{"id":236042,"date":"1991-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991"},"modified":"2017-02-08T10:59:08","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T05:29:08","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1532, \t\t 1991 SCR (2) 790<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nIQBAL SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/05\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1532\t\t  1991 SCR  (2) 790\n 1991 SCC  (3)\t 1\t  1991 SCALE  (1)923\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian  Penal Code, 1860-Sections\t107,  108-`Abetment'\nAbettor'-Definition of.\n     Words and Phrases-\"Instigate\",\"aid\"-Meaning of.\n     Indian  Evidence Act,  1872-Sections 113-A\t and  113-B-\nDowry  death-Presumption-Legislative  intention\t of-Duty  of\nCourt indicated.\n     Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 107-10, 30, 304-B, 306\nand 498-A-Married woman, subjected to cruelty or harassment-\nDeath-Presumption of-Punishment of persons responsible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Respondent\t No. 1's wife setting herself and her  three\nchildren  ablaze, died at her husband's\t house on  7.6.1983.\nThe marriage had taken place seven or eight years before the\nincident.  The deceased wife was working as a teacher  while\nher husband was a clerk.\n     Soon  after  the marriage there were  disputes  between\nthem  on the question of dowry.\t The demand for extra  dowry\nstrained  the  relations between them them and\tthe  husband\nbegan to ill-treat the deceased wife.\n     The  deceased  had\t written  a  letter  to\t the  Deputy\nSuperintendent of Police on 12.10.1977 complaining about the\nill-treatment  meted out to her and apprehending  danger  to\nher  life  and the lives of her children.  When\t the  police\ncame   to   inquire   into  the\t matter\t  there\t  was\tsome\nunderstanding,\tas  a result of which she had  informed\t the\npolice\tthat no further action be taken for the present\t but\nher application may be kept pending.  Later, a divorce\tdeed\nwas  executed  but not acted upon.  The\t situation  did\t not\nimproved.\n     On 7.6.1983, the very morning of incident, the deceased\nwife  wrote  a letter addressed to  Deputy  Commissioner  of\nPolice,\t wherein she narrated how she and her children\twere\nill-treated  by\t her husband, narrated how she and  and\t her\nchildren were ill-treated by her husband, mother-in-law\t and\nsister-in-law for dowry and why she took the decision to put\nan  end to her life and the lives of her  children.  Another\nletter\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       791\nof even date was addressed to her mother stating the reasons\nfor her such act.\n     A\tFirst  Information  Report was\tlodged\tagainst\t the\nRespondent  No.\t 1  by the mother of  the  deceased.   After\ninvestigation  the Respondent No. 1, his mother\t and  sister\nwere  put up  for trial.  The Trial Court on an\t examination\nof the prosecution evidence convicted all the three  accused\npersons under Section 306, IPC and sentenced the husband  to\nrigorous  imprisonment\tfor  seven  years  and\ta  fine\t  of\nRs.5,000, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year and\nsentenced the two others to rigorous imprisonment for  three\nyears  and  a fine of Rs.1,000 each,  in  default,  rigorous\nimprisonment for three months, against which order,  accused\npersons preferred an appeal before the High Court.\n     The High Court on a reappreciation of the evidence\t and\nhaving\tregard to the language of Section 306,\tIPC came  to\nthe  conclusion that there was no evidence to show that\t any\nof  the\t accused  was guilty of\t abetment  and\tallowed\t the\nappeal.\n     The State has, therefore, approached this Court by\t way\nof  special leave.  In the meantime the Respondent  No.\t 1's\nmother had passed away.\t The appeal was, therefore,  limited\nto the Respondent No. 1 and his sister.\n     Allowing the appeal, this Court,\n     HELD: 1. `Abetment' as defined by Section 107 comprises\n(i)  instigation to do that thing which is an offence,\t(ii)\nengaging  in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing\t and\n(iii)  intentionally aiding by any act or  illegal  omission\nthe  doing of that thing.  An abettor is a person who  abets\nan offence or who abets either the commission of an  offence\nof  the\t commission  of an act which would  be\tan  offence.\n[798C-D]\n     2. The word `instigate' in the literary sense means  to\nincite,\t set or urge on, stir up, goad,\t foment,  stimulate,\nprovoke,  etc. The dictionary meaning of the word, \"aid\"  is\nto give assistance, help, tec. [798D-E]\n     3.\t Where\tthe death of a woman is caused by  burns  or\nbodily\t injury\t or  occurs  otherwise\tthan  under   normal\ncircumstances  within  seven  years  of\t her  marriage\t and\nevidence  reveals  that\t soon  before  her  death  she\t was\nsubjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any  of\nhis relative for or in connection with any demand for dowry,\nsuch  death  is described as dowry under Section 304  B\t for\nwhich the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       792\npunishment  extends to imprisonment for life, but  not\tless\nthan  imprisonment  for\t seven\tyears.