Criminal Appeal No.1496-SBA of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1496-SBA of 2002. Date of Decision : 18.11.2010. State of Punjab ......Appellant Versus Kamal Kishore & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Addl. AG Punjab, for the appellant-State. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Depak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the judgment dated January 14th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, he acquitted the respondents in case registered against them vide First Information Report No. 87 dated October 20th, 1998 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station D Division, Amritsar. 2. Santosh Kumari alias Binu was wife of Kamal Kishore-respondent No.1. They married in the year 1987. The couple had two sons and a daughter. Rajinder Kumar alias Happy and Kiran Bala-respondents No.2 and 3 were brother-in-law (husband's brother) and mother-in-law of Santosh Kumari. On October 20th, 1988 at about 5.30 PM, she poured kerosene and set herself afire after locking inside a room. In other words, she committed suicide. Kamal Kishore broke upon the door and tried to extinguish the fire. In that process, he and his brother Rajinder Kumar also received burn injuries. She was immediately brought to Sh. Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar where she expired on October 22nd, 1998. Kaidar Nath, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-14) was informed by the hospital authorities about the admission of Santosh Kumari. He reached the Criminal Appeal No.1496-SBA of 2002. 2 hospital and moved application (Exhibit PK) seeking opinion as to whether Santosh Kumari was fit to make statement or not. The Medical Officer vide opinion (Exhibit PK/1) opined that Santosh Kumari was unfit to make statement. Next day—October 21st, 1998, Investigator again reached the hospital and vide application (Exhibit PJ) sought opinion of the Medical officer. The Medical Officer again vide opinion (Exhibit PJ/1) stated that she was not fit to make statement. Ram Chameli mother of deceased (PW-2) made statement (Exhibit PB) to the Investigator stating that on receipt of information regarding admission of her daughter in the hospital, she reached there and inquired from her daughter as to how she received burn injuries. She replied that she had a quarrel with her mother-in- law Kiran Bala and that is why, she committed suicide. Ram Chameli further alleged that her daughter informed her that her husband also used to beat her. Investigator made endorsement (Exhibit PB/1) on the statement (Exhibit PB) of Ram Chameli. First Information Report (Exhibit PB/2) was registered against the respondents under Section 306 IPC. 3. The respondents were tried for the commission of above said offence. After appraisal of evidence, learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents by judgment dated January 14th, 2002 as stated aforesaid. 3. Counsel heard. Record perused. 4. Santosh Kumari (deceased) was medically examined by Dr. Anand Sehgal (PW-5). The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-1). According to the Medical Officer, the deceased received 100% burns and on account of that, she died. The burn injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Indisputably, the case of the prosecution is that Santosh Kumari married Kamal Kishore 11 years prior to her death. She committed suicide on October 22nd, 1998. Kamal Kishore and Rajinder Kumar-respondents No.1 and 2 also received burn injuries while trying to extinguish fire and save life of the deceased. Both of Criminal Appeal No.1496-SBA of 2002. 3 them were medically examined in the hospital by Dr. Vandana Chitkara (PW-3). They brought deceased to the hospital and informed mother of the deceased regarding this fact. The statement of Ram Chameli (PW-2) does not inspire confidence when she deposed that her daughter informed her in the hospital that prior to the occurrence, her mother-in-law had a quarrel and she was also given beating prior thereto by her husband Kamal Kishore because the medical evidence shows that deceased was unconscious and was not in a position to make statement inspite of the fact that Investigator tried to record her statement on two occasions firstly when she was admittedly on October 20th, 1998 and thereafter next day, that is, October 21st, 1998. In view of the circumstances and particularly the nature of injuries received on the person of the deceased, it is proved that deceased was not in a position to make statement. It has been so stated by Dr. Anand Sehgal (PW-5) when he proved the opinion (Exhibit PJ/1 and PK/1). Thus, the question arising for consideration is, whether the accused-respondents abetted the offence which could bring their act under the mischief of Section 306 IPC for which they were charged. The evidence led by prosecution comprises of in the statements of Ram Chameli (PW-2), Ramesh Kumar (PW-6) maternal uncle Amar Nath (PW-9) and Darshana (PW-10). It does not establish abetment of suicide. The abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC, that is, a person abets the doing of a thing who, firstly, instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if the act of illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. None of the ingredients of abetment is there in the present case even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken at its face value. 5. In Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. basically based upon the dying declaration of the Criminal Appeal No.1496-SBA of 2002. 4 deceased, which read as under : "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in- law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." 6. After taking into consideration the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that neither of the ingredients of abetment were attracted to the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased was held to be unsustainable. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 385 relying on Mahendra Singh's case (supra) that merely on the ground of harassment, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 7. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 537, there was a dispute between Ramesh Kumar-husband and wife. The husband uttered “You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like.” Thereafter, the wife of the accused committed suicide. Under these circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no abetment on the part of the husband which led to the committal of suicide by the wife. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law enunciated in the aforesaid authorities, this Court is of opinion that respondents had not at any point of time instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as such, ingredients of abetment are totally absent in this case for an offence under section 306 IPC. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.11.2010. SN