The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a stern message to a man convicted of killing his wife over a dowry demand, firmly rejecting his plea for exemption from surrendering to serve his sentence.
The man, Baljinder Singh, had attempted to seek leniency from the court by citing his military background, claiming active participation in Operation Sindoor and serving as a Black Cat commando with the Rashtriya Rifles for over two decades.
However, the apex court made it unequivocally clear that valor on the battlefield does not absolve one of violence committed within the confines of one’s own home.
The case was heard by a bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Vinod Chandran also on the panel.
Singh had moved the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order, which had upheld the verdict of the Amritsar trial court convicting him of strangulating his wife to death in what was found to be a dowry-related killing.
In addition to the appeal, Singh had filed an application seeking an exemption from surrender until the top court reached a final decision on his case.
During the hearing, Singh’s counsel attempted to elicit sympathy from the bench by emphasizing his client’s longstanding service in the armed forces, stating:
“I will only leave my lord with one line — I am a participant in Operation Sindoor. For the last 20 years, I have served as a Black Cat commando posted with the Rashtriya Rifles.”
However, Justice Bhuyan was unmoved by this assertion. He responded sharply, saying:
“That only goes to show how physically fit you are, and the manner in which you could have killed your wife, strangled her.”
The bench made it abundantly clear that being part of a prestigious military operation does not entitle someone to impunity, especially when convicted of a heinous crime like dowry death.
Rejecting the exemption plea, Justice Bhuyan emphasized the gravity of the offence. He noted that exemptions from surrender are generally granted in cases where the sentence is short — such as six months to a year — not for serious crimes involving a decade of rigorous imprisonment.
“This is not a case for exemption,” the court said firmly. “The nature of the crime, the brutal way in which the woman was killed, shows this is far too serious for such a concession.”
Singh’s counsel also tried to question the credibility of the evidence, pointing out that the prosecution’s case hinged on the testimonies of two witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. But the court found this argument insufficient to warrant any immediate relief.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to grant any exemption from surrender. However, it issued a notice on Singh’s appeal, meaning that the court will examine the matter further in due course. In the meantime, the bench granted Singh two weeks to surrender himself before the authorities and begin serving his sentence, as ordered earlier.
Singh’s conviction dates back to July 2004, when a lower court in Amritsar found him guilty of strangling his wife to death and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code related to dowry death and domestic violence.
The case once again brings attention to the persistent issue of dowry-related violence in India, and the court’s observations served as a powerful reminder that national service, however laudable, cannot serve as a shield against justice in cases of domestic abuse and murder.
The judgment reinforces the court’s resolve to treat crimes against women with the seriousness they deserve, regardless of the accused’s background or professional achievements.