Page 1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2014
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1! o" 200)
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
#URMIT SIN#H .... RESPONDENT
J U D # M E N T
C$%&'(%)%*+, -(. P(%.%'
State of Punjab aggrieved by the order
dated 7
th
of September, 2005, passed by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal
Revision o! "20 of 2000 #hereby it has set
aside the order of the trial $ourt dated 2%
th
of &anuary, 2000 summoning the respondent
'urmit Singh to fa$e trial under Se$tion "()
Page 2
of the Code of Criminal Pro$edure, has
preferred this spe$ial leave petition!
*eave granted!
+a$ts lie in a very short $ompass! ,n the
basis of a report a $ase under Se$tion "0%- of
the .ndian Penal Code /for short 0.PC12 #as
registered at Poli$e Station, 3harar! .n the
first information report, the names of various
a$$used persons figured in$luding 'urmit
Singh, the respondent herein! Poli$e after
usual investigation, submitted the $harge4
sheet in #hi$h the respondent did not figure
as an a$$used! Ho#ever, the respondent along
#ith some other a$$used persons #ho #ere not
$harge4sheeted #ere summoned to fa$e the
trial! 5hey $hallenged the said order before
the High Court in Criminal 6is$! o! (57%46 of
())) and the High Court by its order dated 25
th
of +ebruary, ())) set aside the order
2
Page 3
summoning those a$$used persons in$luding the
respondent but #hile doing so gave liberty to
ta8e re$ourse to the provisions of Se$tion "()
of the Code of Criminal Pro$edure, hereinafter
referred to as the 0Code1, at an appropriate
stage of the trial! 9uring the $ourse of
trial, eviden$e of one Sha8untla Rani, P:4(
#as re$orded, #ho averred that the respondent
herein #as also responsible for the death of
'urjit 3aur, the #ife of Paramjit Singh!
5hereafter, an appli$ation #as filed by the
prose$ution for summoning aforesaid 'urmit
Singh and other a$$used persons before the
trial $ourt in e;er$ise of the po#er under
Se$tion "() of the Code! 5he trial $ourt by
its order dated 2%
th
of &anuary, 2000, summoned
the respondent besides other a$$used persons
to fa$e trial, for $ommission of offen$e under
Se$tion "0%- .PC, inter alia, observing that
the names of those persons figured in the +.R,
statement of the #itnesses re$orded under
3
Page 4
Se$tion (<( of the Code and the eviden$e of
Sha8untla Rani, P:4(!
Respondent $hallenged the aforesaid order
in a revision appli$ation filed before the
High Court inter alia on the ground that he
$annot be tried for offen$e under Se$tion "0%-
of the Code be$ause he is not a relative of
the husband of the de$eased! .t #as pointed
out that Paramjit Singh happened to be the
husband of the de$eased #hereas the respondent
is the brother of his aunt /$ha$hi2 and,
therefore, $annot be said to be a relative of
the de$eased1s husband! =foresaid submission
found favour #ith the High Court and,
a$$ordingly, it >uashed the order summoning
the respondent to fa$e the trial! :hile
doing so, the High Court observed as follo#s?
@Aven the di$tionary meaning of a
relative is one #ho is related by
blood or marriage! 'urmit Singh
is $ertainly not related to
Paramjit Singh either by blood or
by marriage! 'urmit Singh #ould
not fall in the $ategory of
4
Page 5
relative of the husband!
5herefore, 'urmit Singh must be
e;$luded from the array of the
a$$used! .t is not ne$essary to
try him under Se$tion "0%- .!P!C!
for the do#ry death of Paramjit
Singh1s #ife!
6r! B! 6adhu8ar, learned =dditional
=dvo$ate 'eneral appearing on behalf of the
State submits that the High Court erred in
holding that the respondent is not a relative
of the husband of the de$eased! He points out
that -albir 3aur is the #ife of Paramjit
Singh1s father1s brother and 'urmit Singh
respondent herein happens to be -albir 3aur1s
brother, hen$e, a relative of Paramjit Singh!
=$$ording to him, the High Court erred in
holding that he is not a relative of the
husband of the de$eased! 6r! C!9! Singh,
learned $ounsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, ho#ever, submits that the
respondent $annot be said to be related to the
husband of the de$eased in any manner and,
therefore, $annot be prose$uted for offen$e
5
Page 6
under Se$tion "0%- of the .PC! 5he rival
submission ne$essitates the e;amination of
Se$tion "0%- of the .PC, same reads as
follo#s?
C/04B. Do0(1 '2%3$!D/(2 :here the
death of a #oman is $aused by any
burns or bodily injury or o$$urs
other#ise than under normal
$ir$umstan$es #ithin seven years
of her marriage and it is sho#n
that soon before her death she #as
subje$ted to $ruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of
her husband for, or in $onne$tion
#ith, any demand for do#ry, su$h
death shall be $alled @do#ry
deathC, and su$h husband or
relative shall be deemed to have
$aused her death!
A;planation!D+or the purpose of
this sub4se$tion, @do#ryC shall
have the same meaning as in
se$tion 2 of the 9o#ry Prohibition
=$t, ()<( /27 of ()<(2!
