/p>\n
was stiff necked and was non-cooperative with other ladies of<\/p>\n
the house. It was further stated by her that Amarjit Kaur<\/p>\n
wanted to live separate from the parents of Karnail Singh,<\/p>\n
which he refused to do. Amarjit Kaur became frustrated and<\/p>\n
there arose tension in her mind. It was further stated by her<\/p>\n
that for that reason, she left the house, in their absence, along<\/p>\n
with the child. It was further stated by her, that they searched<\/p>\n
Amarjit Kaur and the child and informed the police also.<\/p>\n
They also sent information to Sadhu Singh and his son<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh i.e. the complainant. It was further stated by<\/p>\n
her that the members of the complainant family came there<\/p>\n
and they also searched along with them Amarjit Kaur and the<\/p>\n
child. It was further stated by her that, later on in connivance<\/p>\n
with the police, the instant case was planted against them.<\/p>\n
7.                 Surjit Singh and Karnail Singh, accused, in<\/p>\n
their statements took up the same pleas, as were taken up by<\/p>\n
Mukhtiar Kaur, accused, in her statement under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                            –9–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.                 In defence, the accused examined       Baljit<\/p>\n
Singh, Record Keeper, Market Committee, Bhucho, DW-1,<\/p>\n
Iqbal Singh, Clerk, SDM’s office, Muktsar, DW-2, Pritpal<\/p>\n
Singh, Clerk, Market Committee, Bhucho, DW-3,              Gajja<\/p>\n
Nand, Ahlmad, Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot,<\/p>\n
DW-4, Tarsem Singh son of Hakem Singh, DW-5, and<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, accused, himself appeared as his own witness<\/p>\n
as DW-6. He in his defence evidence, also tendered birth<\/p>\n
entry Ex.DA\/1. Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence.<\/p>\n
9.                 After   hearing    the   Additional   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on<\/p>\n
going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 304-<\/p>\n
B of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced for the offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as<\/p>\n
stated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
10.                Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, the instant appeal, and the revision petition were filed.<\/p>\n
11.                I have heard the Counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
and have gone through the evidence and record of the case,
\n                  Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                             –10–\n<\/p>\n
\ncarefully.\n<\/p>\n
12.                 The Counsel for the appellants, at the very<\/p>\n
outset, submitted that no offence under Section 306 of the<\/p>\n
Indian   Penal    Code   was constituted,     from the      facts<\/p>\n
circumstances and the evidence, produced by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
He further submitted that from the evidence, on record, it was<\/p>\n
proved that the parents of the deceased, promised that they<\/p>\n
would give Colour TV, Fridge,         and VCR.       He further<\/p>\n
submitted that when they promised to give the same, as<\/p>\n
allegedly demanded by the accused, there was no question of<\/p>\n
torturing the deceased by the accused, and, as such, it could<\/p>\n
not be said that they abetted the alleged commission of<\/p>\n
suicide by the deceased. The submission of the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.<\/p>\n
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “107 . Abetment of a thing. A person abets the<\/p>\n
      doing of a thing, who<\/p>\n
      First, Instigate any person to do that thing; or<\/p>\n
      Secondly- Engages with one or more other person<\/p>\n
      or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that<\/p>\n
      thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in<\/p>\n
      pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        –11–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
   doing of that thing; or<\/p>\n
   Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal<\/p>\n
   omission, the doing of that thing.”\n<\/p>\n
   “Explanation 1. A person, who by willful<\/p>\n
   misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a<\/p>\n
   material fact which he is bound to disclose,<\/p>\n
   voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to<\/p>\n
   cause or procure, a thing to be done is said to<\/p>\n
   instigate the doing of that thing.\n<\/p>\n
   Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the<\/p>\n
   time of commission of an act does anything in<\/p>\n
   order to facilitate the commission of that act, and<\/p>\n
   thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said<\/p>\n
   to aid the doing of that act.”\n<\/p>\n
Sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution, to<\/p>\n
prove that the deceased was being maltreated by the accused,<\/p>\n
who are none-else than the husband, mother-in-law and<\/p>\n
father-in-law respectively, in connection with the demand of<\/p>\n
more dowry, from time to time. Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, is<\/p>\n
the star witness of the prosecution. He is brother of the<\/p>\n
deceased. He stated that the accused were not happy with<\/p>\n
