Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 Date of decision: 20.1.2011 Karamjit Kaur … Appellant Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. … JORA SINGH, J. Present Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 by Karamjit Kaur was directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2000 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 23.12.1997, arising out of FIR No. 94 dated 4.9.1997 under Sections 306/34 IPC, PS Sangat. By the said judgment, she was convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to a pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months. Co-accused Angrej Singh and Surjit Kaur were acquitted of the charge levelled against them, but against their acquittal, no appeal by the State or complainant. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Paramjit Singh, complainant, is the resident of Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. He was an Electrician and his shop was at Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. On 3.9.1997, his cousin brother Bhola Singh son of Bhura Singh, resident of Village Kotduna, came to Bathinda and requested him to accompany him (Bhola Singh) to Village Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 2 Jassi Baghwali to bring back his wife Karamjit Kaur because she was annoyed with him and had gone to her parental house. Complainant along with Bhola Singh at about 6.30 PM had boarded bus from Bathinda and at about 8.00 PM had reached the in-laws house of Bhola Singh at Village Jassi Baghwali. At that time, Karamjit Kaur w/o of Bhola Singh, his mother-in-law Surjit Kaur and brother-in-law Angrej Singh were present in the house. While they had entered the house of Karamjit Kaur, then accused side started quarrelling with Bhola Singh as to why he came. After that, Karamjit Kaur, Surjit Kaur and Angrej Singh were made to understand and settle the dispute amicably because the earlier dispute pending in the Court was disposed of. Then Karamjit Kaur and Surjit Kaur became silent. They sat in a room. There was electric light. Angrej Singh brought a bottle of country made liquor and from that bottle, they both had consumed two pegs each. Karamjit Kaur and Surjit Kaur started taunting brothers and sisters-in- law of Bhola Singh. Complainant came out of the room to urinate and after urinating when he had gone back to the room at about 10.00 PM, then heard Bhola Singh by saying to Karamjit Kaur, Surjit Kaur and Angrej Singh that they are harassing him and he is fed up from them. He cannot tolerate and does not want to lead that life. Then Bhola Singh had consumed insecticide from the vial lying there. After consuming insecticide, Bhola Singh became unconscious. When he tried to raise raula, then accused directed him to remain silent as nothing is to happen to Bhola Singh and he (Bhola Singh) will be all right. He was not allowed to leave the room. In the morning at 6.00 AM, Bhola Singh had expired. After escaping from the house of the accused, complainant came to Village Kotduna and incident was brought to the notice of Darshan Singh, brother of Bhola Singh. Then complainant Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 3 along with Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh, brothers of Bhola Singh, had gone to lodge a report in Police Station Sangat. Police party headed by SI Dinesh Kumar had met the complainant near Sangat crossing. At 5.00 PM, statement of Paramjit Singh (Ex.PG) was recorded and he has singed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement (Ex.PG/1) at 5.05 PM, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 7.00 AM on 5.9.1997. Police party headed by SI, Dinesh Kumar, IO, had gone to the spot. Photographer was arranged. Photographs of dead body (Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/5) were got clicked. Negatives are from Ex.PW4/6 to Ex.PW4/10). Inquest report (Ex.PC) was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination through Constable Pritam Singh and PHC Jagjit Singh. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. On 5.9.1997, supplementary statement of Paramjit Singh was recorded. Clothes worn by the deceased were produced before the IO and the same were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Accused were arrested. On 12.9.1997, accused suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered one vial containing some insecticide from the specified place. Vial was made into a sealed parcel and sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charged under Sections 306/34 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 4 In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses. PW1 Dr. Avtar Singh Dhillon on 5.9.1997 at about 9.00 AM had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bhola Singh. Cause of death was due to organo phosphorus poisoning and alcohol. No poison was detected. PW2 Paramjit Singh is the complainant and has reiterated his stand before the police. PW3 HC Malkit Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PH). PW4 Mukesh Sharma, Photographer, stated that he had taken photographs (Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/5) and negatives are from Ex.PW4/6 to Ex.PW4/10. PW5 Nirat Pal Singh is the Ex.Sarpanch of Village Kotduna and stated that Bhola Singh (deceased) was from his village. On 3.9.1997 at about 7.00 AM, he came and told him that his wife became annoyed and had left the house. She had gone to her parental house. He is going to bring her but she wanted that he (Bhola Singh) should reside separately from his parents. Bhola Singh further stated that whenever he had gone to his in- laws house, then they used to level false allegations. He is unable to tolerate all those allegations and would commit suicide. Assurance was given to Bhola Singh that