\t By  Section   113B,\nEvidence Act, the court has to raise a presumption of  dowry\ndeath,\tif  the same has taken place within seven  years  of\nmarriage  and  there is evidence of the\t women\thaving\tbeen\nsubjected to cruelty and\/or harassment. [800A-C]\n     4.\t The  legislative  intent is  clearly  to  curb\t the\nmenance of dowry deaths, etc., with a firm hand. Court\tmust\nkeep in mind this legislative intent.  It must be remembered\nthat  since  such  crimes are  generally  committed  in\t the\nprivacy of residential homes and in secrecy, independent and\ndirect\tevidence  is  not  easy to get.\t  That\tis  why\t the\nlegislature has by introducing sections 113A and 113B in the\nEvidence Act tried to strengthen the prosecution's hands  by\npermitting   a\t presumption  to  be   raised\tif   certain\nfoundational facts are established and the unfortunate event\nhas taken place within seven years of marriage.\t This period\nof  seven years is considered to be the turbulent one  after\nwhich  the  legislature assumes that the couple would have\nsettled down in life. [800D-E]\n     5.\t If  a\tmarried woman is  subjected  to\t cruelty  of\nharassment by her husband or his family members section 498-\nA,  IPC would be attracted.  If such cruelty  or  harassment\nwas  inflicted\tby the husband or his relative\tfor,  or  in\nconnection  with, any demand for dowry immediately preceding\ndeath\tby   burns  and\t bodily\t injury\t  or   in   abnormal\ncircumstances  within seven years of marriage, such  husband\nor relative is deemed to have caused her death and is liable\nto be punished under section 304B IPC. [800E-F]\n     6.\t When the question at issue is whether a  person  is\nguilty of dowry death of a woman and the evidence  discloses\nthat immediately before her death she was subjected by\tsuch\nperson\tto cruelty and\/or harassment for, or  in  connection\nwith,  any  demand  for dowry,\tsection\t 113B  Evidence\t Act\nprovides  that the Court shall presume that such person\t had\ncaused the dowry death. [800F-G]\n     7.\t In the present case section 113A or 113B,  Evidence\nAct cannot be invoked as the prosecution has not brought the\nexact date of marriage on record.  Yet where the husband  or\nhis relative by his wilful conduct creates a situation which\nhe  knows   will drive the woman to commit suicide  and\t she\nactually  does so, the case would squarely fall\t within\t the\nambit of section 306, IPC. In such a case the conduct of the\nperson\t would\ttantamount  to\tinciting  or  provoking\t  or\nvirtually  pushing the woman into a desperate act.  In\tthis\ncase it would seem from past events that it was a  carefully\nchalked\t out  strategy\tto provoke the\twoman  into  killing\nherself. [800H-801A, 801E]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       793\n     8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,\nthe  trial  court had rightly convicted\t the  husband  under\nsection\t 306  IPC.  The High Court  committed  an  error  in\nreversing  the\tconviction.  The plea for reduction  of\t his\nsentence cannot be countenanced.  [801F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n325 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  9.11.1984  of\t the
\nPunjab\tand Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 132-SB  of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Amita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Appellant.
\n     R.L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli, G.S. Rao and Ms. C.  Markandeya
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     AHMADI,  J.  Mohinder Kaur set herself  and  her  three
\nchildren  ablaze on the afternoon of 7th June, 1983, at\t the
\nresidence  of  her husband Iqbal Singh.\t  The  marriage\t had
\ntaken  place seven or eight years before the incident.\t She
\nhad  given birth to two daughters and a son.   The  deceased
\nwas  working as a teacher while her husband was a  clerk  in
\nthe Punjab State Electricity Board office at Amritsar.\tSoon
\nafter  the marriage there were disputes between them on\t the
\nquestion of dowry.  The demand for extra dowry strained\t the
\nrelations  between them and the husband began  to  ill-treat
\nthe deceased wife.  It appears that in course of time  there
\nwas further deterioration in their relationship as a  result
\nwhereof\t the  deceased had written a letter  to\t the  Deputy
\nSuperintendent\tof Police on 12th October, 1977\t complaining
\nabout  the ill-treatment meted out to her  and\tapprehending
\ndanger\tto  her\t life and the life  of\ther  children.\t She
\ntherefore,  sought police protection.  However, by the\ttime
\nthe  police came to inquire into the matter there  was\tsome
\nunderstanding  as  a result of which has  had  informed\t the
\npolice\tthat no further action be taken for the present\t but
\nher application may be kept pending.  Then on 31st December,
\n1977 a divorce deed Exh. D-2 was executed but was not  acted
\nupon.  It seems that the situation did not improve and as  a
\nresult\tshe took the extreme step of putting an end  to\t her
\nlife  as well as the lives of her three children  since\t she
\napprehended that their fate would be worse after her  death.
