{"id":161067,"date":"2008-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-08T15:27:17","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T09:57:17","slug":"baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                  OF 2008\n          (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7932 OF 2007)\n\n\nBaldev Singh                                                 ...\nAppellant\n\n\n           Vs.\n\n\nState of Punjab                               ...Respondent\n\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/p>\n
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, while directing<\/p>\n
acquittal of the co-accused Narinder Kaur. Learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Amritsar, had convicted both, the present appellant<\/p>\n
and Surjit Kaur for the offence punishable under Section 304-<\/p>\n
                                                         1<\/span>
\nB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and had<\/p>\n
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
months. It is to be noted that Narinder Kaur had faced trial<\/p>\n
along with the appellant Baldev Singh and Surjit Kaur but was<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges by the trial court.<\/p>\n
3.   The case of the prosecution is as under:-<\/p>\n
     Satwant Kaur @ Bholi was the sister of Rachhpal Singh<\/p>\n
(PW-4) and was married with Baldev Singh accused on<\/p>\n
8.6.1991. Within about a month of their marriage, differences<\/p>\n
cropped up between the deceased and her husband as the<\/p>\n
mother-in-law    and   husband     of     the   deceased   started<\/p>\n
demanding a fridge and a T.V.           Within three days of the<\/p>\n
marriage, the mother of Bholi had died, at the anniversary of<\/p>\n
their mother’s death, Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) had collected a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.12,000\/- from the sale of paddy and Rs.8,000\/-<\/p>\n
after encashing the National Saving Certificates and had given<\/p>\n
                                                              2<\/span>
\nan amount of Rs.20,000\/- to Baldev Singh. According to the<\/p>\n
complainant, for two months, after the payment there was no<\/p>\n
quarrel, but thereafter accused Baldev Singh, his mother<\/p>\n
Surjit Kaur and sister Narinder Kaur again started saying that<\/p>\n
at the time of the marriage adequate jewellery had not been<\/p>\n
given. The result was that the witness had again collected a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.20,000\/- by encashing the Fixed Deposit Receipt<\/p>\n
and paid the amount to Baldev Singh. In the month of<\/p>\n
October, 1992, accused Baldev Singh had fixed a date for the<\/p>\n
marriage of his younger brother and as the father of Rachhpal<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-4) and Satwant Kaur had died, Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
accused started asking for his share in the estate of his father-<\/p>\n
in-law. In view of this, Rachhpal Singh and his brothers<\/p>\n
Nirmal Singh and Avtar Singh had gone to the house of<\/p>\n
Satwant Kaur and there they tried to persuade the accused<\/p>\n
and other members of the family not to harass Satwant Kaur<\/p>\n
@ Bholi and assured them that in due course they would meet<\/p>\n
whatever was demanded by him. At this time Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
and the members of his family had told that they were not<\/p>\n
demanding any specific piece of land and that they would be<\/p>\n
                                                             3<\/span>
\nsatisfied in case an amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- was given.<\/p>\n
Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) had then told accused Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
that they had decided to hold the anniversary of his father’s<\/p>\n
death on 13th September, 1992 and they would pay the<\/p>\n
accused the amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- on that day. The details<\/p>\n
regarding the harassment that was being faced by Satwant<\/p>\n
Kaur were communicated by her to her brother Rachhpal<\/p>\n
Singh from time to time in various letters that were written by<\/p>\n
her.   In these letters, (Ex. PW-4\/A to Ex. PW-4\/D) Satwant<\/p>\n
Kaur had given the details of the demands by her husband<\/p>\n
and in-laws and she had also been apprising her brothers of<\/p>\n
the treatment given to her by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law<\/p>\n
and the husband whenever she met them. On 2.9.1992<\/p>\n
Rachhpal Singh had received a letter written by Satwant Kaur.<\/p>\n
This letter had been brought from Amritsar to Chandigarh by<\/p>\n
the wife of Amrik Singh, who in turn, had taken it to Pinjore to<\/p>\n
deliver the same to Rachhpal Singh. After going through the<\/p>\n
letter Rachhpal Singh had become very upset and had left for<\/p>\n
Amritsar and reached there about 7-8 P.M. During the night,<\/p>\n
he had stayed at the house of his second sister and in the<\/p>\n
                                                            4<\/span>
\nmorning of 3.9.1992 he had gone to the house of Satwant<\/p>\n
Kaur along with his brother-in-law Narinder Singh.         On<\/p>\n
reaching the house, he found that Satwant Kaur was lying on<\/p>\n
a cot while her husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law were<\/p>\n
standing nearby. On seeing him, Satwant Kaur had again<\/p>\n
