CASE ANALYSIS

OF

RAJINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

BY
RAFID AKHTER
1nd YEAR,
FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI
Mob- 7869375111
Gmail- rafidakhtar8@gmail.com
RAJINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2321 OF 2009

APPELLANT: RAJINDER SINGH

RESPO NDANT: STATE OF PUNJAB

BENCH: T.S. THAKUR, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, PRAFULLA C. PANT

INTRODUCTION

India has been a strongly patriarchal society thanks to its cultural and non-secular factors. For
many years we've followed the social norm where women are considered to be inferior to men in
every aspect of life. Though with time, the paternalistic view has diminished to some extent but
the ideology of men supremacy remains intact. Women are restricted to household chores and
managing family is that the only duty. Following the same belief, the law which governs us and
thus the related jurisprudence reflects this women subjugation.

RAJINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

It was 1990 when the deceased Salvinder kaur was married to Rajinder singh. It was 1993 after
four years of the marriage, Salvinder kaur consumed aluminum phosphide, which is a pesticide,
as a result of which she died and her family members were informed about her death. On the
very same day a F.I.R. was logged against Rajinder singh and his family. A case was filed and in
the trail Rajinder’s brother and his wife were acquitted but Rajinder was held liable and he was
convicted and charged section 304-b of Indian penal code (45 of 1860).the section deals with
dowry death and Rajinder was given the minimum of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment,the high
court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The crime under section 304-b of I.P.C. which
made dowry death a specific offence punishable with minimum imprisonment of 7 years and
maximum of life imprisonment. The case is challenged in the Supreme Court on the basis of
impugned judgment of the high court. The court accepts the case for hearing and also accepts
Karnal sings’ testimony as it was duly accepted in both the lower courts. The Supreme Court in
February rejected the contentions and dismissed the appeal and stated that dowry death is a great
social evil practiced against women of this country for centuries. Section 304-b I.P.C. is a
stringent provision meant to combat the social evil of alarming proportions. Therefore, this
provision must be given fair pragmatic and commonsense interpretations so as to fulfill the
object sought to be achieved by parliament.

INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATED TO DOWRY DEATH

The United Nations (UN) has played an important role in battling violence against women,
including dowry deaths. United Nations since its initiation in 1945 has stated in its charted
preamble about the exploitation of women. It lays emphasis on the improved education of girls
been provided globally and to require stand against Dowry deaths, UNICEF in, publicly
condemned dowry deaths and therefore the legislative systems which allow the culprits to go
unpunished. In 2009, UNICEF launched its first Strategic Priority Action Plan for Gender
Equality, which was followed by a second Action Plan in 2010. Amnesty International criticizes
India for the occurrences of dowry deaths also because the impunity provided to its perpetrators.
ICCPR Article 18 and UDHR Article 6.1 speak about women cruelty and Dowry death: “The
Right to Life, Liberty, and Security and The Right to Freedom from Torture, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Under the 1993 United Nations Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women violence against women is defined as: “…any act of
gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological
harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”1

FACTS IN ISSUE

A fresh appeal was made within the Supreme Court for a replacement trial on the idea that the
deceased husband has no reference to the dowry death of the deceased and thus section 304-B of
IPC couldn't be established within the case. Whether she was subjected to any cruelty or
harassment soon before her death and therefore the same was in reference to the demand for
dowry. Whether the demand for money made shortly after one year of the wedding and she-
buffalo given by the daddy to the daughter as an olive branch may be a desire to accumulate or a
dowry demand. there's surely ambiguity within the language of the section. 15 days before the

1
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.21_declaration%20elimination
%20vaw.pdf, last visited 24/04/2020
fulfillment of another demand the deceased died, whether the death was in reference to dowry
death. The facts state that demands for money was made one after the opposite. There must be a
nexus between the stress of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and therefore
the date of death .As there's no test to see the nexus, therefore the nexus depends on the
circumstances of every case which is different .The rule of strict construction was questioned so
to know what might be the simplest statuary interpretation of the statue ,an inexpensive
construction of the Act ,coming now to the opposite important ingredient of Section 304B - what
exactly is supposed by "soon before” was discussed.