\nHowever,  before  putting  an end to her life  she  wrote  a
\nletter\tthat  very  morning which  has\tbeen  reproduced  in
\nextenso in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial  court.
\nThe text of that letter dated 7th June, 1983
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       794<\/span>
\naddressed  to  the  Deputy Commissioner\t of  Police,  Public
\nDealing\t Branch,  Amritsar,  shows  that  her  husband\t was
\ndemanding Rs.35,000 to Rs.40,000 by way of additional  dowry
\nand  was ill-treating her under the influence of alcohol  on
\nthat  account.\tShe also alleged that her mother-in-law\t and
\nsister-\t in-law\t also conspired and made  false\t accusations
\nagainst\t her and instigated her husband to beat her  if\t she
\nrefused\t to  bring the additional dowry.  She  alleges\tthat
\nthey  had  conspired to kill her on the night of  6th  June,
\n1983  by  sprinkling kerosene\/petrol on her but\t their\tplan
\nmisfired.  She was fed up on account of the beating given to
\nher that night.\t She further alleged that her children\twere
\nalso ill-treated by her husband and his family members.\t  On
\naccount of these developments she had taken the decision  to
\nput  an end her life and the lives of her children to  spare
\nthem  of the present and future agony.\tAt the foot  of\t the
\nletter\tshe  appended a note to the effect that\t even  after
\ntheir death she apprehended that her husband and his  family
\nmembers\t may  try to cause physical harm to her\t mother\t and
\nyounger\t brother and requested the police to extend to\tthem
\nthe  necessary\tprotection.  She implores that\ther  salary,
\nG.P.  Fund and other monetary benefits to which she  may  be
\nentitled from the school authorities should not fall in\t the
\nhands  of her husband and his relatives and may be given  to
\nsome  school  or orphanage and her ornaments,  etc.  may  be
\nrecovered  from her in-laws and be returned to her  parents.
\nAnother letter of even date was addressed to her mother (her
\nfather having since died) stating that she was fed up of the
\ncontinuous tension, suffering and agony that her mother\t had
\nto  go\tthrough\t on her account as she could  not  meet\t the
\ndemand for extra dowry.\t She also states that apart from her
\nhusband\t demanding extra dowry he has started  making  false
\naccusations  against her and beating her time and  again  on
\nthat account.  She further alleges that her husband’s mother
\nand sister were privy to this beating by her husband but she
\nhad  somehow  survived.\t Then she adds\t`today\tI  alongwith
\nthree children am sacrificing by fire’.\t She ends the letter
\nby stating that her mother need not think that her  daughter
\nwas dead, in fact she will gain freedom from seven years  of
\nhell.  In the letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of
\nPolice there is reference to the earlier  application\/letter
\ndated  12th October, 1977 by which she had complained  about
\npossible risk to life.\tIt appears from the said letter that
\nthe  police had gone to inquire into the matter\t two  months
\nlater  on  11th December, 1977 but during  that\t intervening
\nperiod\tthe relatives of her husband had intervened and\t had
\ntemporarily  patched up the matter.  It was for that  reason
\nthat she informed the police that no action was\t immediately
\nnecessary but still she insisted that her application may be
\nkept pending, Thus this subsequent letter contains intrinsic
\nevidence about her
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       795<\/span>
\nprevious application dated 12th October, 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     After the unfortunate incident which took place on\t the
\nafternoon  of 7th June, 1983 a First Information Report\t was
\nlodged against the husband Iqbal Singh, by the mother of the
\ndeceased.   After investigation the husband, his mother\t and
\nsister\twere  put  up  for trial.  The\tTrial  Court  on  an
\nexamination  of the prosecution evidence convicted  all\t the
\nthree  accused persons under Section 306, IPC and  sentenced
\nthe  husband Iqbal Singh to rigorous imprisonment for  seven
\nyears\tand  a\tfine  of  Rs.5,000,  in\t default,   rigorous
\nimprisonment for one year.  So far as the other two  accused
\nwere  concerned,  having regard to their role and  the\tfact
\nthat  the mother was an aged and frail woman,  he  sentenced
\nthem to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine  of
\nRs.1,000  each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for  three
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
     Against  this order of conviction and sentence all\t the
\nthree  accused persons preferred an appeal before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The High Court on a reappreciation of the  evidence
\nand  having regard to the language of Section 306, IPC\tcame
\nto  the\t conclusion that the prosecution  evidence  did\t not
\nestablish the ingredients of the section, in that, there was
\nno  evidence to show that any of the accused was  guilty  of
\nabetment.  In this view that the High Court took, it allowed
\nthe  appeal  and  set  aside the  order\t of  conviction\t and
\nsentence  passed  against the appellants.   The\t State\thas,
\ntherefore,  approached this Court by way of  special  leave.