indicated that the accused had harassed and beaten her<\/p>\n
regarding her inability to bring more money.    She had also<\/p>\n
told Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) that she had consumed some<\/p>\n
poisonous substance as a result of which, she would die and<\/p>\n
requested him to ensure that the accused did not escape the<\/p>\n
rigours of law. At this point of time, Rachhpal Singh found<\/p>\n
the attitude of the accused very hostile and had told Narinder<\/p>\n
Singh that they should try to move out of the house and come<\/p>\n
back with some more relatives. Thereafter Rachhpal Singh and<\/p>\n
Narinder Singh had gone away from the house of the accused<\/p>\n
and with some relatives returned there at about 9.30 A.M.<\/p>\n
When they reached the house, they found that none of the<\/p>\n
accused was present in the house and even Satwant Kaur was<\/p>\n
not present there.   On enquiry, it transpired that Satwant<\/p>\n
Kaur had been removed by the accused but the neighbourers<\/p>\n
                                                          5<\/span>
\nwere not certain whether Satwant Kaur was dead or alive.<\/p>\n
Fearing that the accused may try to burn the dead body, the<\/p>\n
witness first went to the cremation ground and thereafter to<\/p>\n
various doctors. At about 6\/6.15 P.M. they reached Guru<\/p>\n
Nanak Dev Hospital and found ASI Amrik Singh going inside<\/p>\n
and before him Rachhpal Singh made statement Ex. PW-4\/A,<\/p>\n
which was reduced into writing and signed by the witness. He<\/p>\n
then accompanied the police to the mortuary, where he saw<\/p>\n
the dead body of Satwant Kaur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Assistant Sub Inspector Amrik Singh (PW-7) had gone to<\/p>\n
Guru   Nanak    Dev   Hospital,   Amritsar   after   receipt       of<\/p>\n
information regarding the death of Satwant Kaur and on<\/p>\n
reaching the hospital, had met Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) and<\/p>\n
recorded his statement. He thereafter made his endorsement<\/p>\n
thereon and sent the same to the police station for recording<\/p>\n
the formal FIR, Ex. PW-7\/B. He had gone to the mortuary,<\/p>\n
prepared inquest report Ex. PW-1\/B and got done the post-<\/p>\n
mortem on the dead body. Dr. R.K. Gorea (Pw-1) conducted<\/p>\n
the post mortem examination on 4.9.1992 at 5.00 P.M., who<\/p>\n
                                                               6<\/span>
\ngave his opinion that the cause of death in this case was due<\/p>\n
to poisoning with organo phosphorus group of insecticide,<\/p>\n
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of<\/p>\n
nature. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of<\/p>\n
the witnesses and prepared rough site plan. On completion of<\/p>\n
necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial.<\/p>\n
     After the charge sheet was filed under Section 304-B IPC,<\/p>\n
trial was held as the accused persons pleaded innocence. In<\/p>\n
order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses.<\/p>\n
In the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.P.C.’), accused persons<\/p>\n
took the stand that they were falsely implicated in this case.<\/p>\n
     The trial court relied upon the evidence of PW.4 and<\/p>\n
PW.5 and found that their evidence was clear and cogent to<\/p>\n
the effect that the deceased was being harassed for not<\/p>\n
bringing adequate dowry and though some of the demands<\/p>\n
were satisfied by the relatives, the demands persisted. On<\/p>\n
account of such persistent demands, the deceased felt<\/p>\n
                                                             7<\/span>
\nharassed and consumed poison and had ultimately died as a<\/p>\n
result thereof.   With reference to the evidence of Dr. R.K.<\/p>\n
Gorea, PW.1, it was noted that the death of the deceased was<\/p>\n
as a result of consuming organo phosphorus group of<\/p>\n
insecticide and the death was unnatural and had taken place<\/p>\n
within 7 years of the date of marriage.      The trial court,<\/p>\n
accordingly, found the appellant and Surjit Kaur guilty while<\/p>\n
directing acquittal of Narinder Kaur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     In appeal, the stand taken by the appellant was that with<\/p>\n
a view to falsely implicate the accused persons, the case was<\/p>\n
lodged. It was submitted that the deceased was deprived of<\/p>\n
her legitimate share in the ancestral property and because of<\/p>\n
this she was in mental depression leading to her committing<\/p>\n
suicide. It was pointed out that if the appellant on behalf of<\/p>\n
the deceased had asked for her legitimate share in the<\/p>\n
ancestral property that does not amount to dowry demand.<\/p>\n
The prosecution, on the other hand, relied on the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW.4 and PW.5 to show that the demand was not restricted<\/p>\n
only to the share in the ancestral properties but also to the<\/p>\n
                                                          8<\/span>
\nother demands which were nothing but dowry demands. The<\/p>\n
High Court found substance in the plea of the prosecution<\/p>\n
and upheld the conviction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submitted that the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5<\/p>\n
should not have been relied upon. The stand taken before the<\/p>\n
High Court that the demand related to the share in the<\/p>\n
ancestral property and cannot be termed as dowry demand<\/p>\n
was reiterated. Additionally, it was submitted that custodial<\/p>\n
