Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 8 February, 1991
Equivalent citations: II(1991)DMC186
JUDGMENT S.D. Bajaj, J.
1. Kiran Singla was married to Surinder Kumar accused in the year 1980. Around 9.30 P.M. on 6th October, 1983 a little more than three years after marriage, the bride committed suicide by sprinking kerosene oil on her body and then setting it on fire with a match stick. Before succombing to the burn injuries inside the emergency ward of Rajendra Hospital at Patiala from 12.15 P.M to 1.15 P.M. on 7th October, 1983 Kiran Singla is alleged to have made dying declaration Exhibit PL in regard to the cause of her death which reads, "Day before yesterday, there was a quarrel between me and my husband. Then my husband left at about 10 A.M. with truck and returned at about 8/9 P.M. He remained at the house yesterday through out the day. Yesterday at about 9 or 9.30 P.M. I requested him that he should inform me while leaving the house. , My mother-in-law Kaushalya Devi, my sister-in-law Sheela Devi and my father-in-law Sarup Chand were present there and I asked them not to harass me. My husband asked me to go whereever I wanted to go and to quit his house. I told him that I would not leave like that and the he should give me in writing. Feeling hurt, I went inside. Because I was without food for the last two days, my feelings were inflamed. Then they all went to the verandah. A short while ago, my brother's wife (Bhabi) told me that my mother-in-law had visited but left after seeing me without having any word with me. She had always been taunting me as to what I had brought; About the same, I had been telling my mother on my visits and had been asking them to give me such and such articles so that they may not trouble me. My father-in-law used to hurl abuses towards me daily and mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to push me. After being fed up, we had even separated from them in mess. I was not being given the expenses on the ground that I should bring the same from my parents. My relations also made efforts by approaching them to make them understand but they did not provide me anything".
2. Accepting the dying declaration as true vide its impugned judgment dated 23rd August, 1985 learned trial Court convicted the husband, his mother and unmarried sister of the commission of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the husband and his mother to undergo individually rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay Rs. 1000/- which as fine. In default of payment of fine both the accused aforesaid were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Unmarried sister-the third convicted accused was, however, ordered to be released on good conduct probation for one year in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. Feeling aggrieved therefrom all the three convicted accused aforesaid have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 400-SB of 1985 in this Court.
3. I have heard Shri J.N. Kaushal. and Shri D.S. Bali, Senior Advocates with Sarvshri Ashok Jindal and Rakesh Verma, Advocates, for the appellants, Shri B.S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State and have carefully gone through the entire material on record.
4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel with reference to the observations made in Hart Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 123 and Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 660 that commission of suicide by the deceased was absolutely an independent act of the deceased which was in no way influenced by the utterances attributed to her husband or abetment attributed to the mother-in-law or unmarried sister of the husband of the deceased and, therefore, all the three convicted accused should be acquitted because the offence of suicide cannot be punished after the death of the victim committing it. The argument is wholly without merit. Text and tenor of the dying declaration Exhibit PL (reproduced above) does not support it. While refuting the same argument learned trial Court observed :
"In this particular case, however, there is continued course of conduct attributed by Kiran deceased to her husband, her parents-in-law and sister-in-law, which would certainly amount to her instigation. That conduct provoked and incited her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life. It has been specifically mentioned by her that she used to be taunted by her mother-in-law on account of insufficiency of the dowry brought by her and that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to push her. She and her husband had separated on being fed up with their said ill treatment towards her, but it was not stopped. In the last sentence of her statement, she mentioned that when her husband used to be away seeing her asleep inside the (in laws) and (sister-in-law) used to chain the door from outside. This is how she was not allowed to take her food even when her husband used to be away from the house with the truck. This shows that the harassment of the deceased was persisted even when the deceased started cooking meals separately. It is true that it was not the legal obligation of her parents-in-law, brother and sister of her husband to provide her with food in his absence after she had separated, but shutting her in the room by chaining the door from outside, clearly indicated their malice to drive her to a position where she should either leave the house or put an end to her life. This intention at least on the part of her parents-in-law and sister-in-law Sheela is also manifest from their conduct in the last incident that the deceased is given at the out set in her statement Ex. PL. She has mentioned that in the presence of her husband, she had asked her parents-in-law sister-in-law Sheela not to harass her, but the husband instead of making any enquiry as to whether the allegation was true or not made the retort that she could go where-ever she wanted. Neither his parents nor his sister contradicted the allegations of the deceased. It is also apparent from the statement of the deceased that though her parents-in-law and sister-in-law aforesaid were present in the house only her husband made in attempt to put out the fire when she cried for help. Though they were not legally bound to prevent her from doing so, but it reflects their previous conduct in harassing the deceased in the manner mentioned by her in the statement. Nothing could more provocating or inciting to the deceased than the taunts of her parents-in-law and her husband joining them in it instead of supporting her. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the aforesaid acts and conduct of the husband, his parents and his sister instigated the deceased to commit suicide."