\nIn  the\t meantime the accused Manjit Kaur has  passed  away.
\nThe  appeal  is, therefore, limited to Iqbal Singh  and\t his
\nsister Kulwant Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel  for  the State of Punjab took us\tthrough\t the
\nevidence on record, particularly the letters dated 7th June,
\n1983 and submitted that this was a clear case of the husband
\nand  his  sister  creating conditions  which  compelled\t the
\ndeceased to take the extreme step of burning herself and her
\nchildren.  The evidence of Dr. Harjinder Singh who performed
\nautopsy has not been disputed before us.  His evidence shows
\nthat  the  deaths of all had resulted on  account  of  shock
\nsustained  due\tto excessive burns.  PW 2 Jasbir  Kaur,\t the
\nmother of the deceased, says that her daughter complained to
\nher  from time to time about the ill-treatment meted out  to
\nher by her husband on his own and at the instigation of\t his
\nmother\tand  sister.   She has also stated  that  this\till-
\ntreatment  was\tdue to failure of the deceased to  meet\t his
\ndemand\tfor extra dowry.  She received a message  about\t the
\nincident  while\t she  was  at  her  brother’s  residence  in
\namritsar.   She and her son went to the hospital and  learnt
\nthat her daughter and grand children had passed
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       795<\/span>
\nprevious application dated 12th October, 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     After the unfortunate incident which took place on\t the
\nafternoon  of 7th June, 1983 a First Information Report\t was
\nlodged against the husband Iqbal Singh, by the mother of the
\ndeceased.   After investigation the husband, his mother\t and
\nsister\twere  put  up  for trial.  The\tTrial  Court  on  an
\nexamination  of the prosecution evidence convicted  all\t the
\nthree  accused persons under Section 306, IPC and  sentenced
\nthe  husband Iqbal Singh to rigorous imprisonment for  seven
\nyears  and  a  fine  of\t Rs.  5,000,  in  default,  rigorous
\nimprisonment for one year.  So far as the other two  accused
\nwere  concerned,  having regard to their role and  the\tfact
\nthat  the mother was an aged and frail woman,  he  sentenced
\nthem to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine  of
\nRs.1,000  each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for  three
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
     Again  this  order of conviction and sentence  all\t the
\nthree  accused persons preferred an appeal before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The High Court on a reappreciation of the  evidence
\nand  having regard to the language of Section 306, IPC\tcame
\nto  the\t conclusion that the prosecution  evidence  did\t not
\nestablish the ingredients of the section, in that, there was
\nno  evidence to show that any of the accused was  guilty  of
\nabetment.  In this view that the High Court took, it allowed
\nthe  appeal  and  set  aside the  order\t of  conviction\t and
\nsentence  passed  against the appellants.   The\t State\thas,
\ntherefore,  approached this Court by way of  special  leave.
\nIn  the\t meantime the accused manjit Kaur has  passed  away.
\nThe  appeal  is, therefore, limited to Iqbal singh  and\t his
\nsister Kulwant Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel  for  the State of Punjab took us\tthrough\t the
\nevidence on record, particularly the letters dated 7th June,
\n1983 and submitted that this was a clear case of the husband
\nand  his  sister  creating conditions  which  compelled\t the
\ndeceased to take the extreme step of burning herself and her
\nchildren.  The evidence of Dr. Harjinder Singh who performed
\nautopsy has not been disputed before us. His evidence  shows
\nthat  the  deaths of all had resulted on  account  of  shock
\nsustained  due\tto excessive burns. PW 2  Jasbir  Kaur,\t the
\nmother of the deceased, says that her daughter complained to
\nher  from time to time about the ill-treatment meted out  to
\nher by her husband on his own and at the instigation of\t his
\nmother\tand  sister.   She has also stated  that  this\till-
\ntreatment  was\tdue to failure of the deceased to  meet\t his
\ndemand\tfor extra dowry.  She received a message  about\t the
\nincident  while\t she  was  at  her  brother’s  residence  in
\nAmritsar.  She and her son went to the hospital\t and  learnt