panchayat is to be convened. Wife of Bhola Singh is to be persuaded. PW6 SI Dinesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer. PW7 SI Jagat Singh stated that on 12.9.1997, all the accused were produced before him. Karamjit Kaur suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered one vial containing some insecticide Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 5 from the specified place. Vial was made into a sealed parcel with seal bearing impression `JS’. Seal impression was prepared separately. Parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that on 3.9.1997 in the evening, Bhola Singh came to her house to take her. Liquor was served to Bhola Singh and he was treated nicely but he used to beat her. She was turned out of the house. Divorce petition and application for maintenance were instituted. She refused to accompany him in the evening. Early in the morning when they got up, then Bhola Singh was found lying dead on the double bed. Out of frustration or accidentally, he had taken insecticide. Hakam Singh was sent to inform brothers of Bhola Singh and Panchayat. Intimation was also sent to the police. In the morning, police came but due to pressure from the side of deceased, false case was got registered against them. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence was led. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 6 Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that appellant is the legally wedded wife of deceased. Before present occurrence, litigation was pending amongst the parties. On 3.9.1997, deceased had gone to the house of the appellant to bring back her but appellant was not agreeing to accompany the deceased. During night time, deceased had slept on a double bed. Next day in the morning, appellant came to know about the death of Bhola Singh. Intimation was given to the relations of Bhola Singh and Panchayat. Police was also informed. Whereas, prosecution story is that Paramjit Singh along with Bhola Singh had gone to the house of the appellant. They had taken liquor. Bhola Singh was instigated to commit suicide. Occurrence was on the intervening night of 3/4.9.1997, whereas report was lodged at about 5.00 PM on 4.9.1997. Presence of Paramjit Singh with the deceased at the house of the appellant is doubtful. If Paramjit Singh was with the deceased and stayed at the house of the appellant, then his conduct is not probable. In fact, Bhola Singh had litigation with the appellant. Bhola Singh had contacted Ex.Sarpanch and told that he is to commit suicide because appellant is not agreeing to accompany him. Ex.Sarpanch of Village Kotduna appeared as PW5 and categorically stated that Bhola Singh came in the morning on 3.9.1997 and stated that he is to visit the house of the appellant to bring her back. In case, she did not agree to accompany him, then he will commit suicide. Paramjit Singh while appearing as PW2, then stated that he along with Bhola Singh had gone to the house of appellant because appellant had left the house of Bhola Singh. Appellant was requested to accompany Bhola Singh. Appellant started quarrelling with Bhola Singh by saying for what purpose he has come. Surjit Kaur had used unparliamentary language. Parties were Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 7 requested to live peacefully and should not encourage further litigation. Liquor was served to them. They had taken liquor. Angrej Singh had also taken liquor from the same bottle. Appellant and her mother were raising objection. When he had gone to urinate and came back at about 10.00 PM, then had seen the appellant while quarrelling with Bhola Singh. Bhola Singh was saying that either appellant be allowed to live with him, otherwise he will commit suicide. Appellant was saying that he (Bhola Singh) is already dead for her. Complainant has not stated a word that his supplementary statement was recorded. In cross-examination, complainant admitted that house of the appellant was in the abadi. Appellant had filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ultimately, there was a compromise. But he cannot tell whether Bhola Singh had fractured arm of the appellant by giving a stick blow. He cannot tell whether Bhola Singh had given statement in the Court that he is to maintain the appellant. Then stated that he along with Bhola Singh was sleeping in the same room on different beds. Raula was not raised by him. Intimation was not given to the villagers. During night time, he stayed in the house of the appellant. He had not tried to restrain Bhola Singh from taking insecticide. His statement was recorded by the police at about 5/5.30 PM. Police was brought at the spot at about 6/6.30 PM. After departure of dead body, he came to Police Station Sangat, where his statement was recorded. Argued that if we presume that complainant was with the deceased on the intervening night of 3/4.9.1997 and the appellant had refused to accompany the deceased, then there was no abetment. Deceased was not instigated by the appellant to commit suicide. In fact, dispute was amongst the husband and wife. Bhola Singh requested his wife to accompany him but she (appellant) was not Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 8 agreeing. In case, appellant was to abet the deceased to commit suicide, then there was no idea to serve liquor and allow the deceased and the complainant to stay in the house during night time. If complainant was really with the deceased on the fateful night, then deceased should have been restrained by him from consuming insecticide. If deceased had consumed insecticide, then immediately complainant should have raised hue and cry. Appellant along with other family members was not armed. She along with other family members was sleeping in another room. Only deceased and complainant were in