Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cra-S-721-Sb-1999 (O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 4 July, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 1
CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: July 4, 2013
1. CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M)
Satnam Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2. CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
Varinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. G.S. Benipal, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA-S-721-SB-1999 and
for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in CRR-1440-1999.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent State of Punjab.
Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, and
Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRR-1440-1999 and
for the complainant in CRA-S-721-SB-1999.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.08.30 10:56
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 2
CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CRA-S-721-SB-1999 and CRR-1440-1999, as the same have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 30.7.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala.
2. Challenge in CRA-S-721-SB-1999 is to the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Satnam Singh, who was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, besides payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. CRR-1440-1999 has been filed by the petitioner- complainant, Varinder Singh, challenging the acquittal of respondent No. 2, Akal Rachna Kaur, who was exonerated of the charge punishable under Section 306, IPC. Prayer has also been made that respondent No. 1, Satnam Singh, and respondent No. 2, Akal Rachna Kaur, be directed to pay the fine in the shape of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- each for the death of Parminder Singh and the substantive sentence of Satnam Singh be enhanced to the maximum sentence as provided under Section 306, IPC.
FACTS:
4. Though the facts of both the cases are one and the same, however, for the sake of clarity, the same have been referred to from the paper book of CRA-S-721-SB-1999. The appellant, Satnam Singh, has a daughter named Akal Rachna Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 3 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Kaur. Parminder Singh (deceased) had two brothers, namely, Varinder Singh (PW2) and Jaspreet Singh (PW-3). Akal Rachna Kaur, Parminder Singh, Jaspreet Singh and Varinder Singh had studied at 'Our Lady of Fatima Convent Higher Secondary School, Patiala', though Parminder Singh had left the school in Class 5 and joined the Punjab Public School, Nabha. Akal Rachna Kaur developed sisterly affection with Jaspreet Singh and they started behaving like sister and brother and, as such, Akal Rachna Kaur was tieing Rakhi to Jaspreet Singh every year. In the year 1995, the marriage of Jaspreet Singh was solemnized and the same was attended by Akal Rachna Kaur and her family members. Akal Rachna Kaur and her sister performed role of sisters in the marriage of Jaspreet Singh, since he had no real sister. Even the mother of Akal Rachna Kaur had partly played the role of mother of Jaspreet Singh, since his real mother was a widow. In the meantime, Parminder Singh (deceased) completed his engineering and got an employment with D.C.M. Daewoo at Delhi. He developed love-affairs with Akal Rachna Kaur and it had gone to the extent that they wanted to solemnize their marriage. However, the father of Akal Rachna Kaur, i.e. appellant Satnam Singh, was not agreeable to the said alliance since Parminder Singh was a 'Jat' and Satnam Singh a 'Saini' by caste.
5. On 1.9.1996, Parminder Singh came to Patiala from Delhi. On 3.9.1996, at about 7.30 a.m., Akal Rachna Kaur gave a telephone call at the residence of Jaspreet Singh, where Parminder Singh was staying, and the said call was received by Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 4 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Jaspreet Singh. Akal Rachna Kaur requested him to call Parminder Singh. Thereafter, Parminder Singh left the house of Jaspreet Singh at about 8.00/8.15 a.m. telling him (Jaspreet Singh) that Akal Rachna Kaur was disturbed and that her parents were not agreeable to the marriage, but she had made them agreeable and had asked Parminder Singh to come to the University to discuss the matter. Parminder Singh also told to his brother, Jaspreet Singh, that Akal Rachna Kaur had asked him to come all alone. However, he cautioned his brother, Jaspreet Singh, to check-up the things after 2-3 hours. Parminder Singh left the house in a Maruti car, bearing registration No. PB-11-G- 8698 and reached the University campus where he met Karnail Singh (PW-5), a mason, who was known to him since he (Karnail Singh) had worked at his house. Parminder Singh took Karnail Singh along