\nthat her daughter and grand children had passed
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       796<\/span>
\naway.\tShe  then deposed to have received a letter  of\t 7th
\nJune, 1983 on 9th June, 1983.  In her cross-examination\t it
\nwas brought out that she had not pointed an accusing  finger
\nat the mother and sister of accused Iqbal Singh.  She  tried
\nto  explain the absence of allegation against the  said\t two
\npersons\t on the ground that she was confused on\t account  of
\nthe  tragedy.  She further deposed that she had omitted\t the
\nnames  of two ladies because of pressure exerted on  her  by
\nIqbal\tsingh.\t Obviously  her\t explanation  cannot   carry
\nconviction because it is difficult to believe that she would
\nsubmit\tto the pressure of Iqbal Singh whom  she  considered
\nprimarily responsible for the death of her daughter and grand
\nchildren.   It may also be mentioned at this  stage  accused
\nKulwant\t Kaur is a married women who lives with her  husband
\nin another village.  There is no evidence on record to\tshow
\nthat she was at the residence of her brother on the date  of
\nthe incident or immediately prior thereto  to instigate\t her
\nbrother.   PW  Santosh Singh, brother of the  deceased,\t has
\nmaintained  that  accused Iqbal Singh was  ill-treating\t his
\nsister\tsoon  after marriage as the latter was not  able  to
\nmeet  his demand for extra dowry.  He further  deposed\tthat
\nafter the death of his father his mother had received a\t sum
\nof  Rs.60,000  or thereabouts by way of provident  fund\t and
\ngratuity  and when the accuse Iqbal Singh learnt  about\t the
\nsame  he  pressurised  the  deceased  to  secure  a  sum  of
\nRs.40,000 or thereabouts from that amount to meet his demand
\nfor  extra dowry.  He had gone with his mother PW  2  Jasbir
\nKaur to the hospital after learning about the incident.\t  In
\ncross-examination he was questioned about the purchase of  a
\nplot  in  the  name  of the deceased  by  Iqbal\t Singh.\t He,
\nhowever, stated that his father had given a sum Rs.20,000 or
\n21,000 for purchase of this plot although he could not state
\nthe exact price at which it was purchased.  The two letters,
\none  addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and\t the
\nother  to  the mother dated 7th June 1983, have\t been  duly
\nproved\tby  the prosecution.   These  letters  were  written
\nimmediately before she put an end to her life and the  lives
\nof  her\t three children.  These letters\t reveal\t her  plight
\nimmediately  before the incident.  There is a mention  about
\nan  attempt  on the part of her husband to kill her  on\t the
\npreceding  day.\t She  apprehended that\ther  children  would
\nsuffer\tintolerable  miseries  if  they\t survived  her\tand,
\ntherefore,  she took the extreme decision to put an  end  to
\ntheir lives also along with her.  This letter clearly brings
\nout  her  turmoil whereunder she took the  extreme  step  of
\nputting\t an  end to her life.  The earlier  letter  of\t12th
\nOctober, 1977 also shows that she was being ill-treated soon
\nafter her marriage.  The divorce deed produced at Exh.\t D-2
\nis dated 30th November, 1977.  This would show that by\tthat
\ntime  the relatives had intervened and, therefore, when\t the
\npolice came to inquire on 11th December, 1977 she told\tthem
\nthat
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       797<\/span>
\nthere was no immediate danger but her application should  be
\nkept pending.  Considerable emphasis was laid by the learned
\ncounsel\t for the respondents on the statement in  Exh.\t D-2
\nattributed to the deceased that she had been forced to marry
\nIqbal  Singh. Emphasis was also laid on the  post-script  at
\nthe  foot  of the said document made by Iqbal Singh  to\t the
\neffect\tthat  he  has agreed to a  divorce  since  his\twife
\ndesires\t it.   From  these two statements  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents  argued  that  the accused Iqbal  Singh  had  no
\ngrudge against his wife and had expressed his willingness to
\nput  an\t end  to the marital relationship  as  his  wife  so
\ndesired.   He  also  submitted that  the  statement  of\t the
\ndeceased  that she was forced to marry Iqbal Singh  went  to
\nshow  that  it\twas she who was keen to put an\tend  to\t the
\nrelationship as she did not desire to live with Iqbal Singh.
