Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya vs State Of Punjab on 6 February, 2012
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: 06.2.2012
Maya
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been instituted by Maya wife of Nathu Ram. She was nominated as an accused along with Jagtar Singh son of Jangir Singh in case FIR No. 113 dated 11.9.1997, registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, under Sections 306 and 34 IPC.
On the intervening night of 10/11.9.1997 in the area of village Beela Patti, Sukhwinder Kaur alias Pappi had committed suicide. The prosecution had sent both the accused for trial on the ground that they have abetted suicide by Sukhwinder Kaur as Jagtar Singh was having illicit relations with Maya and on being restrained by her, he used to give beating to her.
Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 2
On the above said allegations, after the trial, the Court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2002, held both the accused guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced Jagtar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000, under Section 306 IPC, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Appellant Maya was also sentenced under Section 306 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
True translation of the statement Ex.P4 made by PW.2 Pirthi Singh, complainant, to PW.5 Kirpal Singh, after translation, has been aptly reproduced by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:-
"Stated that I am resident of village Bajidpur Bhoma and do the labour work. My sister Balwinder Kaur is married to Cheta Singh son of Jangir Singh. I have got two daughters out of which Sukhwinder Kaur alias Pappi is married to Jagtar Singh alias Joga Singh son of Jangir Singh and the other daughter Chhinderpal is married to Karam Singh son of Jangir Singh Majhbi of village Beela Patti. My daughter Sukhwinder Kaur was married 11/12 years ago. For the last some time my daughter had a dispute with her husband Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 3 Jagtar Singh for the reason that my son-in-law Jagtar Singh had illicit relation with a lady Maya wife of Nathu Ram Mali. In case my daughter used to stop her husband from going to that lady, he remained adamant for which reason my daughter was beaten by my son-in-law and my daughter after feeling annoyed used to come and stay at the house of her parents for a stretch of two months. Even yesterday, there was a dispute amongst them on account of which I along with my son Tota Sigh came to see my daughter, when my daughter was quarreling with my son-in- law and was saying that as to why he goes to Maya but I and my son made them understand and they became silent. We both of us after taking meals slept in the house of other daughter Chhinderpal. When my daughter Chhinderpal in the morning went to the house of her sister Sukhwinder Kaur, the room of the residential house was opened and the children were weeping and my son-in-law Jagtar Singh was not at home. When my daughter Chhinderpal went inside the room of Sukhwinder Kaur, she found that her body was hanging from the roof by a rope tied to her neck and she had died. My daughter Chhinderpal cried on which I along with my son Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 4 Tota Singh entered the house and saw that Sukhwinder Kaur had died by hanging from neck. My daughter Sukhwinder Kaur had committed suicide as my son-in-law Jagtar Singh had illicit relation with Maya and on the objection of my daughter, he used to beat her. In this manner he had abetted her to commit suicide. Leaving my son Tota Singh to guard the dead body, along with Jugraj Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, I was going to the police station to give information when you had met us at the bus stop."
The present appeal has been filed to assail the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, by appellant-Maya.
On 11.9.1997, PW.1 Dr. Baldev Raj, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Abohar, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Jagtar Singh, aged 29 years and found a ligature mark 1.5 cm in width encircling the neck all around except 5 cms. below the angle of mandible on the right side, situated obliquely on the upper part of the neck. The margins of the ligature were abraded and ligature mark was reddish brown in colour. The centre of ligature mark was hard and parchment like. This witness had opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The hanging was ante mortem in nature.
Pirthi Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.2. In the trial Court, he stated that he was father of three daughters. His two Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 5 daughters Sukhwinder Kaur alias Pappi and Chhinder Pal Kaur were married in the same village to two brothers namely Jagtar Singh and Karam Singh, respectively. Jagtar Singh was having illicit relations with one lady known as "Malan" that is the accused Maya Devi, present in the court. Due to strained relations, Jagtar Singh accused used to beat Sukhwinder Kaur. The dispute regarding illicit relations had started for about five/seven years prior to the death of Sukhwinder Kaur. He, however, reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.P4. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not informed the police regarding illicit relations of Jagtar Singh with Maya but had reported the matter to the Village Panchayat. But the Sarpanch had not taken any action against the appellant and no resolution was passed. He further clarified that he stated the name of accused Malan alias Maya Devi in his statement Ex.P4. He further stated that Jagtar Singh was having illicit relations five/seven years prior to the death of Sukhwinder Kaur with Maya Devi. On this, he clarified that Jagtar Singh and Malan alias Maya Devi were beating his daughter. Then attention of this witness was drawn to his statement Ex.P4 wherein the name of Malan was not so recorded. He, however, admitted in cross-examination that his son-in-law Jagtar Singh was looking after his daughter, on her ailment and her other needs also. He further stated that Jagtar Singh is a poor man and could not give education to his children.
