Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Pal vs State (Union Territory Of Chandigarh) on 18 August, 2011
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: 18.08.2011
Varinder Pal ...Appellant
Vs.
State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) ...Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest.
---
Present: Mr.TPS Tung, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.G.S.Chahal, APP for Union Territory.
---
A.N.Jindal, J.
This case exposes a sordid story of betrayal of confidence reposed by the accused/appellant (herein referred as the accused) in his beloved, he handed over her a bottle of animox (a poison) which she consumed and died. However, the accused resiled from his promise of consuming the remaining poison and ran away. Consequently, he was put to dock along with his parents. Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 2
On trial, his mother Smt.Krishan Devi and Shakuntala Rani wife of Raj Kumar were acquitted. However, vide judgment dated 6.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, he was convicted under sections 307 and 328 IPC and sentenced as under:-
Name of Sections Sentence Fine imposed In default accused Varinder Pal 307 IPC) 7 years Rs.2000/- R.I. for 1 On each month count 328 IPC) Varinder Pal accused had love affairs with Padma Kumari for the last 5-6 years of the occurrence. Despite the opposition made by parents of Varinder Pal, they wanted to marry. They had started living separately in House No.4013, Kachi Colony, Palsora 25-26 days prior to the occurrence. On 6.1.1998, they had applied in the Estate Office, Chandigarh for getting their civil marriage registered and date in that case was fixed for 24.1.1998, on that day, they while sitting in front of the Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh, again discussed that parents of Varinder Pal would not allow them to live together and he was fed up with his life. Consequently, both, out of frustration, decided to end their lives together. Accused Varinder Pal handed over one plastic bottle containing animox for consumption by Padma Kumari and offered to take the same later.
As decided, Padma Kumari took about half of it and handed over the remainder to Varinder Pal but he did not consume and fled away by leaving the bottle with her. She was shifted to hospital where on regaining consciousness, she made the aforesaid statement on the Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 3 basis of which a case under Sections 307 and 328 IPC was registered. Padma Kumari also got recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.PC. The bottle containing poison was taken into possession by the police. Varinder Pal was arrested. During investigation, the complainant also levelled allegations against Smt.Krishana Devi and Smt.Shakuntala Devi, both mother and sister of Varinder Pal, respectively regarding threatening her that they would not allow her to marry with Varinder Pal. Consequently, they were also arrested. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in court.
On commitment the accused persons were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 328, and 307 read with Section 120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Rajwinder Jit Singh (PW 1), HC Som Pal (PW 2), HC Suchet Singh (PW3), HC Sarab Mohinder Singh (PW 4), SDO Dilbagh Singh (PW 5), C.Yashpal (PW 6), Smt.Padma Kumari (PW
7), C. Surinder Singh (PW 8), C.Satya Pal (PW 9), Ramesh (PW 10), Budh Ram (PW 11), Om Parkash (PW 12), C.Surinder Singh (PW
13), Constable Baldev Raj (PW 14), Darshan Singh (PW 15), Anil Kumar (PW 16), Gopal Puranik (PW 17), Ramesh Chander (PW 18), HC Ashok Kumar (PW 19), Dr.Varun Mehta (PW 20) and SI Janak Raj (PW 21).
When examined under section 313 Cr.PC, the accused Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 4 denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led by them in defence.
The trial resulted into acquittal of Smt.Shakuntala Rani and Smt. Krishana Devi, whereas accused Varinder Pal was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
In order to prove that the complainant had to suffer on account of consumption of poisonous substance on 24.1.1998, Dr.Rajwinderjit Singh (PW 1) who medico legally examined Smt.Padma Kumari on the aforesaid date and time and observed as follows:
" She was admitted in emergency ward and was given I.V.fluid, injection ACILOC syrup digine. Lateron, she was put on antibiotic medicines. On examination, her tongue was found red and she was complaining of burning sensation in her throat and mouth. Police personnel accompanying her was having liquor ammonia bottle."
This doctor has further stated that she remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 24.1.1998 to 28.1.1998. He has also proved bed head ticket Ex.PA in that regard and further deposed that she was taken over by physician on duty for giving treatment. He also deposed that the police made application Ex.PD before him seeking his opinion whether injuries could be dangerous to life and vide Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 5 Endst. Ex.PD/1 he opined that the possibility of injection of liquor ammonia being dangerous to life could not be ruled out.
Dr.Varun Mehta (PW 20) who had treated Padma Kumari on 24.1.1998, observed as under:-
"Oral cavity on examination showed red tongue with multiple aciloc, tablet sucralfate, injection amoxycillin and gentamycin. As per hospital record ryle's tube aspiration was done and sample handed over to accompanying policemen in a sealed bottle. Bottle was initialed by him."
The medical evidence stands corroborated by the complainant Padma Kumari (PW 7) who has reiterated the prosecution version while stating about their love affairs and further disclosed that they had applied for marriage on 6.1.1998 and date of marriage was fixed for 24.1.1998. On that day they had come to the court and the accused, on the pretext of committing suicide, made her agreeable to consume poison. Consequently, he gave her a white coloured plastic bottle and asked her to drink the same with the promise that he will drink thereafter. After drinking half of the liquor ammonia, Varinder Pal did not consume but ran away while leaving the bottle. She further stated that she also tried to catch hold of the accused but failed. She identified the bottle Ex.P.1.