/22 :hoever $ommits do#ry death
shall be punished #ith imprison4
ment for a term #hi$h shall not be
less than seven years but #hi$h
may e;tend to imprisonment for
life!C
/underlining ours2
6
Page 7
+rom a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision it is evident that #hen a #oman dies
by any burns or bodily injury or other#ise
than under normal $ir$umstan$es #ithin seven
years of the marriage, her husband or any
relative of her husband shall be deemed to
have $ommitted the offen$e of do#ry death if
it is sho#n that soon before the death the
#oman #as subje$ted to $ruelty or harassment
by her husband, or by any relative of her
husband! 5his se$tion therefore, e;poses the
husband of the #oman or any relative of her
husband for the $ommission of offen$e of the
do#ry death! =dmittedly, the respondent is
not the husband of the #oman #ho died and,
therefore, the >uestion #hi$h falls for
determination is as to #hether he $omes #ithin
the ambit of @any relative of her husbandC!
5he e;pression @relativeC has not been defined
in the .PC! 5he provision #ith #hi$h #e are
$on$erned is a penal provision #hi$h deserves
7
Page 8
stri$t $onstru$tion! .t is #ell settled that
#hen the #ords of a statute are not defined,
it has to be understood in their natural,
ordinary or popular sense! +or this purpose,
it shall be permissible to refer to
di$tionaries to find out the general sense in
#hi$h the #ord is understood in $ommon
parlan$e! .n Ramanatha =iyar1s, =dvan$e *a#
*e;i$on /Bol!%, "
rd
Adn!2, the #ord relative
means any person related by blood, marriage or
adoption! = large number of di$tionaries give
this #ord relative, in $onte;t, same meaning!
.t is relevant here to state that the
e;pression @relative of the husbandC has been
used in Se$tion %)74= of the .!P!C! :hile
interpreting the said e;pression, this Court
in the $ase of U. S*423$% 4.. S3%32 51
I&.6273o( o" Po+,72 %&' A&(.(200!) SCC 787
held it to mean a person related by blood,
marriage or adoption! Relevant portion of the
judgment reads as follo#s?
8
Page 9
810! .n the absen$e of any
statutory definition, the term
@relativeC must be assigned a
meaning as is $ommonly understood!
,rdinarily it #ould in$lude
father, mother, husband or #ife,
son, daughter, brother, sister,
nephe# or nie$e, grandson or
granddaughter of an individual or
the spouse of any person! 5he
meaning of the #ord @relativeC
#ould depend upon the nature of
the statute! .t prin$ipally
in$ludes a person related by
blood, marriage or adoption!C
5he e;pression relative of the husband
further $ame up for $onsideration in the $ase of
V,923% #%9(% 4.. S3%32 o" NCT o" D2+$, (2010)11
SCC 18 and #hile approving the de$ision of this
Court in U. S*423$% (S*6(%): it #as held that
the #ord relative #ould be limited only to the
blood relations or the relations by marriage!
.t is appropriate to reprodu$e the follo#ing
passage from the said judgment?
@12! Relying on the di$tionary
meaning of the #ord @relativeC and
further relying on Ramanatha
=iyar1s, =dvan$e *a# *e;i$on
/Bol!%, "
rd
Adn!2, the Court #ent
on to hold that Se$tion %)74= .PC
being a penal provision #ould
9
Page 10
deserve stri$t $onstru$tion and
unless a $onte;tual meaning is
re>uired to be given to the
statute, the said statute has to
be $onstrued stri$tly! ,n that
behalf the Court relied on the
judgment in T. A.$o; P%, 4.. CIT
(2007) 7 SCC 12! = referen$e #as
made to the de$ision in S$,47$%(%&
L%+ V2()% 4.. S3%32 o" M.P. (2007)
1< SCC /!! =fter >uoting from
various de$isions of this Court,
it #as held that referen$e to the
#ord @relativeC in Se$tion %)74=
.PC #ould be limited only to the
blood relations or the relations
by marriage!C
.t is #ell 8no#n rule of $onstru$tion
that #hen the *egislature uses same #ords in
different part of the statute, the presumption
is that those #ords have been used in the same
sense, unless displa$ed by the $onte;t! :e do
not find anything in $onte;t to deviate from
the general rule of interpretation! Hen$e, #e
have no manner of doubt that the #ord
@relative of the husbandC in Se$tion "0% - of
the .PC #ould mean su$h persons, #ho are
related by blood, marriage or adoption! :hen
#e apply this prin$iple the respondent herein
10
Page 11
is not related to the husband of the de$eased
either by blood or marriage or adoption!
Hen$e, in our opinion, the High Court did not
err in passing the impugned order! :e hasten
to add that a person, not a relative of the
husband, may not be prose$uted for offen$e
under Se$tion "0%- .PC but this does not mean
that su$h a person $annot be prose$uted for
any other offen$e viE! Se$tion "0< .PC, in
$ase the allegations $onstitute offen$e other
than Se$tion "0%- .PC!
.n the result, #e do not find any merit in
the appeal and it is dismissed a$$ordingly!
J
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
11
Page 12
NEW DELHI,
July 2, 2014.
12