sentence of 10 years as imposed is harsh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned counsel for the Respondent-State, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, supported the judgment of the trial court as upheld by<\/p>\n
the High Court qua the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   In order to attract Section 304B IPC, the following<\/p>\n
ingredients are to be satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       i)      The death of a woman must have been caused by<\/p>\n
       burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal<\/p>\n
       circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
       ii)     Such death must have occurred within 7 years of<\/p>\n
       the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
       iii)    Soon before her death, the woman must have<\/p>\n
       been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her<\/p>\n
       husband or any relative of her husband; and<\/p>\n
       iv)     Such   cruelty   or   harassment   must   be    in<\/p>\n
       connection with the demand of dowry.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   In the instant case the marriage took place on 8.6.1991<\/p>\n
and the death took place on 3.9.1992 other than in normal<\/p>\n
circumstances within 7 years of the marriage. The evidence of<\/p>\n
PW.4 and PW.5 were to the effect that the demand of dowry<\/p>\n
was made just before the deceased committed suicide.<\/p>\n
8.   Sections 304B and Section 498A read as follows:<\/p>\n
              “304-B. Dowry Death- (1) Where the death of a
\n              woman is caused by any burns or bodily
\n              injury or occurs otherwise than under normal<\/p>\n
                                                              10<\/span>
\ncircumstances within seven years of her
\nmarriage and it is shown that soon before her
\ndeath she was subjected to cruelty or
\nharassment by her husband or any relative of
\nher husband for, or in connection with any
\ndemand for dowry, such death shall be called
\n“dowry death” and such husband or relative
\nshall be deemed to have caused her death.<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-\n<\/p>\n
section `dowry’ shall have same meaning as in
\nSection 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
\n(28 of 1961).\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
\npunished with imprisonment for a term which
\nshall not be less than seven years but which
\nmay extend to imprisonment for life.”\n<\/p>\n
“498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a
\nwoman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever,
\nbeing the husband or the relative of the
\nhusband of a woman, subjects such woman to
\ncruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
\nfor a term which may extend to three years
\nand shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the purpose of this section
\n‘cruelty’ means –\n<\/p>\n
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
\nnature as is likely to drive the woman to
\ncommit suicide or to cause grave injury or
\ndanger to life, limb or health (whether mental
\nor physical) of the woman; or<\/p>\n
(b) harassment of the woman where such
\nharassment is with a view to coercing her or
\nany person related to her to meet any<\/p>\n
                                                 11<\/span>
\n          unlawful demand for any property or valuable
\n          security or is on account of failure by her or
\n          any person related to her to meet such
\n          demand.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.   The term “dowry” has been defined in Section 2 of the<\/p>\n
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short `Dowry Act’) as under:-<\/p>\n
          “Section 2. Definition of `dowry’ – In this Act,
\n          `dowry’ means any property or valuable
\n          security given or agreed to be given either
\n          directly or indirectly –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a) by one party to a marriage to the
\n                other party to the marriage; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (b) by the parents of either party to a
\n                marriage or by any other person, to
\n                either party to the marriage or to any
\n                other person,<\/p>\n
          at or before or any time after the marriage in
\n          connection with the marriage of the said
\n          parties, but does not include dower or mehr in
\n          the case of persons to whom the Muslim
\n          personal law (Shariat) applies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is
\n          hereby declared that any presents made at the
\n          time of a marriage to either party to the
\n          marriage in the form of cash, ornaments,
\n          clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed
\n          to be dowry within the meaning of this
\n          section,   unless     they    are    made   as<\/p>\n
                                                             12<\/span>
\n           consideration for the marriage of the said
\n           parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Explanation II- The expression `valuable
\n           security’ has the same meaning in Section 30
\n           of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.   Explanation to Section 304-B refers to dowry “as having<\/p>\n
the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Act”, the question is :<\/p>\n