\nBut  counsel  overlooks\t the fact that\tthere  is  intrinsic
\nevidence  inthe\t divorce deed that their  marital  life\t was
\nunhappy\t and she apprehended blood shed as well as  harm  to
\nthe  children even after they parted company.  Counsel\tthen
\nreferred  to  letter  Exh. D-1 April, 1983  written  by\t the
\ndeceased to one Gopal Singh complaining about the  behaviour
\nof the Headmaster towards her.\tBy that letter she expressed
\nher  desire to secure a transfer from the school to get\t rid
\nof  the harassment meted out to her by the  Headmaster.\t  In
\nthis letter there is a mention that her husband Iqbal  Singh
\nwas  spending  considerable time in correspondable  time  in
\ncorrespondence\twith  the  Headmaster.\t From  this   letter
\ncounsel\t for  the respondents submitted\t that  the  deceased
\ncould  have committed suicide on account of  the  harassment
\ncaused\tto  her by the Headmaster of the school.   But\tthat
\ndoes  not explain the killing of the children.\tThis  letter
\nwas  written  on 17th April, 1983 whereas  the\tincident  in
\nquestion  occurred  on 7th June, 1983 i.e. more\t than  1-1\/2
\nmonths thereafter.  The immediate cause for the extreme step
\ntaken  by  the\tdeceased is clearly  reflected\tin  the\t two
\nletters\t of 7th June, 1983.  Therefore, the inference  drawn
\nby  the learned counsel for the respondents from the  letter
\nof 17th Aril, 1983 cannot advance the defence set up by\t the
\naccused\t persons.   Iqbal Singh filed  a  written  statement
\njointly with Kulwant Kaur wherein he stated that he had\t not
\nhelped\this  wife  to secure a transfer as  the\t family\t was
\nhaving a good residence in the village and this was the real
\ncause of quarrel between the two.  The statement shows\tthat
\nthe  factum of quarrel between the husband and wife  is\t not
\nseriously  disputed.   The nature of correspondence  he\t was
\ncarrying  on with the Headmaster is not difficult to  judge.
\nHe then states that he had purchased the plot in the name of
\nhis wife for Rs. 12,500 but he does not disclose the  source
\nfrom which the consideration for the plot came.\t He  further
\nstates\tthat  his  wife was earning Rs.900  per\t month\tand,
\ntherefore,  he could never have entertained an intention  to
\npush her to committing suicide.\t It
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       798<\/span>
\nwould, therefore, appear from the evidence placed on  record
\nthat the relations between the deceased and Iqbal Singh were
\nstrained because of the latter’s demand for extra dowry\t and
\nthey worsened to such an extent that the deceased decided to
\nput an end to her life.\n<\/p>\n
     The  charge against the accused was under section\t306,
\nI.P.C.\t That  section must be read in the backdrop  of\t the
\nabove  facts.\tUnderthat  section  if\tany  person  commits
\nsuicide the person who abets the commission of suicide shall
\nbe  liable  to\tbe  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either
\ndescription  for  a term which may extend to ten  years\t and
\nfine.  The question is whether on the facts proved it can be
\nsaid  that either Iqbal Singh or his sister were  guilty  of
\nabetment.   Chapter  V\tof the Penal Code  is  entitled\t `Of
\nAbetment’ and comprises sections 107 to 120 of which we\t may
\nnotice\tsections 107 and 108 only. `Abetment’ as defined  by
\nsection 107 comprises (i) instigation to do that thing which
\nis an offense (ii) engaging in any conspiracy for the  doing
\nof  that thing and (iii) intentionally aiding by any act  or
\nillegal\t omission  the\tdoing of that  thing.\tSection\t 108
\ndefines an abettor as a person who  abets an offence or\t who
\nabets either the commission of an offence or the  commission
\nof  an act which would be an offence.  The word\t `instigate’
\nin the literary sense means to incite, set or urge on,\tstir
\nup,  goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc.  Since there  is
\nno  question  of  parties  being  engaged  in  any  sort  of
\nconspiracy  we\thave  to  consider  whether  there  was\t any
\nintentional  aiding for committing suicide.  The  dictionary
\nmeaning of the word aid is to give assistance, help, etc.
\n     Before  we come to grips with the question at issue  it
\nis necessary to notice a few legislative changes  introduced
\nin  the Penal  Code to combat the menance of  dowry  deaths.