Chhinder Pal Kaur, sister of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur appeared as PW.3. She has stated that her sister was married to the real brother of her husband and both were married on the same day i.e. 13-14 years ago. About one year, prior to the occurrence, Jagtar Singh Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 6 developed illicit relations with appellant Maya, to which her sister used to object. Maya used to come to the house of accused Jagtar Singh to which her sister objected to and as sequel thereto she was subjected to beating. One day prior to the occurrence, her brother and father came to the village to advise the accused to mend his ways. They stayed with her after advising the appellant and her sister. In the morning, when she went to the house of her sister, she found the children weeping and saw that her sister was hanging with the rope tied around her neck from the roof. She stated that the cause of death of her sister was that Maya wanted to live with Jagtar Singh. She was confronted with her previous statement. However, in cross-examination, she stated that Maya had three daughters and a son. She lives with her family in the village. Again she stated that she was widow and living alone.
Navtej Singh son of Jagtar Singh and deceased Sukhwinder Kaur, appeared as PW.4. He stated that Maya used to visit their house sometimes. She resided in the village. About three years and two months ago, her mother had died. He had seen her body hanging from the ceiling. It was not known to him as to how she died. His maternal grandfather and maternal uncle came to the house on the previous night when his mother died.
PW.5 Kirpal Singh, Inspector, proved various facets of the investigation. The prosecution has not elicited any ground for the accused in the cross-examination of this witness.
Thereafter, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence. Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 7
Co-accused Jagtar Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of his sister-in-law PW.3 Chhinder Pal Kaur. Appellant Maya Devi also stated that she has been falsely implicated.
From the testimonies of PW.2 Pirthi Singh, father and PW.3 Chhinder Pal Kaur, sister of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur, two facts emerged:-
a) That co-accused Jagtar Singh was having illicit relations with appellant Maya Devi.
b) As per the FIR, when deceased Sukhwinder Kaur used to object to the illicit relations of Jagtar Singh with Maya Devi, he used to beat her, whereas in the Court the complainant made improvements and stated that both Maya Devi and Jagtar Singh used to give beating to Sukhwinder Kaur.
This Court will give credence to the statement of PW.4 Navtej Singh that Jagtar Singh used to beat deceased Sukhwinder Kaur and will rule out the deposition of the other witnesses to the extent in the Court that appellant Maya Devi also used to give beating to the deceased as an improvement due to consultations and deliberations. This Court will place reliance upon the version given in the FIR being spontaneous. Having accepted the prosecution case that Jagtar Singh was having illicit relations with appellant Maya Devi and he used to give beating to his wife when she used to object to his illicit relations, the question arises as to whether these two circumstances in itself will constitute abetment to suicide, on the part of the appellant.
True translation of the FIR has already been reproduced in Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 8 the earlier part of the judgment. It reveals that the marriage of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur with Jagtar Singh, co-accused of the appellant was 11- 12 years old. It is stated that Jagtar Singh had developed illicit relations with the appellant and whenever deceased used to object, Jagtar Singh used to give beating to her. Jagtar Singh has not preferred any appeal. He seems to have accepted his conviction.
So far as the appellant is concerned, no overt role has been assigned to her, no witness has attributed any act to her from which it cold be inferred that the present appellant incited, provoked or urged the deceased to commit suicide. Except a bald statement made by PW.3 Chhinder Pal Kaur that the appellant used to visit the house of Jagtar Singh and on the protest made by deceased Sukhwinder Kaur, she was given beating; there is no other incriminating circumstance available against the appellant. It has come in the statement EX.P4 made by PW.2 Pirthi Singh on the basis whereof FIR has been registered that on the day, the occurrence took place, the deceased had quarreled with her husband. On the day of occurrence, the present appellant has not met the deceased. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased may have been entertaining suspicion. Be that as it may, the evidence only shows that there used to be a quarrel between husband and wife and Jagtar Singh used to beat Sukhwinder Kaur, deceased. Thus, there is no sufficient material available to hold the appellant guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC.
Hence, this Court, while extending benefit of doubt, shall accept the present appeal and shall set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant is acquitted of the Criminal Appeal No. S-1802-SB of 2002 9 charges. She shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required in any other case.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 06, 2012 "DK"