DECISION OF SESSION COURT AND HIGH COURT

The session court gave decision in favor of the deceased. Then case was filed in High court. A
case was filed and within the trail Rajinder’s brother and his wife were acquitted but Rajinder
was held liable and he was convicted and charged section 304-b of Indian legal code (45 of
1860).the section deals with dowry death and Rajinder was given the minimum of seven years of
rigorous imprisonment, the High court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The Court
confirmed the conviction and therefore the sentence vide the impugned judgment. After
Impugned judgment within the High court, appellant then moved to Supreme Court.

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT

A. It doesn't include complaints made in long interval to form a convict responsible for
dowry death. The complaints got to be made in briefly intervals.
B. The first and foremost ingredient required for Dowry Death wasn't fulfilled within the
given circumstances of this case.
C. The penal provision within the statute is to be strictly constructed.
D. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not show that any demand for 'dowry' as
defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. What was allegedly asked for was
some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS

A. The counsel for the State of Punjab reiterated the findings of both courts and argued in
support of the judgment of the High Court.
B. The counsel for the state appeals the court to set aside the deceased father testimony, as it
had been accepted by both the lower courts.

C. The definition of Dowry must include or consist of any property or valuable security. The
actual giving of such property or security is not necessary

D. The words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in
Section 304-B Indian Penal Code. For the presumptions contemplated under these
sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was
caused soon before the death.

DOWRY & DOWRY DEATH

According to section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the term “dowry” means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.

A. By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or

B. By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in
connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or Mehar in
the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).

In the case Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 2, the court held that, “Dowry”
within the sense of the expression contemplated by Dowry Prohibition Act may be a demand for
property of valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the wedding, i.e., it's a
consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or
guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. But where the demand for property or

2
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 1995 AIR HC 273
valuable security has no reference to the consideration for the wedding, it'll not amount to a
requirement for dowry.

In the case Rajeev v. Ram Kishan Jaiswal 3, the court held that any property given by parents
of the bride needn't be in consideration of the wedding, it can even be in reference to the
wedding and would constitute dowry.

The Supreme Court has held within the case Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of
Maharashtra4 that the mere demand of dowry before marriage is an offence.

In Bhoora Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 5, the court held that the deceased had before being
assail fire by her in-laws written a letter to her father that she was being ill-treated, harassed and
threatened with dire consequences for non-satisfaction of demand of dowry. Thus an offence of
demanding dowry under section 4 had been committed.

In Vemuri Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 6, the court has laid down the
subsequent guideline for establishing an offence under section 304(B) and that they are-

1. That there's a requirement of dowry and harassment by the accused,

2. That the deceased had died,
3. That the death is under unnatural circumstances. Since there was demand for dowry and
harassment and death within 7 years of marriage, the opposite things automatically
follow and offence under section 304-B is proved.

In the case of Orema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR SC 11 7 the court held that. one
among the essentials of dowry death is:

1. Soon before the death of the lady.

2. She was harassed as a result of dowry demands.

3
Rajeev v. Ram Kishan Jaiswal 1994 Cri LJ NOC 255
4
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of Maharashtra 2001 Cr LJ 2792 (SC)
5
Bhoora Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1993 Cri LJ 2636 All
6
Vemuri Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1992 Cri. LJ. 563 A.P
7
Orema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao,AIR SC 11
Dowry raises questions concerning one among the 2 great social evils practiced against the ladies
of this country for hundreds of years. To guard and safeguard the interest of girls section like this
helps to take care of law and order within the society.

DOWRY IN SOUTH ASIAN NATIONS

Dowry or demand may be a quite common practice in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and lots
of countries. it's the worth that the bride’s family has got to give to the groom’s household.
altogether the three countries these are considered as social evils and norms to regulate and stop
them are made. Women in South Asia are great victims of dowry system in our society, the
male-dominated society.

Bangladesh is combating the matter with legislation largely copied from that of India. Laws
prohibiting dowry in Bangladesh include the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980; Dowry Prohibition
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1982; and Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986. Dowry
isn't legal consistent with the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1980 in Bangladesh; however it's a good
practice system in Bangladesh.

