Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab

3. The fascicule of facts, indispensable to comprehend the backdrop of the prosecution, has its origin in the inexplicable abandonment of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her two daughters namely; Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr. Jaspal Singh, their husband and father respectively, about two years prior to the tragic end of his three family members as above. The prosecution version is that Dr. Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the Government service, had relinquished the same and started a coal factory at Muktsar. He suffered loss in the business and consequently failed to repay the loan availed by him in this regard from the bank. As he and his brother Gurcharan Singh (appellant herein) and others succeeded to the property left by their predecessors, he started medical practice in private.

4. Be that as it may, before leaving his family, he addressed a communication to the concerned bank expressing his inability to repay the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed of any property in his name. Dr. Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be traced. Following this turn of events, according to the prosecution, his wife Surjit Kaur and his daughters shifted from Jalalabad where they used to stay to Abohar and started residing in a rented house of one Hansraj (PW3). According to them, they had no source of income and further, they were also deprived of their share in the property and other entitlements, otherwise supposed to devolve on Dr. Jaspal Singh. They were also not provided with any maintenance by the family members of her husband – Jaspal Singh and instead were ill-treated, harassed and intimidated.

5. While the matter rested at that, on 3.10.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., Hansraj, the landlord of the deceased Surjit Kaur, being suspicious about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his tenants, though the television in their room was on, informed the brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur. Thereafter they broke open the door of the room and found all three lying dead. The police was informed and FIR was lodged.

6. In course of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer collected a suicide note in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to by her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note implicated the appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the convicted co-accused Sukhvinder Singh @ Goldy as being responsible for their wretched condition, driving them in the ultimate to take the extreme step. A note book containing some letters, written by deceased Geet Pahul was also recovered. On the completion of the investigation, which included, amongst others the collection of the post-mortem report which confirmed death due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, a pesticide, charge-sheet was submitted against the three persons named hereinabove along with Satnam Kaur under Section 306/34 IPC.

8. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the doctor, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body. The accused persons stood by the denial of the charge in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also examined five witnesses in defence.

9. The Trial Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, held the appellant herein and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh to be guilty of the charge levelled against them and awarded them the sentence as hereto before mentioned. It, however, acquitted the co-accused Ajit Kaur. To reiterate, by the impugned verdict, the conviction of the appellant and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh has been upheld with the marginal modification in the substantive sentence as aforementioned.

14. In cross-examination, the witness mentioned that all the three deceased used to remain dejected and depressed. They however, often visited the parents and the brothers of Surjit. He disclosed that Surjit had a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time, Surjit and her daughters did complain to him about any threat extended by the accused persons. The witness disclosed that though Surjit had expended substantial amount on the coaching of her daughter, she failed in the examination, for which she was morose and anguished. The witness opined that Surjit and her daughters had committed suicide out of grief for their missing husband/father. According to him, the accused persons were not in any manner responsible for their death.

16. PW5 and PW6 Gurjit and Gaganjit, the brothers of Surjit Kaur did depose in similar lines. They stated that at the time of their death, Geet and Preet were aged 22 years and 18 years respectively. They reiterated the version narrated in the FIR pertaining to the sudden disappearance of their brother-in-law Dr. Jaspal Singh, husband of Surjit, he having suffered losses in business. They also mentioned that, at that time, Dr. Jaspal Singh had heavy outstanding dues qua the bank. They disclosed as well that after the death of Jaktar Singh, the father of Dr. Jaspal, their brother- in-law along with his brothers inherited the joint property. They also reiterated the narration of the facts preceding the discovery of the dead bodies as recited by PW3. They confirmed the recovery and seizure of, amongst others the diary containing the suicide note. They identified the text of the suicide note in the hand of their sister Surjit. They identified the signature of Preet also thereon. These witnesses in their examination-in-chief, though alleged that their sister and nieces had committed suicide because they were deprived of their share in the joint properties, and for which they suffered from sustained depression, in cross- examination, they acknowledged a sale deed executed by the appellant Gurucharan in favour of Surjit regarding half share in the house at Abohar, which was also a segment of the family property. They conceded as well that Satnam Kaur, the mother-in-law of Surjit might have issued a cheque of Rs.68,650/- in her name and that she had opened an account therewith in the name of her brother Gagandeep. They admitted that there was a parcel of land in the name of deceased Surjit at Muktsar. When confronted with the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they admitted of not having disclosed to the Investigating Officer, that the share in land of Dr. Jaspal Singh had not been given to Surjit Kaur. They accepted that the main reason for the depression of the deceased was the absence of near and close relatives. They conceded that neither Surjit nor they had ever lodged any complaint with the police against the accused person for the ill-treatment meted out to her or for denying her entitlements in the joint property. They admitted as well that no civil suit had been filed in that regard.

- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

32. The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our considered opinion, does not demonstrate with unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other implicated in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above provisions so as to return an unassailable finding of their culpability under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record, to reiterate, do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries.

33. In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

DECEMBER 2, 2016.