what is the periphery of the dowry as defined therein ? The<\/p>\n
argument is, there has to be an agreement at the time of the<\/p>\n
marriage in view of the words “agreed to be given” occurring<\/p>\n
therein, and in the absence of any such evidence it would not<\/p>\n
constitute to be a dowry. It is noticeable, as this definition by<\/p>\n
amendment includes not only the period before and at the<\/p>\n
marriage but also the period subsequent to the marriage. This<\/p>\n
position was highlighted in Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of<\/p>\n
Haryana (1998 (3) SCC 309).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   The offence alleged against the respondents is under<\/p>\n
Section 304-B IPC which makes “demand of dowry” itself<\/p>\n
punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of<\/p>\n
                                                             13<\/span>
\nany agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for<\/p>\n
dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under<\/p>\n
the clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to “demand of<\/p>\n
dowry”, it refers to the demand of property or valuable security<\/p>\n
as referred to in the definition of “dowry” under the Act. The<\/p>\n
argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present<\/p>\n
case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides,<\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence    plays   an   important    role   and<\/p>\n
inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That<\/p>\n
could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that Section<\/p>\n
4 of the Act, was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984,<\/p>\n
under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or<\/p>\n
indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a<\/p>\n
bride. The word “agreement” referred to in Section 2 has to be<\/p>\n
inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The<\/p>\n
interpretation that the respondents seek, that conviction can<\/p>\n
only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This<\/p>\n
would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act.<\/p>\n
“Dowry” definition is to be interpreted with the other<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to<\/p>\n
                                                              14<\/span>
\ngiving or taking dowry and Section 4 which deals with a<\/p>\n
penalty for demanding dowry, under the Act and the IPC. This<\/p>\n
makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients<\/p>\n
being satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that<\/p>\n
there be any agreement for dowry.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the<\/p>\n
case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of<\/p>\n
the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by the Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat<\/p>\n
the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads<\/p>\n
as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “113-B: Presumption as to dowry death-
\n           When the question is whether a person has
\n           committed the dowry death of a woman and it
\n           is shown that soon before her death such
\n           woman has been subjected by such person to
\n           cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
\n           with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
\n           presume that such person had caused the
\n           dowry death.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Explanation – For the purposes of this section
\n           `dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as
\n           in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45
\n           of 1860).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been<\/p>\n
amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21st<\/p>\n
Report dated 10th August, 1988 on `Dowry Deaths and Law<\/p>\n
Reform’. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing<\/p>\n
law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths,<\/p>\n
legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to<\/p>\n
presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It<\/p>\n
is in this background presumptive Section 113-B in the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act has been inserted.        As per the definition of<\/p>\n
`dowry death’ in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the<\/p>\n
presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the<\/p>\n
essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions<\/p>\n
is that the concerned woman must have been “soon before her<\/p>\n
death”   subjected   to cruelty   or   harassment   “for   or    in<\/p>\n
connection with the demand of dowry”. Presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 113-B is a presumption of law.        On proof of the<\/p>\n
essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the<\/p>\n
Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the<\/p>\n
dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof<\/p>\n
of the following essentials:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                16<\/span>
\n           (1)   The question before the Court must be<\/p>\n
           whether the accused has committed the<\/p>\n
           dowry death of a woman. (This means that<\/p>\n
           the presumption can be raised only if the<\/p>\n
           accused is being tried for the offence under<\/p>\n
