Punjab-Haryana High Court
Boota Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 May, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 17th May, 2011
Boota Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Boota Singh-appellant was named as an accused in a case FIR No. 127 dated 13.04.2001 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sangrur under Section 306 IPC. In the above said FIR, the case was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, which vide its judgment dated 19th December, 2002 found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Present appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below.
On 13th April, 2001, a ruqa Ex.PA was sent by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sangrur to the SHO, Police Station Sangrur. It was stated therein that Gurpreet Kaur wife of Boota Singh, resident of village Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 2 Uppli has been brought in the hospital by her mother-in-law Dalip Kaur and others, with 90 percent burns. On receipt of the ruqa, ASI Surinder Kumar PW-7 reached at the Police Station, where he received another ruqa that Gurpreet Kaur has died. Thereafter, at the same time, i.e. on 13th April, 2001 at about 1.40 p.m. at the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, he recorded the statement of Darshan Singh PW-4, brother of deceased Gurpreet Kaur. The statement so recorded by ASI Surinder Kumar PW-7 was proved as Ex.PE. Darshan Singh PW-4 stated that he was a resident of village Chhajli and was working as a labourer in a brick kiln at Sunam. His younger sister Gurpreet Kaur was married with Boota Singh son of Kaka Singh alias Ram Singh, caste Majbhi resident of village Uppli. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Boota Singh was employed as a driver of the truck. He was addicted to liquor and used to go to his house every day under the influence of liquor. Sister of the complainant used to restrain her husband-accused Boota Singh from consuming alcohol, due to which there used to be an altercation between both of them. This fact was disclosed by the deceased sister to the complainant many times. On 12th April, 2001, complainant Darshan Singh along with his father Jang Singh had gone to meet Gurpreet Kaur to know her welfare. On that day also, the accused came late at his house after having consumed alcohol. In the presence of complainant and his father, the accused used foul language with his wife. In the next morning, i.e. on 13th April, 2001 the accused again went to the liquor vend and returned after having consumed alcohol. Under the influence of liquor, the accused gave beatings to his wife and also used abusive language. The complainant and his father restrained the accused, but the accused told to his wife that it would be better, if she finish herself. Thereafter, the accused went out while giving abuses. Being fed-up with the accused-husband Boota Singh, Gurpreet Kaur told the Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 3 complainant that it would be better to die than to live such a life. At that time, it was about 9.30 a.m. The complainant along with his father was sitting inside the room when they felt smell of kerosene oil from outside the courtyard. They also saw the smoke coming out. When both of them came out, they saw that Gurpreet Kaur had caught fire. She was running towards the street while shouting 'Bachao Bachao'. She was saying that she would finish the daily dispute. Gurpreet Kaur was brought to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur in a tractor-trolley. In the trolley, her mother-in-law Dalip Kaur and other residents of the village also accompanied her. The complainant and his father went to make a telephonic call to village Chhajli. Complainant's sister Gurpreet Kaur was got admitted in the hospital by her mother-in-law Dalip Kaur.
The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed and entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
Charge for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was framed against the appellant, which stated that on 13th April, 2001 at about 9.30 a.m. in the area of village Uppli, Gurpreet Kaur had committed suicide by setting herself on fire and the accused abetted its commission by compelling her to commit suicide. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Dr.Balwinder Singh PW-1 was posted as a Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. He stated that on 13th April, 2001 at about 11.30 a.m. Gurpreet Kaur was brought to the hospital with burn injuries. She died at the hospital at about 12.25 p.m. Dr. Parmvir Singh Kalair PW-2 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurpreet Kaur. He observed smell of kerosene oil coming from the body. Except the top of skull, the entire body was having ante- Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 4 mortem burns. It was a case of 100 percent burns. The cause of death in the opinion of doctor was shock and dehydration due to near total ante- mortem burns, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Dharminder Singh Draftsman PW-3 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PB of the spot.
Darshan Singh complainant appeared as PW-4 and stated that his sister was married with Boota Singh about 2 ¾ years back. No child was born to her. Boota Singh was employed as a driver of the truck. He was addicted to liquor and used to give beatings to his wife Gurpreet Kaur. After giving beatings he used to turn Gurpreet Kaur out of the house and she used to come to the house of this witness at village Chhajli. They used to send her back. One day prior to the occurrence, this witness along with his father had come to village Uppli. On that day also, Boota Singh accused came to his house at about 9.00 p.m. after having consumed alcohol. Boota Singh gave beatings to Jeeto alias Gurpreet Kaur-sister of this witness. She used to restrain the accused from consuming alcohol; therefore, he used to give her beatings. In the morning at about 9.00 a.m. the accused again went to the liquor vend and returned to his house in a drunken condition. He told his wife that it would be better if she dies. After some time, Gurpreet Kaur had put herself on fire. At that time, Boota Singh ran away from the spot, however, he was apprehended with the help of villagers. After registration of the case, police visited the spot and took into possession a plastic can containing kerosene oil and a match box.
Bhagwan Singh, another brother of Gurpreet Kaur, appeared as PW-5. He had identified the dead-body of his sister during the inquest proceedings.
Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 5
Inspector Rattan Singh, SHO PW-6 had arrested the accused Boota Singh on 19th February, 2001. After completion of the investigation he had submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
ASI Surinder Kumar PW-7 proved receipt of ruqa regarding admission of deceased Gurpreet Kaur in the Civil Hospital and recording of the statement Ex.PE of Darshan Singh complainant, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered. He had further inspected the spot and had taken into possession a plastic can Ex.P1 and a match box Ex.P2. This witness had also proved various other facets of the investigation.
Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and a statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and gave the following version:
"I am innocent. My in-laws had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from me for the treatment of my father-in-law. My wife Gurpreet Kaur demanded the same amount from my father-in-law who did not pay, on account of that, there remains to be quarrel between my wife and my father-in-law. Since my father-in-law did not return the amount, so my wife Gurpreet Kaur committed suicide."
In defence, Jaswinder Singh Ex-Sarpanch of village Kamou Mazra Khurd was examined as DW-1. He stated that the accused was employed as a driver on his truck for the last six years. This witness stated that some times, the accused used to return after 15 days. He stated that the accused was a teetotaler and he used to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to him. About 3½ years back the accused had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from this witness saying that he has to pay the same to his father-in-law. This witness further stated that he never received any complaint against the accused about his quarrel with his wife.
Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 6
Sukhdev Singh Dillo, another resident of the village, appeared as DW-2 and stated that the accused had never taken liquor. He further stated the story of loan advanced by the accused to his father-in-law.
Dalip Kaur, mother of the accused, appearing as DW-3 stated that father-in-law of her son had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/-. He had not returned the same and on this account there used to be a quarrel between her son and his father-in-law. She further stated that her son was a teetotaler and was residing separately. Since, father-in-law of the accused had not returned the amount; therefore, Gurpreet Kaur committed suicide. She further stated that she had narrated this story to the police but they had not recorded the same.
Nirbhai Singh DW-4 stated that he was a member of the village Panchayat. The Panchayat never received any complaint regarding the dispute between husband and wife. He had never seen the accused taking any intoxicant. When he learnt that Gurpreet Kaur had burnt herself, on enquiry he came to know that the accused had advanced Rs.10,000/- to his father-in-law and that was the reason for committing suicide by Gurpreet Kaur.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has stated that complainant Darshan Singh PW-4 and his father were not present at the spot on the day of occurrence. They have falsely introduced themselves as witnesses. It is stated that from the testimony of these witnesses it can be safely inferred that their conduct belies their presence at the spot. According to the learned counsel, as per the testimony of Darshan Singh PW-4, he along with his father had reached at the place of occurrence one day before the incident. In their presence, the accused returned home after consuming alcohol and being in the drunken Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 7 condition, he had given beatings to his wife, i.e. sister of the complainant Darshan Singh PW-4 and had also used foul language also but these witnesses had not intervened. The next morning at about 9.00 a.m. the accused again went to the liquor vend and returned after having consumed a heavy quantity of alcohol. Though in the statement made to the police, on the basis whereof formal FIR was registered, it was stated that at that time the accused had given beatings to his wife and used abusive language; in the Court the witness stated that the appellant told his wife that it would be better if she dies. At that time also, the witnesses (brother and father of the deceased) did nothing and permitted Gurpreet Kaur to commit suicide. Thus, it is stated that their conduct is improbable, unnatural and unconvincing. Furthermore, there was no occasion for the witnesses to arrive at the house of Gurpreet Kaur. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the witnesses were present at the house of Gurpreet Kaur, when she had put herself on fire, according to their own version they had not accompanied her to the hospital. In the ruqa Ex.PA sent by the doctor it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her mother-in-law Dalip Kaur DW-3. The presence of witnesses is not recorded by the doctor at the hospital.
I find merit in the contentions advanced by Mr.Markan regarding the non-presence of complainant Darshan Singh PW-4 and his father at the spot. Thus, the presence of these two witnesses at the spot is held doubtful.
Having discarded the presence of complainant Darshan Singh PW-4 and his father at the spot, this Court has to determine on facts and circumstances of the case what offence is made out?
As per the prosecution case, the accused was addicted to liquor and used to give beatings to his wife. It is further case of the Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 8 prosecution that as and when the deceased used to restrain the accused from consuming alcohol, he felt enraged and gave beatings to his wife.
This Court in 'Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab' (Criminal Appeal No.338-SB of 2002, decided on 25th January, 2011) has held that in case a husband under the influence of liquor used to give beatings to his wife, no offence punishable under Section 306 IPC will be made out against him. To fortify the conclusion, it will be necessary to rely upon the reasoning propounded in Gurmeet Singh's case (supra), wherein it was observed as under:
"In 'Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra' 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 678, it was held that where under the influence of liquor, husband used to give beatings to his wife, the act of a drunkard husband will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. In 'Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh and others' 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 87, their Lordships of Hon'ble the Apex Court held that disputes and discords are part of the matrimonial home and the fact that wife is often harassed by her husband, will in itself and without something else, will not attract an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. In 'Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana' 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 810, relying upon 'State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal' 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 186, it was held that the mere fact that husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty, is not sufficient to constitute offence of abetment to suicide. There must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement leading to the commission of suicide and cruelty must have the effect of inducing the victim to end her life.
In the present case, under the influence of liquor, husband used to give beatings to his wife, during subsistence of their marriage. Therefore, this instance in itself cannot be considered as an abetment to suicide."Criminal Appeal No.85-SB of 2003 9
In the present case, there is no evidence that for non- fulfillment of any demand, the accused said or did anything, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because under the influence of liquor on something said by the wife the accused used abusive language and gave beatings to her, will not be sufficient to hold that the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. This Court has already ruled out the presence of complainant Darshan Singh PW-4 and his father at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the allegation that the accused told the deceased that it would be better if she dies, cannot be taken into consideration. However, giving beatings to the wife under the influence of liquor will constitute an offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC.
Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside. Instead he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two-and-a-half years. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment whereof he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 17, 2011 rps