\nThe increasing number of such deaths was a matter of serious
\nconcern to our law-makers.  Cases of cruelty by the  husband
\nand  his  relatives culminated in the wife being  driven  to
\ncommit\tsuicide or being done to death by burning or in\t any
\nother\tmanner.\t  In  order  to\t combat\t this  menance\t the
\nlegislature  decided  to  amend\t the  Penal  Code,  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code\t and the Evidence Act by  the  Criminal\t Law
\n(Section  Amendment) Act, 1983 (No, 46 of 1983).  So far  as
\nthe  Penal  Code  is  concerned, Section  498A\tcame  to  be
\nintroduced  whereunder\t`cruelty’  by  th  husband  or\t his
\nrelative  to  the  former’s wife is  made  a  penal  offence
\npunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend  to
\nthree  years  and  fine.  The  explanation  to\tthe  section
\ndefines\t `cruelty’  to mean (i) wilful conduct which  is  of
\nsuch  a\t nature as is likely to drive the  woman  to  commit
\nsuicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb
\nor  health  or (ii) causing harassment of the woman  with  a
\nview to coercing her or any person
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       799<\/span>
\nrelated to her to meet any unlawful demand for any  property
\nor   valuable  security.   Thus,  under\t this  newly   added
\nprovision if a woman is subjected to cruelty by her  husband
\nor  his relative it is a penal offence and by the  insertion
\nof  section 198A in the Code of Criminal Procedure  a  Court
\ncan  take cognizance of the offence upon a police report  or
\nupon  a complaint by the aggrieved party or by\tthe  woman’s
\nparents,  brother,  sister, etc.  The offence is  made\tnon-
\nbailable.   In so far as the  Evidence Act is  concerned,  a
\nnew section 113A came to be introduced which reads as under:
\n\t “113A.\t Presumption as to abetment of suicide by  a
\n\t married  woman.  When the question is\twhether\t the
\n\t commission  of suicide by a woman had been  abetted
\n\t by  her husband or any relative of her husband\t and
\n\t it is shown that she had committed suicide within a
\n\t period of seven years from the date of her marriage
\n\t and  that  her\t husband or  such  relative  of\t her
\n\t husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may
\n\t presume,   having   regard   to   all\t the   other
\n\t circumstances\tof the case, that such\tsuicide\t had
\n\t been abetted by her husband or by such relative  of
\n\t her husband.\n<\/p>\n
\t Explanation-For  the  purposes\t of  this   section,
\n\t `cruelty’ shall have the same meaning as in Section
\n\t 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”\n<\/p>\n
On a plain reading of this provision it is obvious that if a
\nwife  is shown to have committed suicide within a period  of
\nseven years from the date of marriage and there is  evidence
\nthat  she  was subjected to cruelty by her  husband  or\t his
\nrelative,  it would be permissible for the court to  presume
\nthat  such  suicide was abetted by her husband\tor  by\tsuch
\nrelative  of  her  husband.  The Amendment Act\t46  of\t1983
\nreceived the assent of the President on 25th December,\t1983
\nand  was  published  in the Gazette  of\t India,\t dated\t26th
\nDecember,  1983.  The trial court rendered its\tJudgment  on
\n23rd   February,  1984\tand  it\t does  not  appear  if\t the
\nprosecution concentrated on section 113A, Evidence Act,\t for
\notherwise it would have tried to  place on record the  exact
\ndate  of  marriage  to take  advantage\tof  the\t presumption
\narising\t thereunder.   The  High  Court\t referred  to\tthis
\nprovision  but\tdid  not  say  anything\t in  regard  to\t its
\napplication.   Being  a rule of evidence  it  could  perhaps
\nhave  been  invoked  if proof regarding the  exact  date  of
\nmarriage  was laid.  Since there is no cogent evidence\tthat
\nthe marriage was solemnised within seven years from the date
\nof incident we need not dilate on that point.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       800<\/span><\/p>\n
     The   law\t underwent  a  further\t change\t  with\t the
\nintroduction  of section 304B in the Penal Code and  section
\n113B   in  the\tEvidence  Act  by  the\t Dowry\t Prohibition
\n(Amendment) Act, 1986. Where the death of a woman is  caused
\nby  burns  or bodily injury or occurs otherwise\t than  under
\nnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage\t and
\nevidence  reveals  that\t soon  before  her  death  she\t was
\nsubjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any  of
\nhis relative for or in connection with any demand for dowry,
\nsuch  death is described as dowry death under  section\t304B
\nfor  which the punishment extends to imprisonment  for\tlife
\nbut not less than imprisonment for seven years.\t By  section
\n113B, Evidence Act, the court has to raise a presumption  of
\ndowry death if the same has taken place within seven ears of
\nmarriage  and  there is evidence of the\t woman\thaving\tbeen
\nsubjected to cruelty and\/or harassment.\n<\/p>\n
     The legislative intent is clear: to curb the menance of
\ndowry deaths, etc., with a firm hand.  We must keep in\tmind
\nthis  legislative intent.  It must be remembered that  since
\nsuch  crimes  are  generally committed\tin  the\t privacy  of
\nresidential  homes  and in secrecy, independent\t and  direct
\nevidence  is not easy to get.  That is why  the\t legislature
\nhas  by introducing sections 113A and 113B in  the  Evidence
\nAct tried to strengthen the prosecution hands by  permitting
\na presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are
\nestablished and the unfortunate event has taken place within
\nseven  years  of marriage.  This period of  seven  years  is
\nconsidered   to\t be  the  turbulent  one  after\t which\t the
\nlegislature assumes that the couple would have settled\tdown
\nin  life.   It a married woman is subjected  to\t cruelty  or
\nharassment  by\ther husband or his  family  members  section
\n498A,  I.P.C.  would  be  attracted.  If  such\tcruelty\t  or
\nharassment was inflicted by the husband or his relative for,
\nor  in\tconnection with, any demand  for  dowry\t immediately
\npreceding  death by burns and bodily injury or\tin  abnormal
\ncircumstances  within seven years of marriage, such  husband
\nor relative is deemed to have caused her death and is liable
\nto be punished under section  304B, I.P.C. When the question
\nat  issue is whether a person is guilty of dowry death of  a
\nwoman  and  and\t the evidence  discloses  that\t immediately
\nbefore her death she was subjected by such person to cruelty
\nand\/or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
\ndowry,\tsection 113B, Evidence Act provides that  the  court
\nshall  presume that such person had caused the dowry  death.