5. The reasoning offered by the learned trial Court being cogent and convincing I see no reason to negate its conclusion based upon it in the present appeal. Finding of "guilty" returned against the three appellants by the learned trial Court is, therefore, affirmed.
6. Support for this conclusion is also forthcoming from the observations made by the Supreme Court in Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and another, A.I R 1989 SC 1661=II (1989) DMC 1 which read :
"Having regard to the evidence in the case, there can be no doubt whatever that the Addl. Sessions Judge was perfectly right in holding that the accused had instigated Veena Rani to commit suicide and therefore he would be guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. A person can abet the commission of an offence in any one of the three ways set out in Section 107. The case of the accused would squarely full under the first category, viz, instigating a person to do a thing. In such circumstances, the need to invoke Explanation II does not arise. has Mr. Mehta contended that since Explanation II to Section 107 IPC no application to the facts of the case and since the Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the accused on the premise that Explanation II is attracted, the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the accused. We are unable to accept this argument because the Addl. Sessions Judge, though he has referred to Explanation II, has actually found the accused guilty only on the ground he had abetted the commission of the offence by instigation.
When the evidence is of so compulsive and telling in nature against the accused, the High Court, we regret to say has dealt with the matter in a somewhat superficial manner and acquitted the accused on the basis of imaginary, premises. The High Court has failed to comprehens the evidence in its full conspectus and instead it has whittled down the evidence by specious reasoning. To mention a few the High Court has failed to give due weight to the letter Veena Rani wrote to her brother on 10.9.1975 merely because in the last line she has written ''in any way there is nothing to worry. This time everything will be alright." This one sentence in the letter cannot efface the frantic nature of Veena Rani's appeal for money to satisfy the demand of the accused. As reject the last letter dated 14.9.75, the High Court has totally lost sight of it. The High Court has failed to see that unless Veena Rani was very desperate, she would not have written to her mother for money within four days of the letter to her brother. As regards the happenings on the morning of 15.9.75, the High Court has failed to grasp their gravity. Unless a serious quarrel had taken place, the accused and Veena Rani would not have gone to the house of PW 9 Shri Hari Om in the early hours of the morning itself to seek a solution to the problem. Despite PW 9 Shri Hari Om counselling patience, the accused refused to relent and insisted upon immediate payment of Rs. 1000/- and made it clear that the money was more important to his then Veena Rani's lie and that if Veena Rani wanted to die she may put an end to her life the very same day and give him relief forthwith. The High Court has viewed the accused's conduct and utterances as of no consequence because PW 9 Shri Hari Om has stated in cross-examination that he thought it was "an ordiner, quarrel between the husband and wife as they had been doing so previously also." The High Court has failed all that the offence of the assused the utterances on Veena Rani's mind should be assessed in the context of the overall evidence in the case and not on the basis of the opinion of PW 9 Shri Hari Om about the nature of the quarrel. PW 9 Shri Hari Om, despite his having been the counsel for Veena Rani, could not have realised the effect of the utterance of the accused on the mind of Veena Rani, Furthermore, the High Court has failed to notice that the accused has not thrown any light as to what transpired between him and Veena Rani after they had left the house of PW 9 Shri Hari Om. The fact that Veena Rani had forsaken her young son and had set fire to herself within a short time after reaching home will go to show that she would not have acted in that manner unless she had felt instigated to commit suicide by the utterances of the accused. The High Court, besides unfortunately failing to give due weight to the evidence in the case, has drawn certain inferences which are not at all warranted. For example, the High Court has stated that since Veena Rani was an earning member, the accused would not have stood to gain by instigating her to commit suicide. This inference is totally wrong because the clear evidence in the case is that the accused had placed greater value on the payment of the money demanded by him than upon the life of his wife. Then again, the High Court has remarked that Veena Rani was suffering from depression and a diseased mind and hence she would have committed suicide. We are at a loss to know where from the High Court derived material to draw this conclusion. Far from there being any evidence, to show that Veena Rani was having a diseased mind, PW 5 Krishan Dutt and PW 12 Nathu Ram have stated that Veena Rani was a woman of gentle and aniable disposition. She was working in the Bank without any complaint whatever about her mental condition. Even the accused has not stated that she was of diseased mind. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that the judgment of the High Court suffers from serious errors and infirmities and is, therefore, manifestly unsustainable."