Gopal Puranik (PW 17), a constable in the CRPF has corroborated her version stating that on the day of occurrence at Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 6 about 2.00/2.30 PM when he was going to the office of Deputy Commissioner, he saw the accused and the complainant sitting near the office of Deputy Commissioner with a bottle in the hand of the complainant who was handing over the same to the complainant. The boy, instead of receiving the bottle, ran away. Again SDO Dilbagh Singh (PW 5) has corroborated the aforesaid version in all minute details.
Om Parkash father of the complainant while appearing as (PW 12) has deposed that Padma Kumari, his daughter was earlier married to Udey Chand but she got divorce from him in the year 1995 and wanted to arrange court marriage with Varinder Pal but his parents were not agreeable. However, on the day of occurrence, he received the message that she was admitted in the hospital.
Budh Ram (PW 11) is another witness to the occurrence. On the other hand, the defence set up by accused Varinder Pal is that he could not marry with Padma Kumari as her matrimonial dispute with her previous husband was going on. When he came to know about the same, he refused to accept her proposal for marriage but she, with a view to compel him to marry with her, consumed some poisonous substance of her own. He never instigated her to consume the poison.
Acquittal of Smt.Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi has not been challenged. Even otherwise, no particular or cogent evidence has come forth to connect them with the crime.
The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 7 the appellant is that since Varinder Pal did not force Padma Kumari to consume poison, therefore, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out. It has been further contended that the story of the prosecution is not believable whereas the plea set up by the accused is quite plausible.
Having heard the rival contentions, I do not feel persuaded with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Lot of evidence has been led by the prosecution that both Varinder Pal and Padma Kumari had moved an application on 6.1.1998 in the Estate Office for the performance of civil marriage between them. It has also come in the evidence that the parents of the appellant were not interested in the said match. The complainant while appearing in the witness box, has torn out her heart by testifying the manner in which the accused had played fraud upon her and induced her to consume poison. She has withstood the test of cross-examination and her testimony stands corroborated by other evidence.
Lot of evidence, as discussed above in order to prove incident, establishes the intention of the accused. It could easily be gathered from the evidence that the accused had handed over liquor amonia poison to the complainant, and after she consumed half of it, he ran away. The factum with regard to his running away also indicates that the accused had requisite intention to get rid of her and he also resiled from his promise. It was miracle that she had been saved by immediate timely medical aid. The factum with regard Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 8 to the instigation on the part of the accused to commit suicide is writ large. The evidence reveals that Padma Kumari never intended to commit suicide but it was on account of the fact that Varinder Pal prevailed upon her to consume poisonous substance, she consumed it. Plea with regard to the fact that Varinder Pal was not present at the time of occurrence, is a blatant lie.
The testimonies of Smt. Padma Kumari (PW 7) and Gopal Puranik (PW 17) clearly disclose that accused Varinder Pal was present at the scene of occurrence. I also do not find merit in the contention that since Padma Kumari complainant herself took the poison, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, because the entire evidence is to the effect that accused instigated Padma Kumari who committed suicide with a promise that he will also meet the same fate after she consumes it.
Thus, the aforesaid evidence amounts to clear-cut abetment within the purview of Sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The words abetment has been duly interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Goura Venkata Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 469, wherein their Lordships observed as under:-
"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 9 in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Act abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In the instant case, the abetted persons have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304. So in the case of A-1 it is Section 304 read with Section 109 IPC, that is attracted."
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provisions is made for its punishment.-- Whosoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 10 is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation:- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment."
No doubt the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in Indian Penal Code and a person abets the doing of a thing by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, where the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment, then the accused could be punished for the proved offence but when there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished for the punishment provided for the abetment as given under section 109 IPC. In other words, the word 'Abetted' means specific offence abetted. Hence, offence of the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.
Similar observation was made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 797.
In the instant case also, the accused while taking the complainant into confidence betrayed her confidence and instigated Crl.Appeal No.842-SB of 2003 11 her to commit suicide and to facilitate that instigation, he served her bottle of liquor ammonia which on his asking he believed that it would be fatal, and she consumed half of it but the accused instead of fulfilling his promise to consume the remaining half, ran away from the spot, as such the intention of the accused is clearly writ large that he wanted, instigated and attempted to cause death of the complainant. Since animox, a poison was dangerous substance as stated by Dr.Varun Mehta (PW 20), therefore, the accused had requisite intention and he believed that if she consumes it then she would die, though with timely medical aid she was saved.
Evidence of Anil Kumar (PW 16) as well as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PW 16/A also clearly reveal that the liquor ammonia (animox) which was administered to the complainant falls within the list of poisons and is a dangerous substance.
Thus, the accused could be safely convicted under sections 307 and 328 IPC with the aid of sections 107 and 109 IPC, for which the same sentence is provided.
No other argument has been raised.
In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) 18.08.2011 Judge rp