Dowry Prohibition Act 1980, the Act is that the first law handling dowry in Bangladesh. It makes
dowry a criminal offence, originally punishable by a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment
or a fine of BDT500 (approximately USD 6.25) or both. This Act outlaws that taking and giving
dowry, and governs associated investigation and trial proceedings. In attempts to redress
deficiencies, it had been amended on variety of occasions. for instance, its 1986 amendment
increased the penalty for claiming dowry and made dowry a non-cognizable and non-bailable
offence (Ordinance 36 of 1986). Dowry Prohibition Act Clause 4 states that anyone demanding
dowry from an individual has committed a criminal offense. The law doesn't have any clause
stating punishment to misuse it. Therefore, the law is typically employed by women to harass in-
laws and husbands.

In Pakistan, dowry is known as Jahez in Arabic (derived from Islamic jahez-e-fatimi): Pakistan
Dowry (Prohibition of Display) Act, 1967; Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976.
Women's rights to inheritance break free the dowry is obtainable some protection within the
Muslim Personal Law of Shariat of 1948 and thus the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961.
Pakistan passed Dowry and Marriage Gifts (Restriction) Bill in 2008, unanimously. The bill
restricts dowry to PKR 30,000 (~US$ 300) while the whole value of bridal gifts shouldn't exceed
PKR 50,000. The law made dowry demands by groom's family illegal, also as public display of
dowry before or during the wedding as illegal. However, this and similar anti-dowry laws of
1967, 1976 and 1998, also as domestic relations court Act of 1964 have proven to be
unenforceable in Pakistan.

In India, dowry is known as Dahej in Hindi, and Jahez in Arabic (derived from Islamic jahez-e-
fatimi). In far eastern parts of India, dowry is known as Aaunnpot. Dowry could also be a
payment of cash or gifts from the bride's family to the bridegroom's family upon marriage. it's
going to include cash, jewelry, electrical appliances, furniture, bedding, crockery, utensils, car
and other home items that help the newly-weds found out their home

In India, the dowry system puts great financial strain on the bride's family. Payment of dowry is
now prohibited under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Indian civil law and subsequently by
Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian code (IPC). Despite anti-dowry laws in India, it's still a
typical illegal practice. Other laws attempting to affect the matter include the Dowry and Bridal
Gifts Restrictions Rules, 1976 and thus the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents
to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, which are intended to document gifts and provide
complainants with stronger evidence if prosecution for crimes against the bride occurs later.
Section 498A of the Indian code required the bridegroom and his family to be automatically
arrested if a wife complains of dowry harassment. The law was widely abused and in 2014, the
Supreme Court ruled that arrests can only be made with a magistrate's approval.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 304-b I.P.C

Dowry death is defined in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Also Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states the presumption as to dowry death.

A careful analysis of the above section brings to our notice that it has the following essentials:

1. The death of a woman should be accused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than
under normal under circumstances;
 2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband;
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be fore or in connection with demand for dowry.

Where a wife dies in the house of the husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage,
it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred
because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as to torture and harassment is
confined in the four walls of the house.

In order to arrive at the true construction of the definition of dowry and consequently the
ingredients of the offence under Section 304B, we first need to determine how a statute of this
kind needs to be interpreted. It is obvious that Section 304B is a stringent provision, meant to
combat a social evil of alarming proportions.

SECTION 498

This section provides a punishment for husband or his relatives for the subjecting woman to
cruelty and it provides that such a person will be imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3
years along with a fine. It states that cruelty means:

1. Willful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to suicide or causes grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health.
2. Harassment of a woman or her relatives to fulfill an unlawful demand for property or
valuable security.

In the recent case of Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of
20178 the court provided the criteria for when to apply section 498 –A. The test is given below:

● Setting up family welfare committees to process dowry harassment cases.

● The members who compromise the committee will be social workers
● Members to be paid in honorarium.

8
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017
 ● The police must look into the recommendations of this committee before making any
arrests.

SECTION 113 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

Section 113-b of the evidence act lays down that if soon before the death of such woman has
been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then
the court shall presume that such woman has died of Dowry Death.