7. In this case deceased victim was being harassed by the three convicted accused through acts of omission and commission narrated in the dying Declaration as under:
"A short while ago, my brother's wife (Bhabi) told me that my mother-in-law had visited but had left after seeing me without having any word with me. She had always been taunting me as to what I had brought. About the same, I had been telling my mother on my visits and had been asking them to give me such and such articles so that they may not trouble me. My father-in-law used to hurl abuses towards me daily and mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to push me. After being fed up, we had even separated from them in mess. I was not being given the expenses on the ground that I should bring the same from my parents. My relations also made efforts by approaching them to make them understand but they did not provide me anything. Day before yesterday, there was a quarrel between me and my husband. Then my husband left at about 10 A.M. with truck and returned at about 8/9 P.M. He remained at the house yesterday through out the day. Yesterday at about 9 or 9.30 P.M. I requested him that he should inform me while leaving the house. My mother-in-law Kaushalya Devi, my sister-in-law Sheela Devi and my father-in-law Sarup Chand were present there and I asked them not to harass me. My husband asked me to go wherever I wanted to go and to quit his house. I told him that I would not leave like that and that he should give me in writing. Feeling hurt, I went inside. Because I was without food for the last two days, my feelings were inflamed. Then they all went to the Varandah."
8. It was this harassment coupled with the husband's attitude in siding with the other accused and asking the wife to quit her matrimonial home which served as abetment through instigation and prompted the wife to end her life through suicide. Suicide indulged in by the deceased cannot, therefore, be termed as an act isolated from or independent of instigation perpetuated by the three accused and the negative attitude of the husband in asking his wife. now deceased, to quit her matrimonial home. Instead of leaving her matrimonial home in deference to the command of her husband the pious Hindu wife in her wisdom thought it better to obey the command of her lord by ending her life. Suicide was thus the outcome of instigation aforesaid attributed by the deceased to the three accused in her dying declaration.
9. In terms of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code a person abets the doing of a thing who instigates that person to do that thing. English law recognises the abettor through instigation as a principal of the second degree; who directly or indirectly counsels, procures or commands any person to commit any felony or piracy which is committed in consequence of such counseling, procuring or commandment. Instigation necessarily instigates some active suggestion or support or stimulation in the commission of the act itself which constitutes the offence and advice can become instigation only if it is found that it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence.
10. In the present case the victim was much too harassed at the hands of mother-in-law and unmarried sister of her husband. Husband at savior was her only hope but when the husband in the presence of his other relations aforesaid instead to protecting her told his wife (now deceased) to leave her matrimonial home for bringing, an end to the quarrels between her and the other accused, it served as an abetment through instigation of her committing the offence of suicide. According to the wife, this observation of her husband, arrayed as accused in the case flared her up and prompted her to take the instant decision of committing suicide.
11. Sentence awarded to the three convicted accused appellants is also commensurate to the nature of offence committed by them. Even the maiden status of unmarried sister of the husband was also taken into account by the learned trial Court while releasing her on probation. There is thus no scope to tinker with the sentence part of the impugned judgment as well.
12. For the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. Both the convicted accused Smt. Kaushalaya Devi mother-in-law and Surinder Kumar husband are on bail from this Court vide order dated 7th December, 1985. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, would get them arrested and remit them to jail custody for undergoing the unexpired portion of the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court.