GURMEET SINGH vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 1731/2010

Case under Section II-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010150162010

Filing Date

07-May-2010

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 1731/2010

Diary Number

15016/2010

Order Date

28-May-2021

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2021 INSC 299

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURMEET SINGH

    Adv. RISHI MALHOTRA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF PUNJAB HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARY

    Adv. JASPREET GOGIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-May-2021

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 28-May-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 28-May-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  5. 25-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 25-Feb-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  7. 18-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 18-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 10-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 10-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 18-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 10-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 05-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 07-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1731/2010

  15. [ 2021 INSC 299 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab (Crl.A. No. 001731/2010) The Supreme Court dismissed Gurmeet Singh's appeal against his conviction under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death), affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial and High Courts. The court found that the prosecution proved all essential ingredients: the deceased died by poison consumption within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances, and credible evidence established dowry demands and harassment in the months preceding her death. The appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, including through his fabricated defense that hospital records proved cordial family relations—the court found he forged these records while in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case