the dowry, given by them, at the time of marriage of his<\/p>\n
sister with Karnail Singh, accused and        as such they
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                        –12–\n<\/p>\n
\nmaltreated her. He further stated that after some days of the<\/p>\n
marriage, they started maltreating his sister.      He further<\/p>\n
stated that 1-1\/2 years after the marriage, his sister Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur gave birth to a male child, and, on this occasion, all the<\/p>\n
accused demanded customary gifts (Shushak) from them.<\/p>\n
He further stated that, as per their financial status, they gave<\/p>\n
them the customary gifts (Shushak). However, the accused<\/p>\n
were not at all happy. No only this, from the statement of<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh, it was further proved that about six<\/p>\n
months, before the occurrence, the elder brother of Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh, accused, was married and a lot of dowry was given<\/p>\n
by his in-laws. On seeing that, a lot of dowry had been<\/p>\n
given, at the time of the marriage of their elder son, the<\/p>\n
parents of Karnail Singh, as also Karnal Singh, became more<\/p>\n
furious, and started perpetrating extreme cruelty against the<\/p>\n
deceased, asking her to bring more dowry. It was, at that<\/p>\n
occasion, that she came to her parents and told the entire<\/p>\n
story to them. It was thereafter that Nachhatar Singh, brother<\/p>\n
of the deceased, Sadhu Singh, father of the deceased, and<\/p>\n
Darshan Singh, brother-in-law of Nachhatar Singh, came to<\/p>\n
village Golewala along with Amarjit Kaur, in the house of<\/p>\n
her in -laws. At that time, they requested the accused that<\/p>\n
they should stop maltreating her.      At that time also, the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                        –13–\n<\/p>\n
\naccused demanded Colour TV, VCR and Refrigerator. They<\/p>\n
also told them that, in case, they were unable to give those<\/p>\n
articles, in the shape of dowry, then they could take back<\/p>\n
Amarjit Kaur, or she may go wherever she liked or die.<\/p>\n
They further told that they would not keep her, in their<\/p>\n
house, and perform the marriage of Karnail Singh<\/p>\n
somewhere else. It was, at that juncture, that the parents of<\/p>\n
the deceased agreed to give colour TV, VCR and<\/p>\n
Refrigerator. Amarjit Kaur was left in the house of her in-<\/p>\n
laws and Nachhatar Singh and others came back.<\/p>\n
Immediately thereafter on     18.06.1989,    when Nachhatar<\/p>\n
Singh and his brother-in-law Darshan Singh, went to the<\/p>\n
house of her in-laws, to enquire about her welfare, she was<\/p>\n
not available there. Ultimately, the dead bodies of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur and her minor child were found on the bank of the<\/p>\n
canal. The death, as stated above, as per the opinion of the<\/p>\n
doctor, was on account of drowning, which was ante-<\/p>\n
mortem, in nature. The accused are greedy persons, as is<\/p>\n
proved from the statement of        Nachhatar Singh, PW3.<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, in clear-cut terms, stated that earlier<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, accused, husband of Amarjit Kaur, deceased,<\/p>\n
was engaged in their village to the daughter of Zora Singh<\/p>\n
and the marriage party had been sent back without the bride,
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                        –14–\n<\/p>\n
\nas there was some dispute over the dowry. From this<\/p>\n
incident, it could be well imagined, how greedy the accused<\/p>\n
are. No doubt, promise by the parents of the deceased had<\/p>\n
been made, for giving the aforesaid articles, in the shape of<\/p>\n
dowry, to the accused, yet they had not yet fulfilled that<\/p>\n
demand. Had the demand been fulfilled, the matter would<\/p>\n
have been different. Since the demand was still unfulfilled,<\/p>\n
the greedy persons like the accused, could go to any extent,<\/p>\n
to create such adverse circumstances, for the deceased,<\/p>\n
forcing her to commit suicide, alongwith her minor child. If<\/p>\n
a person is continuously tortured and subjected to cruelty of<\/p>\n
extreme degree, it is not at all possible for her\/him, to<\/p>\n
tolerate the same. It was, thus, the continuous torture and<\/p>\n
cruelty having been caused to the deceased, by the accused,<\/p>\n
that she was compelled to take an extreme step, to end her<\/p>\n
life, and the life of her minor child. Otherwise, a lady<\/p>\n
having a male child of the age of about 4-1\/2 years, in her lap<\/p>\n
would certainly entertain high hopes, to lead a very happy<\/p>\n
married life. Had she been not treated with extreme cruelty,<\/p>\n
referred to above, she would have been the last lady, even to<\/p>\n
think about the commission of suicide. The evidence of<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, was duly corroborated by the<\/p>\n
evidence of Zora Singh, PW-4, with whose daughter, Karnail
\n              Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                         –15–\n<\/p>\n
\nSingh was earlier engaged, but the marriage party had to be<\/p>\n
sent back, as there was some dispute over the dowry. From<\/p>\n
the statements of Jaswant Singh, PW-7, and Darshan Singh,<\/p>\n
PW-8, it was also proved that the accused abetted the<\/p>\n