in his car towards the office of the appellant, Satnam Singh. On arrival, they found that Satnam Singh and Akal Rachna Kaur were available outside the office. Parminder Singh pointed out to Karnail Singh, Akal Rachna Kaur, as the girl he loved. Parminder Singh went towards the appellant, Satnam Singh and Akal Rachna Kaur, while Karnail Singh (PW-5) remained standing at a distance. The appellant, Satnam Singh, told Parminder Singh that he (Parminder Singh) had made their lives miserable and that the marriage of his daughter could not be solemnized due to their different castes. Parminder Singh told that he could not live without Akal Rachna Kaur and, as such, he should not be treated in such a fashion. The appellant, Satnam Singh, told Parminder Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 5 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Singh that there was only way out that the poison brought by him (Satnam Singh) either be consumed by him (Satnam Singh) or by Parminder Singh. At that juncture, Akal Rachna Kaur remarked that it would not make difference to her if Parminder Singh should die. Thereafter the appellant, Satnam Singh, handed over the poison to Parminder Singh, who took it from him and consumed the same. The entire incident was witnessed by Karnail Singh (PW-5) from a distance and he even overheard the conversation which took place between the appellant, Satnam Singh, Parminder Singh (deceased) and Akal Rachna Kaur (since acquitted). Even after consumption of the poisonous substance, Parminder Singh continued to argue with the appellant, Satnam Singh. Parminder Singh told Karnail Singh (PW-5) to go from there and meet his friend and thereafter Karnail Singh left the sport.
6. At about 10.30 a.m., on 3.9.1996, Jaspreet Singh (PW-3) went to the University campus and heard that a person from Delhi, who had come in a car, had either been administered poison or he himself had consumed the same. He also learnt that the said person had been shifted to Rajindra Hospital while his car was stationed near the Botany Department. Jaspreet Singh (PW-3) and Varinder Singh (PW-2) rushed to the emergency ward of Rajindra Hospital and found that Parminder Singh had already expired. Varinder Singh (PW-2) moved written complaint (Ex. PB) before the police, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PF/2) was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Patiala, for the offence Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 6 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. A special report was received by the Duty Magistrate at 2.45 a.m. on 4.9.1996.
7. Police Inspector Jaspal Singh took up the investigation of the case; went to University campus and inspected the spot from where the body of Parminder Singh was lifted. He interrogated Jarnail Singh, Col. Ajmair Singh and B.S. Gill and recorded their statements in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. He also prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PM) of the place of occurrence. He took into possession the car belonging to Parminder Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. PG). The police inspector, Jaspal Singh, thereafter went to Rajindra Hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex. PD). He also moved an application (Ex. PE) for conducting the autopsy of Parminder Singh. SI Rakesh Kumar (PW-11) was deputed to get the postmortem examination conducted. Dr. Deepak Walia (PW-1) conducted the postmortem on 4.9.1996. Since there was no external mark of injury, viscera of the deceased was preserved for chemical examination. After receipt of the report (Ex. PC) from the Chemical Examiner, Dr. Deepak Walia (PW-1) opined that the death of Parminder Singh had occurred due to consumption of 'Aluminium Phosphate'.
8. Till December 24, 1996, nothing material came on record to connect the appellant, Satnam Singh, and Akal Rachna Kaur with the alleged offence, the day on which Varinder Singh (PW-2) moved an application (Ex. PQ) before the Senior Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 7 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Superintendent of Police, Patiala, which was marked to Pritpal Singh, the then Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) [PW-10]. During the course of inquiry, Pritpal Singh (PW-10) recorded the statement of Karnail Singh (PW-5) in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., and converted the offence from Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, to one under Section 306, IPC.
9. On 15.2.1997, the appellant, Satnam Singh, contacted Jaswinder Singh (PW-4) and blurt out the confession and requested him to get the matter patched up. Jaswinder Singh told the appellant, Satnam Singh, to contact him (Jaswinder Singh) after few days so that in the meantime he may consult his family members. However, the appellant, Satnam Singh, never turned up for further negotiations.
