Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 1 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.3.2009 Sarwan Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking condonation of 79 days’ delay in filing the revision petition. It is stated that the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner mixed up the present case with decided cases and it went out of the mind of the clerk. On inquiry, the file was traced on 15.3.2009 and the petition was immediately drafted and filed on 16.3.2009. The mistake on the part of the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner, it is stated, is not intentional. In support of the application, affidavit of Janak Raj, clerk of the counsel for the petitioner has been filed. Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 2 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 Keeping in view the fact that the case had got mixed up with other cases which was later traced, there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. It is well-known that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred for the opposite side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 79 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 The revision petition has been filed by Sarwan Singh complainant against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for summoning Narinder Kaur wife of Gurmukh Singh, Swaran Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Daljit Kaur wife of Kulbir Singh and Harjit Kaur daughter of Gurmukh Singh all residents of village Bandala, Police Station Jandiala Guru, Tehsil and District Amritsar as additional accused has been dismissed. The prosecution case is that Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh on 9.11.2006 received information that a dead body was lying in front of the brick kiln of Ex-Sarpanch Baljinder Singh on the Tarn Taran road. The Sub Inspector went there and the dead body was identified to be that of Kulbir Singh son of Sher Singh of village Dal, Police Station Khaira. His relatives were informed on telephone. On 10.11.2006, Sarwan Singh (petitioner) and others came to the Police Post Bandala. The statement of Sarwan Singh (petitioner) was recorded which was to the effect that Daljit Kaur wife of the Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 3 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 deceased Kulbir Singh was suffering from some disease. On 7.11.2006, Kulbir Singh (deceased) and his wife Daljit Kaur had gone to meet Gurmukh Singh son of Karnail Singh at Lakhuwal Bandala. On 9.11.2006, Kulbir Singh (deceased) made a telephone call to his maternal uncle Satnam Singh informing him that his wife Daljit Kaur, father-in-law Gurmukh Singh, brother-in-law Swaran Singh, sister-in-law Harjit Kaur and mother-in-law Narinder Kaur were quarrelling with him and they were calling him by name. They had not only refused to send Daljit Kaur with him but had also kept his motorcycle and thrown him out of the house. On 9.11.2006 in the evening, the relatives of Kulbir Singh (deceased) received information about his death. Therefore, they were of the confirmed belief that Kulbir Singh (deceased) was constrained to consume some poisonous substance and had died. On the basis of the said statement, a case for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) was registered against Gurmukh Singh - father-in-law of the deceased Kulbir Singh and other members of his family. During investigation only Gurmukh Singh was arrested and he was charge-sheeted (challaned) by the Police. The other accused were not sent up for trial and were kept in column No.2 of the report that was filed under Section 173 CrPC. The learned Area Magistrate finding that the offence under Section 306 IPC was alleged, which was triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 17.2.2007. The accused Gurmukh Singh was charge-sheeted for having committed the offence under Section 306 IPC. During trial the statement of the complainant Sarwan Singh (PW2) was recorded in which he specifically named Narinder Kaur wife of Gurmukh Singh (mother-in-law of the deceased), Swaran Singh son of Gurmukh Singh (brother-in-law of the deceased), Harjit Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 4 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 Kaur daughter of Gurmukh Singh (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Daljit Kaur wife of the deceased Kulbir Singh as the persons who also ill-treated Kulbir Singh (deceased) and administered some poisonous substance to him. Accordingly, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning the said relations who are the in-laws of Kulbir Singh (deceased) as additional accused in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar after considering the evidence and material on record observed that the provisions of Section 306 IPC relate to the offence of abetment. Gurmukh Singh (father-in-law of the deceased) was facing trial and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. It was observed that the Court while considering an application under Section 319 CrPC is to evaluate and to appreciate whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are made out against the persons whom the prosecution wants to summon as additional accused. Besides, whether from the material on record, a conviction can be based on the same. After considering the evidence and material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was insufficient material to summon the persons as additional accused. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record which shows the involvement of Narinder Kaur, Swaran Singh, Daljit Kaur and Harjit Kaur in the case and therefore, they are liable to be summoned as additional accused in terms of Section 319 CrPC. A reference has been made to the statement of Sarwan Singh (petitioner) which was recorded on 10.11.2006 on the basis of which FIR has been registered. Besides, a reference has been made to the statement of Sarwan Singh (petitioner) recorded on 25.3.2008 and on 28.4.2008 while appearing as PW2. On the strength of the same, it is submitted that the learned trial Court Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 5 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 committed an illegality and an irregularity in not summoning the aforesaid persons as additional accused. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the case that has been registered is one of the abetment to commit suicide. Sarwan Singh (petitioner) in his statement recorded on 10.11.2006 has stated that Daljit Kaur wife of Kulbir Singh (deceased) was not feeling well and on 7.11.2006, she along with Kulbir Singh (deceased) had gone to her parental house of Gurmukh Singh. On 9.11.2006, Kulbir Singh (deceased) rang up his maternal uncle Satnam Singh at about 11’O Clock that his wife Daljit Kaur, his father-in-law Gurmukh Singh, brother-in-law Swaran Singh, Harjit Kaur sister of the wife of Kulbir Singh (deceased) and Narinder Kaur mother-in-law of Kulbir Singh were quarrelling and abusing him (Kulbir Singh). They were not sending Daljit Kaur with him and they had also kept his motorcycle with them and they pushed him out of the house. On 9.11.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant received information on telephone that Kulbir Singh had died and his dead body was lying on the road opposite the brick kiln of Baljinder Singh. On this Sarwan Singh (petitioner) and Harcharan Singh brother of Kulbir Singh and Satnam Singh son of Darbara Singh came to the Police Post in the morning on 10.11.2006 and found the dead body of his nephew was lying in the trolley. However, there was no mark of injury on his dead body. According to the petitioner his nephew Kulbir Singh had taken some poisonous substance because of the ill-treatment meted out to him by his in-laws. During investigation in the case except for Gurmukh Singh father-in-law of the deceased Kulbir Singh, the others were found innocent and were not sent up for Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 6 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 trial. Chargesheet has been framed against Gurmukh Singh only. The statement in examination-in-chief of the petitioner was recorded on 25.3.2008 (Annexure P1). Thereafter, he was cross-examined on 28.4.2008 (Annexure P2). After cross-examination, an application was filed for summoning the other in-laws of Kulbir Singh (deceased) as additional accused. A perusal of the statement of Sarwan Singh (petitioner) recorded in Court shows that it is stated by him that Kulbir Singh died due to ill-treatment meted out to him by Gurmukh Singh, Narinder Kaur, Swaran Singh, Harjit Kaur and Daljit Kaur and by administering poison to Kulbir Singh. The petitioner Sarwan Singh was cross-examined on 28.4.2008. A reading of the evidence of Sarwan Singh (petitioner) does not, in any manner, show that the in-laws other than Gurmukh Singh of Kulbir Singh (deceased) are liable to be summoned as additional accused. There is nothing to show that they had abetted the commission of suicide by Kulbir Singh. There are indeed disputes and discords in matrimonial home between the husband and wife. There may be decree of harassment of one of the spouse with the other. However, in case of death of one of the spouse by committing suicide, the mere fact that there was dispute between them would not by itself attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. Something more is required to be shown so as to make out a case of abetment of suicide. Therefore, the mere allegation that the in-laws of Kulbir Singh (deceased) had harassed him which resulted in his death would not attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC if the husband had committed suicide. Therefore, in the absence of material except for the bald assertion of Sarwan Singh (petitioner), no ground is made out for summoning the other in-laws of Kulbir Singh as additional accused. Crl. Misc. No. 13694 of 2009 7 and Crl. Rev. No. 653 of 2009 In the circumstances, there is no error in the order that has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing stated or observed herein or in the impugned order shall be construed as an expression of opinion insofar as the case against Gurmukh Singh (father-in-law of the deceased Kulbir Singh) is concerned. The learned trial Court shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of evidence and material independently as adduced before it. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 18, 2009 amit