For conviction under section 304B IPC, specific roles of the accused must be proved: Supreme Court of India
The trial court had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant No.2   namely,   the   mother­-in-­law   of the deceased had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting cruelty on vague statements are being made that the husband and in-law of the deceased had made a demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment. Such vague statements are not sufficient for conviction under section 304B IPC. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India before Hon’ble Justice N.V. RAMANA &amp; Hon’ble Justice A.S. BOPANNA &amp; Hon’ble Justice HIMA KOHLI in the matter of Kuljit Singh &amp; Anr.  vs The State of Punjab [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  572  OF 2012  ] on 08.12.2021 
The facts of the matter were that the deceased and accused no. 1 had been married in the year 1997 and the incident in question leading to the death of Manju had occurred on 02.03.1999. The death of the wife @ Manju was unnatural and occurred due to the consumption of insecticide.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trial court has referred to the evidence in detail and the   High   Court has reappreciated the same in its correct perspective,   to the extent of both the courts holding the appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   guilty,   convicting him and imposing the sentence in the manner as done, is justified and does not call for interference. The only aspect which requires consideration herein is whether the conviction and sentence handed down to appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani) are justified or not?

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that except for making vague statements to the effect that the husband and the in­laws of their daughter had made a demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant No.2   namely,   the   mother­in­law   of the deceased had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role and had also contended that she was not present in the house when the death of her daughter ­in ­law had occurred. Though the presence of appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established, the presence of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) was not spoken about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard to such demand being made by appellant No.2 or cruelty being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and held that the above evidence is not sufficient for conviction under section 304B IPC and acquitted accused no. 2 (Raj Rani).
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the matter were that the deceased and accused no. 1 had been married in the year 1997 and the incident in question leading to the death of Manju had occurred on 02.03.1999. The death of the wife @ Manju was unnatural and occurred due to the consumption of insecticide. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trial court has referred to the evidence in detail and the   High   Court has reappreciated the same in its correct perspective,   to the extent of both the courts holding the appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   guilty,   convicting him and imposing the sentence in the manner as done, is justified and does not call for interference. The only aspect which requires consideration herein is whether the conviction and sentence handed down to appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani) are justified or not?

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that except for making vague statements to the effect that the husband and the in­laws of their daughter had made a demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant No.2   namely,   the   mother­in­law   of the deceased had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role and had also contended that she was not present in the house when the death of her daughter ­in ­law had occurred. Though the presence of appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established, the presence of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) was not spoken about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard to such demand being made by appellant No.2 or cruelty being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and held that the above evidence is not sufficient for conviction under section 304B IPC and acquitted accused no. 2 (Raj Rani).
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trial court has referred to the evidence in detail and the   High   Court has reappreciated the same in its correct perspective,   to the extent of both the courts holding the appellant   No.1   (Kuljit   Singh)   guilty,   convicting him and imposing the sentence in the manner as done, is justified and does not call for interference. The only aspect which requires consideration herein is whether the conviction and sentence handed down to appellant   No.2   (Raj   Rani) are justified or not? 
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that except for making vague statements to the effect that the husband and the in­laws of their daughter had made a demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant No.2   namely,   the   mother­in­law   of the deceased had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role and had also contended that she was not present in the house when the death of her daughter ­in ­law had occurred. Though the presence of appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established, the presence of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) was not spoken about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard to such demand being made by appellant No.2 or cruelty being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and held that the above evidence is not sufficient for conviction under section 304B IPC and acquitted accused no. 2 (Raj Rani).
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that except for making vague statements to the effect that the husband and the in­laws of their daughter had made a demand for dowry and inflicted cruel treatment, the trial court had not referred to any specific instances where the appellant No.2   namely,   the   mother­in­law   of the deceased had been ascribed any specific role in making the demand and inflicting cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) had denied any role and had also contended that she was not present in the house when the death of her daughter ­in ­law had occurred. Though the presence of appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established, the presence of appellant No.2 (Raj Rani) was not spoken about. Apart from that, there is no specific evidence with regard to such demand being made by appellant No.2 or cruelty being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and held that the above evidence is not sufficient for conviction under section 304B IPC and acquitted accused no. 2 (Raj Rani).
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Chandigarh in CRA­S­307­SB of 2002. By the said judgment Penal Code was examined as PW1 and the mother of the deceased was examined as PW8 while another witness Bidhi Chand was appellant No.1. The evidence tendered by the said witnesses accepted by both the courts. In that background the evidence to organo phosphorous poisoning. Hence as noted the death was unnatural and there was demand for dowry. In those circumstances the further evidence of PW1 and PW8 the secure fulfilment of the said demand but the parents being It was also stated by them that during such visit she had mentioned about the ill­treatment meted out to her. But the Considering the fact that on all these aspects of the the High Court has reappreciated the same in its correct perspective to the extent of both the courts holding the appellant No.1 guilty convicting him and to whether the conviction and sentence handed down to the appellant No.2 is justified or not The learned counsel for the appellant in that regard has strenuously No.2 namely the mother­in­law of the deceased had been cruelty. As noted from the statement recorded under Section rightly noted by the trial court it had come in the evidence through the deposition of Bittu that he and appellant No.1 had taken the deceased to Dr. Kalsi and thereafter to Shri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Amritsar though the version given by the said witness was because she was pregnant. However it has been established that such shifting to poisonous substance being consumed. Therefore though the presence of the appellant No.1(Kuljit Singh) was established being inflicted by her pursuant to such demand. From the made that the husband and in­laws of the deceased had mother had done so without specifying their roles. However as appellant No.1 guilty but same would be we are of the opinion that the appellant No.2 is For the reasons stated above the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant No.1 is affirmed while the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant No.2 is set aside. The judgment dated 08.01.2002 in Sessions Case No.74 1999 and the judgment The appellant No.1 who is on bail shall 11. Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of