           Section 304-B IPC).\n<\/p>\n
           (2)   The woman was subjected to cruelty or<\/p>\n
           harassment by her husband or his relatives.<\/p>\n
           (3)   Such cruelty or harassment was for, or<\/p>\n
           in connection with any demand for dowry.\n<\/p>\n
           (4)   Such cruelty or harassment was soon<\/p>\n
           before her death.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act<\/p>\n
and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to<\/p>\n
show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to<\/p>\n
cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the<\/p>\n
possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it<\/p>\n
within the purview of the `death occurring otherwise than in<\/p>\n
                                                          17<\/span>
\nnormal circumstances’.   The expression `soon before’ is very<\/p>\n
relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section<\/p>\n
304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to<\/p>\n
show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or<\/p>\n
harassment and only in that case presumption operates.<\/p>\n
Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. `Soon<\/p>\n
before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon<\/p>\n
circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can<\/p>\n
be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon<\/p>\n
before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any<\/p>\n
fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity<\/p>\n
test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as<\/p>\n
for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act. The expression `soon before her death’ used in the<\/p>\n
substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.    No<\/p>\n
definite period has been indicated and the expression `soon<\/p>\n
before’ is not defined. A reference to expression `soon before’<\/p>\n
used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is<\/p>\n
relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man<\/p>\n
                                                           18<\/span>
\nwho is in the possession of goods `soon after the theft, is either<\/p>\n
the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen,<\/p>\n
unless he can account for his possession. The determination<\/p>\n
of the period which can come within the term `soon before’ is<\/p>\n
left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that<\/p>\n
the expression `soon before’ would normally imply that the<\/p>\n
interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or<\/p>\n
harassment and the death in question. There must be<\/p>\n
existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of<\/p>\n
cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If<\/p>\n
alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become<\/p>\n
stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman<\/p>\n
concerned, it would be of no consequence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   It is true that demanding of her share in the ancestral<\/p>\n
property will not amount to a dowry demand, but the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW.4 and PW.5 shows that the demands were in addition to<\/p>\n
the demand for her share in the ancestral property. Certain<\/p>\n
letters which were brought on record clearly establish the<\/p>\n
                                                              19<\/span>
\ndemand for dowry.    The conviction as recorded by the trial<\/p>\n
court and upheld by the High Court does not warrant any<\/p>\n
interference. However, the custodial sentence appears to be<\/p>\n
on the higher side. The same is reduced to the minimum<\/p>\n
prescribed i.e. 7 years. In the ultimate result, with the<\/p>\n
modification of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.<\/p>\n
                               …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                               …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
August 4, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                                    20<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7932 OF 2007) Baldev Singh … Appellant Vs. State of Punjab …Respondent […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 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\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-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=\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T09:57:17+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T09:57:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3521,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T09:57:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 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":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 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\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T09:57:17+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T09:57:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008"},"wordCount":3521,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008","name":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T09:57:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 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\/161067","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=161067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}