IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.414-DBA of 1997 Date of Decision: January 07, 2008 State of Punjab .......Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar .......Respondent --- CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND --- Present: Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. The respondent-accused, though charged for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge recorded a finding on facts that it was not a case of murder but a case of abetment to suicide. 2. The prosecution plea was that the respondent-accused had strained relations with his deceased-wife on account of incapacity on the part of the latter to bring along certain demanded dowry articles. On Criminal Appeal No.414-DBA of 1997 -2- 6.1.1994, at about 9.10 P.M., the respondent-accused visited the natal house of his deceased-wife while he was under the influence of liquor. There, he informed his father-in-law that Geeta Rani should be immediately fetched from her matrimonial house or else she would either be driven out of the house or done away with. Jaswant Rai and his son Rajesh Kumar advised the respondent-accused to be more patient and followed him to his house to be able to find out the situation over there. The deceased cried before them and complained of severe belabouring at the hands of the respondent-accused. She also requested that she should be taken along to her natal house. Jaswant Rai returned to his house. However, Rajesh Kumar was told to stay over to watch things. During night, Rajesh Kumar slept in the very room which was occupied by the respondent-accused and latter's deceased-wife Geeta Rani. Rajesh Kumar got up on hearing commotion at night. On coming out of the room, he found the respondent- accused belabouring Geeta Rani. Rajesh Kumar spotted Surinder Kumar setting Geeta Rani afire after sprinkling kerosene oil upon her. In order to save herself, Geeta Rani ran inside the toilet. The respondent-accused bolted the door of the toilet from outside. Rajesh Kumar rushed to his home and narrated the entire occurrence to his father Jaswant Rai. By the time they reached the house of the accused, it was all over. Geeta Rani had died by that time. 3. The learned Trial Judge did not believe the prosecution version of the respondent having set Geeta Rani afire on the premise that it was unnatural for Rajesh Kumar to have refrained from physically coming to the rescue of Geeta Rani even when she was being set afire within his view. However, the learned Trial Judge convicted the respondent-accused for Criminal Appeal No.414-DBA of 1997 -3- offence of abetment to suicide. 4. The learned State counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argues that the very evidence which had been relied upon by the learned Trial Judge for recording an indictment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is equally competent for conviction of the respondent- accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. We do not buy the argument for the simple reason that the learned Trial Judge has recorded reasons, relatable to the material obtaining on the file and acceptable at law, for declining to indict the respondent for an offence of murder. The availability of Rajesh Kumar at the site of occurrence has been doubted for valid reasons. We agree with the reasoning by the learned Trial Judge that if Rajesh Kumar had actually witnessed the respondent belabouring and thereafter her being set afire by pouring kerosene oil upon her, the only natural reaction on his part would have been to come to her rescue and to take steps to extinguish the fire. The least he could have done was to open the door of the toilet which the respondent was alleged to have bolted from outside after Geeta Rani entered it in order to save herself. The refrain on the part of Rajesh Kumar from raising a hue and cry and attracting those living in the neighbourhood is also not acceptable at law as being a conduct unexpected of a brother who was already cognizant of the creases in the relationship of his sister Geeta Rani and her husband and he could very well see that she would perish unless the fire was put out. 6. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view obtained by the learned Trial Judge that it was a case of suicide by Mst.Geeta Rani on the abetment of respondent-accused. Criminal Appeal No.414-DBA of 1997 -4- 7. We would, accordingly, uphold the judgment recorded by the learned Trial Judge in toto and dismiss the appeal. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 07, 2008 SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No