one room and the room was on the front side towards the street. By opening the door, complainant could easily raise hue and cry. In the morning on 4.9.1997, complainant came to know about the death of Bhola Singh but after that, he had gone to Village Kotduna. Matter was not brought to the notice of the police. All this shows that presence of Paramjit Singh, complainant, at the house of the appellant was not natural. Defence version seems to be more probable than the prosecution story. When appellant refused to accompany the deceased, then during night time, deceased seems to have consumed insecticide accidentally or intentionally. Appellant was liable for punishment under Section 306 IPC if she has instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On the basis of same evidence, two accused, namely, Surjit Kaur and Angrej Singh, were acquitted by the trial Court. Only the appellant was convicted because she is the wife of the deceased. Learned State counsel argued that unnatural death at the house of the appellant. Presence of Paramjit Singh with the deceased was natural because both had gone to request the appellant to accompany the deceased. Appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide by saying that she Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 9 was not to accompany him. He (deceased) should take insecticide by pointing finger towards the vial. Admittedly, Bhola Singh (deceased) was married with the appellant but out of this wedlock, there was no issue. This fact is also an admitted one that there was litigation amongst the appellant and the deceased. Appellant was staying with her parents. According to story, deceased along with complainant had gone to bring back the appellant but instead of accompanying the deceased, appellant and her family members had abetted the deceased to commit suicide, whereas defence version of the appellant is that deceased came alone and was kept nicely. Liquor was served. When appellant had refused to accompany the deceased in the evening on 3.9.1997, then during night time, deceased either accidentally or intentionally seems to have consumed insecticide. In the morning on 4.9.1997 when appellant party came to know about the death of Bhola Singh, then intimation was given to the family members of the deceased and panchayat. Police was also informed. Under pressure of the complainant party, false case was got registered. Now the question is whether the prosecution story inspires confidence or defence version seems to be more probable. Paramjit Singh is the main witness and while appearing as PW2, then stated that Bhola Singh came and requested him to accompany him (Bhola Singh) to visit the house of the appellant because appellant was not happy and agreeing to accompany him. He along with deceased had gone to the house of the appellant but appellant and her family members started quarrelling with the deceased by saying for what purpose he (Bhola Singh) came. Surjit Kaur also started abusing him but they were made to Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 10 understand because the litigation already pending has just ended. After that, appellant and her mother became silent. They were in the room. Liquor was served to them by Angrej Singh, but appellant and Surjit Kaur started taunting brothers and sisters-in-law of Bhola Singh. At about 10.00 PM, Paramjit Singh had gone outside to urinate and when came back, then heard Bhola Singh by saying that they are harassing him. He is fed up from them and does not want to lead that life. Bhola Singh then consumed insecticide and became unconscious. There is not a word in the Statement (Ex.PG) dated 4.9.1997 that appellant had instigated the deceased to consume insecticide. Ex.PG simply shows that complainant and Bhola Singh had gone to the house of the appellant with request to accompany Bhola Singh but appellant refused to accompany him. Then Bhola Singh had consumed insecticide. IO stated that supplementary statement of complainant was recorded but Paramjit Singh while appearing in Court, then has not stated a word that his supplementary statement was recorded. Paramjit Singh as PW2 stated that he along with Bhola Singh had gone to the house of the appellant to request the appellant to accompany Bhola Singh but when they entered in the house of the appellant, then appellant, her mother and brother started quarrelling with Bhola Singh by saying for what purpose he (Bhola Singh) has come. Surjit Kaur had used unparliamentary language. He had requested to live peacefully and should not encourage further litigation because previous litigation has just ended. After that, Angrej Singh has served liquor. He along with Bhola Singh and Angrej Singh had taken liquor from the same bottle. But appellant was uttering objectionable words. At about 10.00 PM, he had gone outside to urinate and when came back, then again had seen the deceased while quarrelling with the appellant. Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 11 Bhola Singh was saying that either appellant should be allowed to live with him, otherwise he (Bhola Singh) will consume insecticide. Appellant was saying that Bhola Singh is already dead for her. So, Bhola Singh should take insecticide and she will get another husband after his death. But all these facts were not disclosed to the police while making statement (Ex.PG). Complainant further stated that Bhola Singh had consumed insecticide. When he tried to raise alarm, then appellant replied that nothing is going to happen to Bhola Singh. He was directed to remain silent otherwise he will also face the same consequences. He was not allowed to go anywhere. At about 6.00 AM on the next day, Bhola Singh had expired. After leaving the house of the appellant by giving them a slip, he came to Village Kotduna but this fact