commission of suicide, by Amarjit Kaur and her minor son.<\/p>\n
As such, the ingredients required for constituting the offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,<\/p>\n
were duly proved. The trial Court was right in coming to the<\/p>\n
conclusion, that the accused committed the offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
The conclusion arrived at, by the trial Court, is based on the<\/p>\n
correct appreciation of evidence and warrant no interference.<\/p>\n
The conclusion of the trial, in this regard, is affirmed.<\/p>\n
13.              It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, that Amarjit Kaur and her minor child were found<\/p>\n
dead on 18.06.1989, and it was in the knowledge of<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh and his parents, but for two days, the FIR<\/p>\n
was not lodged. He further submitted that there was delay of<\/p>\n
two days in lodging the FIR, which resulted into concoction<\/p>\n
of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction<\/p>\n
of false witnesses. The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.<\/p>\n
When Nachhatar Singh along his brother-in-law went to the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                        –16–\n<\/p>\n
\nhouse of the in-laws of the deceased on 18.06.1989, they<\/p>\n
found that she ( deceased ) and her child were not present<\/p>\n
there. They asked the accused about the whereabouts of<\/p>\n
Amarjit Kaur and her minor child, but they could not give<\/p>\n
any satisfactory reply. Naturally, before proceedings further,<\/p>\n
as it was a very sensitive matter, they were required to<\/p>\n
conduct search of Amarjit Kaur, and her minor son.<\/p>\n
However, they could not succeed in searching Amarjit Kaur,<\/p>\n
and her son and ultimately when the dead bodies of Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur and her child were found, the FIR was lodged. The<\/p>\n
brother and parents of Amarjit Kaur, since deceased, must<\/p>\n
be perplexed and puzzled, on account of the disappearance<\/p>\n
of Amarjit Kaur and her minor child.        Their first concern<\/p>\n
was to search them. If a man is put in such a condition, he is<\/p>\n
not able to act swiftly, in the matter of lodging the report. It<\/p>\n
was, under these circumstances, that       delay occurred, in<\/p>\n
lodging the First Information Report.           The aforesaid<\/p>\n
circumstances explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, mere delay in lodging the FIR, in itself, is not<\/p>\n
sufficient to throw away the case of the prosecution. In the<\/p>\n
face of delay in lodging the FIR, the Court is required to<\/p>\n
scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to come<\/p>\n
to the conclusion, as to whether the same is reliable. If the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                        –17–\n<\/p>\n
\nCourt, after such scrutiny, comes to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
same is reliable, then delay pales into insignificance. The<\/p>\n
evidence produced by the prosecution is reliable. The delay,<\/p>\n
if any, thus pales into insignificance. On account of such<\/p>\n
delay, there was neither false implication of the accused, nor<\/p>\n
concoction of false story, nor introduction of false<\/p>\n
witnesses. In this view of the matter, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail,<\/p>\n
and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.              It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, that Nachhatar Singh, PW-3, during the course of<\/p>\n
cross-examination, stated that when they went to the house<\/p>\n
of the accused, Karnail Singh, did not make any demand. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that he also stated that, at that time, only<\/p>\n
the demand of dowry was made by Mukhtiar Kaur and her<\/p>\n
husband. He further submitted that Karnail Singh was, thus,<\/p>\n
not responsible for the commission of any offence.          The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard,<\/p>\n
does not appear to be correct. The evidence of the witnesses,<\/p>\n
is required to be read, as a whole, and not by tearing the<\/p>\n
same into pieces. When the evidence of Nachhatar Singh,<\/p>\n
PW-3, is read as a whole, then only one and one inescapable<\/p>\n
conclusion,that can be arrived at, is that all the three accused
\n               Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                          –18–\n<\/p>\n
 from time to time subjected Amarjit Kaur to cruelty in<\/p>\n
connection with the demand of dowry. If, on one occasion,<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, did not demand the articles in the shape of<\/p>\n
dowry, then that does not absolve him of his earlier demands<\/p>\n
made by him, in connection therewith, from the deceased and<\/p>\n
her parents. In this view of the matter, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being without merit,<\/p>\n
must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15.              The defence version and the defence<\/p>\n
evidence were duly noticed and discussed by the trial Court<\/p>\n
in paras 22 to 26 of its judgment. Ultimately the trial Court<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that the defence evidence did not<\/p>\n
prove the innocence of the accused for the offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
However, the trial Court, on appreciation of the defence<\/p>\n