The meaning of “Cruelty” for the purposes of these sections has to be gathered from the
languages as found in section 498-A and as per that section “Cruelty” means any “willful
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life etc. or harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT

Sati and Dowry Death has plagued the nation for centuries. The judgment by the 3 judge bench
of the Supreme Court tries to protect women against the orthodoxical traditions and greater evils
of society, which do not let woman, live freely like other individuals .Section 304B of IPC or
section 2 of dowry prohibition act is a stringent provision to combat a social evil of dowry death
with alarming proportions. The court found out and cleared the ambiguity in the definition of
Dowry and in all those terms which were becoming hurdle against providing justice.

The apex court made it clear that unless and until the facts of the case do not explicitly mention
that all those valuable gifts and goods are not in connection with Dowry then the person will be
held liable. The language of the statue for its interpretation was also given much weightage while
analyzing the ingredients of the case, which was therefore necessary to interpret the various
ingredients of a section 304-b.
The expression ‘soon before her death’ was the case of the town .This expression is pregnant
with the idea of proximity test. The term 'soon before' is not synonymous with the term
'immediately before' and is opposite of the expression 'soon after'. There must be the existence of
a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty supported dowry demand and therefore
the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough to not disturb the mental equilibrium of the lady concerned, it might be of no
consequence. We hasten to add that this is not a correct reflection of the law. "Soon before" is
not synonymous with "immediately before"

The Supreme Court held that demands for money were made one after another, after the
marriage. Money and She buffalo as peaceful offerings were given from time to time. The peace
offering was of no help and again the demand for money rose. The deceased father went and
requested that his daughter be not ill-treated. He assured that money would be given after the
harvest. Fifteen days before her death she visited her house complaining of ill-treatment. She
consumes Aluminum Phosphide as a result she died. The deceased was exposed to cruelty,
maltreatment and mental harassment soon before her death. The appeal was dismissed. And
justice was served.

Personal opinion

The major problem our judicial system has, is the falling acknowledge and judicial recognition
of rights of women. “DOWRY” as a practice is deeply rooted in Indian society, and it can't be
eradicated. The main reason that this practice can't be eradicated is the mentality, though, and
mindset of Indians. In India, a boy is formed highly educated so that parents can demand an
enormous dowry for him within the marriage. The more educated the person is, and therefore the
more stable his financial situation is, the more he gets dowry. Similarly, the oldsters of women
will educate those tons so that they will marry her to an upscale family. They're not hesitant in
giving dowry because this practice has now become a custom and despite many laws, a really
few percentages of offenders are convicted. This social evil can only be eradicated when there
would be a change within the mentality of the people. When people might understand that giving
and taking dowry is like selling your daughters and sons could also be from then the roots of the
practice would start eroding, and therefore the practice shall get eradicated but that period seems
to be very far away.
Indian judiciary needs feminization and it needs to protect rights of men and women equally.
Instead of taking measure to curb the menace of dowry, judgment has made things even better.
Women who raise voice against such violence and protest will fear to protest as they're going to
be either thrown out of their home but the judiciary will render them as a justice, this case is a
sheer example. Thus, the effect and purpose of law should be rechecked again by the judiciary at
all levels and it should do the needful.

REFERENCES

● Rajinder singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477

● Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra 1995 AIR HC 273
● Rajeev v. Ram Kishan Jaiswal 1994 Cri LJ NOC 255
● Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of Maharashtra 2001 Cr LJ 2792 (SC)
● Bhoora Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1993 Cri LJ 2636 All
● Vemuri Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1992 Cri. LJ. 563 A.P
● Orema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao,AIR SC 11
● Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Designation: Student of Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi

Rafid Akhter is a first-year law student at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi who is
pursuing B.A L.L. B (Hons.). He is primarily interested in the area of contract law, civil law and
criminal law. He is also seeking diplomas and certificate courses in these areas of law. Apart
from law, he has been an active participant in UN conventional programs and Model United
Nations. He is a skilled researcher and an experienced writer who wants to either go for the
judiciary or set up his own practice. By being part of Team ProBono, he is contributing to
society through legal aid.