was also not disclosed to the police when his statement (Ex.PG) was recorded. In cross-examination, Paramjit Singh stated that police station was at a distance of only 3 kms. from Village Jassi Baghwali. House of the appellant was in the abadi near Gurdwara. There are only two rooms in the house of the appellant. House is 10 feet wide and 85 feet in length. Father of the appellant had already expired before her marriage. Appellant had filed application for maintenance but he cannot tell whether deceased had fractured arm of the appellant by giving a stick blow. Deceased was sleeping on a single bed, He was occupying adjoining bed. He kept sleeping out of fear and had noticed the dead body of Bhola Singh at about 6.00 AM He cannot tell at what time, Bhola Singh had died. They were not turned out of the house by the appellant during night time. Appellant had only quarrelled with the deceased. Then stated that he was not knowing about the death of Bhola Singh during night time but only came to know about the death in the morning. He did not raise any raula Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 12 nor informed any respectable of the village. He had not gone to Police Station, Sangat. Then stated that he had tried to restrain the deceased from consuming insecticide. Paramjit Singh is the cousin brother of the deceased. Presence of Paramjit Singh with the deceased on the intervening night of 3/ 4.9.1997 at the house of the appellant is doubtful. He was carrying on business at Bathinda. In-laws of Bhola Singh were not under his control. He was not holding any position. So, there was no idea to contact Paramjit Singh to visit the house of the appellant to request her to accompany Bhola Singh. Suppose, Bhola Singh had contacted Paramjit Singh to visit the house of the appellant, even then presence of Paramjit Singh at the house of the appellant at the relevant time is doubtful. By entering the house of the appellant, there was some altercation amongst Bhola Singh and appellant. In the statement (Ex.PG), there is not a word that appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Deceased was requesting the appellant to accompany him but appellant was not agreeing. One party was levelling allegation against the other. Liquor was served to the deceased and the complainant. Complainant and the deceased were not directed to leave the house. Rather, they were kept nicely in the house. At about 10.00 PM, complainant had gone outside to urinate and when came back, then heard the deceased by saying that either appellant should be allowed to accompany him or he is to consume insecticide. If there was threat from the side of the deceased to commit suicide after the appellant refused to accompany him, then I am of the opinion that there was no instigation or abetment to commit suicide. In the presence of Paramjit Singh, deceased had consumed insecticide but no raula. After the deceased had consumed Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 13 insecticide, then by opening main gate, Paramjit Singh could easily come out and raise raula. During night time, Paramjit Singh kept sleeping in the same room on a separate bed. Very strange that during night time, Paramjit Singh remained silent and did not raise raula, particularly, when Bhola Singh had consumed insecticide. In the morning on 4.9.1997, Paramjit Singh instead of going to the police station, had gone to the village of the deceased. If out of frustration or on refusal of appellant to accompany the deceased, deceased had given a threat to consume insecticide, then he could easily be restrained from consuming insecticide, but no effort. After consumption of insecticide, no intimation to any one. Paramjit Singh was not a stranger. He was cousin brother of the deceased and if appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and deceased was consuming insecticide, then Paramjit Singh should have restrained him from consuming insecticide. After consumption of insecticide, there was no idea to sleep till morning. In the morning by leaving the dead body, quietly complainant had gone to Village Kotduna instead of going to the police station. So, presence of complainant at the time of occurrence is not natural. Conduct of the complainant also shows that his statement is not reliable. PW5 Nirat Pal Singh is the Ex.Sarpanch of Village Kotduna, i.e., village of the deceased, and stated that on 3.9.1997 at 7.00 AM, Bhola Singh came and informed him that he is going to bring back his wife but she is insisting that he should reside separately from his parents. Bhola Singh further disclosed to him that whenever he visited the house of his in-laws, then his in-laws used to level false allegations. He is unable to tolerate all those allegations and would commit suicide. He assured Bhola Singh that panchayat is to be convened. In cross-examination, he stated that when Crl.Appeal No.1239-SB of 2000 14 Bhola Singh was going to take his wife back, then he told him that in case his wife failed to return, then he will commit suicide. Statement of PW5 falsifies the prosecution story. From the statements of Paramjit Singh, Nirat Pal Singh and defence version, one thing is clear that deceased was not having cordial relations with the appellant. Appellant was residing separately with her parents. Deceased was requesting the appellant to accompany him but appellant was not agreeing. On 3.9.1997, deceased had gone to the house of the appellant with a request to the appellant to return back but in the evening, appellant refused to accompany the deceased. During night time, liquor was served. Deceased was kept nicely. When appellant refused to accompany the deceased, then during night time, either accidentally or intentionally, deceased seems to have consumed insecticide. In the statement (Ex.PG) dated 4.9.1997