\nOf   course  if\t there\tis  proof  of  the   person   having
\nintentionally  caused her death that would  attract  section
\n302,  I.P.C. Then we have a situation where the\t husband  or
\nhis relative by his wilful conduct creates a situation which
\nhe  knows  will drive the woman to commit  suicide  and\t she
\nactually does so, the case would
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       801<\/span>
\nsquarely  fall\twithin the ambit of section 306,  I.P.C.  In
\nsuch  a case the conduct of the person would  tantamount  to
\ninciting  provoking  or virtually pushing the woman  into  a
\ndesperate  situation of no return which would compel her  to
\nput  an end to her miseries by committing suicide.   In\t the
\npresent case the facts clearly reveal from the divorce\tdeed
\nExh.   D-2  that the relations between the husband  and\t the
\nwife  were  strained  even  in\t1977.\tThere  is  intrinsic
\nevidence  in that document that the wife  apprehended  blood
\nshed and harm to her children.\tBefore the execution of this
\ndocument   she\t had  sought  police   protection   by\t her
\napplication\/letter dated 12th October, 1977.  Then in April,
\n1983 her efforts to secure a transfer from the school  where
\nshe  was harassed by the Head Master were frustrated by\t her
\nhusband.   Her husband had kept up the pressure\t for  extra-
\ndowry  since  her marriage and had stepped it up  after\t the
\ndemise\tof  her\t father\t on learning  that  her\t mother\t had
\nreceived  the G.P. Fund, Gratuity, etc., due to her  father.
\nSince  she and her mother and brother were not able to\tmeet
\nthis  demand  she  was subjected  to  considerable  torture.
\nAdded  to  that\t  was the anxiety caused  by  her  husband’s
\nconduct\t at  trying  to\t frustrate her\tefforts\t to  seek  a
\ntransfer  from the school where she was serving.   The\tlast
\nstraw on the camel’s back fell when she was severely  beaten
\non the previous day, i.e. 6th June, 1983 as is evident\tfrom
\nher  letter of 7th June, 1983.\tAn atmosphere of terror\t was
\ncreated to push her into taking the extreme step.  It  would
\nseem it was a carefully chalked out strategy to provoke\t her
\ninto  taking  the  extreme  step to  kill  herself  and\t her
\nchildren  as  she apprehended that they will  be  much\tmore
\nmiserable   after   she\t  is  dead  and\t  gone.\t   In\tthis
\nfact\/situation can it be said that the husband had not\tbeen
\nresponsible in creating circumstances which would provoke or
\nforce her into taking the only alternative left open to her,
\nnamely\tsuicide?  Can it be said that the  husband  did\t not
\nrealise\t where he was leading her by his wilful conduct?  We
\nthink  in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the  case,
\nthe  trial  court had rightly convicted\t the  husband  under
\nsection\t 306 I.P.C. We think that the High  Court  committed
\nan error in reversing the conviction.  We, therefore,  allow
\nthis  appeal, set aside the High Court’s order\tand  restore
\nthe  order  of conviction and sentence passed by  the  trial
\ncourt.\tWe cannot countenance the plea for reduction of\t his
\nsentence.  No order on his C.M.P.\n<\/p>\n
     So\t far  as his sister’s involvement is  concerned,  we
\nthink  the evidence falls short of proof  beyond  reasonable
\ndoubt and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the
\nHigh  Court’s  order.  We, therefore,  dismiss\tthe  State’s
\nappeal\tdirected  against her.\tHer bail  bonds\t will  stand
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       801<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1532, 1991 SCR (2) 790 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: IQBAL SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/05\/1991 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMI, V. (J) […]<\/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-236042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T05:29:08+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T05:29:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\"},\"wordCount\":4757,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T05:29:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T05:29:08+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991","datePublished":"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T05:29:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991"},"wordCount":4757,"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\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991","name":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T05:29:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-iqbal-singh-and-ors-on-10-may-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991"}]},{"@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\/236042","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=236042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236042\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}