evidence came to the conclusion that no offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was made out,<\/p>\n
as it was not proved that the death of the deceased did take<\/p>\n
place within seven years of her marriage. This Court, after<\/p>\n
reappraisal of the evidence, also comes to the same<\/p>\n
conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
16.              Now coming to the revision petition, it may
\n              Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                         –19–\n<\/p>\n
\nbe stated here, that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the<\/p>\n
reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The trial Court, after due<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence, on record, awarded adequate<\/p>\n
sentence to the accused. The sentence awarded by the trial<\/p>\n
Court is commensurate with the gravity of offence. The<\/p>\n
Counsel for the revision-petitioner could not point out any<\/p>\n
circumstance, showing that the sentence awarded was<\/p>\n
shockingly on the lower side. No ground is made out for the<\/p>\n
enhancement of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
17.                Award of compensation was also prayed for,<\/p>\n
in the revision petition. It may be stated here, that besides<\/p>\n
awarding substantive sentence, to the accused, the trial Court<\/p>\n
also imposed the sentence of fine upon them. According to<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., if the fine forms<\/p>\n
part of the sentence, then no compensation can be awarded.<\/p>\n
The trial Court, however, rightly came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid, in its entirety,<\/p>\n
to the parents of the deceased. Under these circumstances,<\/p>\n
this prayer also does not merit acceptance.<\/p>\n
18.                No other point, was urged, by the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
19.                In view of the above discussion, it is held<\/p>\n
that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence,
\n                      Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                                 –20–\n<\/p>\n
\n       rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct<\/p>\n
       appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do<\/p>\n
       not warrant any interference.     The same are liable to be<\/p>\n
       upheld.\n<\/p>\n
       20.              For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the<\/p>\n
       appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the<\/p>\n
       order     of sentence dated 19.09.1992, are upheld.      If the<\/p>\n
       appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.<\/p>\n
       21.              Criminal Revision Petition No. 698 of 1992<\/p>\n
       is also dismissed, being devoid of merit.<\/p>\n
       22.              The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take<\/p>\n
       necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to<\/p>\n
       comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in<\/p>\n
       view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the<\/p>\n
       Code of Criminal Procedure. The compliance report be sent<\/p>\n
       immediate thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (SHAM SUNDER)
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nOctober 04, 2008
\ndinesh
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992\n<\/p>\n
                           –21–\n<\/p>\n
\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
\n             CHANDIGARH<\/p>\n
                        Crl. Revision No. 698-SB of 1992<\/p>\n
                        Date of Decision:04.10.2008<\/p>\n
Nachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda
\nRoad Hindaiya District Sangrur.\n<\/p>\n
                                      … Petitioner
\n          Versus<\/p>\n
1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam
\nSingh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail
\nSingh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                             .... Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:     Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate\n             for the respondents.\n\n                        ---\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  For orders , see detailed reasons in Crl. A.<\/p>\n
No. 363-SB of 1992, titled as Mukhtiar Kaur and others vs.<\/p>\n
The State of Punjab, decided on even date.<\/p>\n
04.10.2008                    ( Sham Sunder )\ndinesh                            Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court – Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992 –1– IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992 Date of Decision:04.10.2008 1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, 2- Surjit Singh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4091,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\",\"name\":\"- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008"},"wordCount":4091,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008","name":"- Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T06:15:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mukhtiar-kaur-wife-of-surjit-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"– Mukhtiar Kaur Wife Of Surjit … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}