10. In the month of September, 1997, Jaspreet Singh (PW-3) traced 11 love-letters (Ex. P1 to P11) running into 44 pages. Initially the photocopies of the said letters were supplied to the police, but at a later stage the original letters were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PH. The appellant, Satnam Singh and Akal Rachna Kaur were arrested on August 17, 1997 and after formalities of investigation the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. (charge-sheet) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Session and finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 306, IPC, was framed for prosecution of the appellant, Satnam Singh and his co-accused, Akal Rachna Kaur, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 8 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
11. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
PW-1 Dr. Deepak Walia;
PW-2 Varinder Singh;
PW-3 Jaspreet Singh;
PW-4 Jaswinder Singh;
PW-5 Karnail Singh;
PW-6 C. Natha Singh;
PW-7 SI Amarjit Singh;
PW-8 HC Surinder Pal;
PW-9 Inspector Jai Pal Singh;
PW-10 Pritpal Singh; and PW-11 SI Rakesh Kumar.
12. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution version in toto and pleaded innocence. Akal Rachna Kaur took the stand that the letters (Ex. P1 to P11) were got written from her by the police during her custody.
13. Thereafter Bhawani Sharma (CW-1), a photographer was examined and he deposed that he had taken the photographs (Ex. CA and CB) at the wedding ceremony of Jaspreet Singh on 1.12.1995. The negatives of the said photographs were Ex. CA/1 and CB/1. Thereafter, the supplementary statements of both the accused were recorded and the evidence of Bhawani Sharma (CW-1) was put to them.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 9 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) learned Trial Court gave a clean chit to Akal Rachna Kaur and, as such, she was acquitted while the appellant, Satnam Singh, was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, and ordered to undergo the sentence as has already been noticed in preceding para No. 2.
15. As stated in the opening part of the judgment, Satnam Singh has filed CRA-S-721-SB-1999, challenging his conviction and sentence while the complainant-petitioner, Varinder Singh (PW-2) has filed CRR-1440-1999, challenging the acquittal of Akal Rachna Kaur with a further prayer to burden both the accused with fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, each to be disbursed to the family members of the deceased as compensation, and with a further prayer to enhance the substantive sentence of the convict, Satnam Singh.
16. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Satnam Singh, submits that the learned Trial Court has brushed aside the testimony of Karnail Singh (PW-5), the star witness of the prosecution. To elaborate his arguments, he submitted that in the event of ignoring the deposition of Karnail Singh (PW-5), there is hardly any evidence on the file to say that the appellant, Satnam Singh, had an argument with Parminder Singh (deceased) and he (Satnam Singh) supplied the poisonous substance to Parminder Singh. He further submitted that even the prosecution has failed to prove that Akal Rachna Kaur uttered the words "It would not make any difference to her if Parminder Singh should die".
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 10 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
17. Learned senior counsel also argued that the ingredients of Section 107, IPC, are absolutely lacking in the present case since there is no material on the file to say that the appellant, Satnam Singh, or Akal Rachna Kaur abetted Parminder Singh (deceased) to such an extent that he would commit suicide. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1983 (1) CLR 660. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have improved their statements to a larger extent while deposing before the learned Trial Court. This fact shows that the prosecution witnesses were bent upon to get the accused persons convicted. He further submitted that Karnail Singh (PW-5) was introduced as a witness after about four months of the death of Parminder Singh, which further fortifies his apprehension that the prosecution witnesses were over- enthusiastic to secure the conviction of the appellant and his co- accused.
18. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court though disbelieved the statement of Karnail Singh (PW-5) to a larger extent, but still the circumstances available on record would justify that his testimony is believed by this Court and keeping in view the attending circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Satnam Singh, is maintained. He also submitted that the chain of events clearly establishes that the appellant, Satnam Singh, did abet Parminder Singh to such an extent that he had no other way but to commit suicide. To Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 11 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) elaborate his arguments, he also submits that to facilitate his misdeed, the appellant, Satnam Singh, even provided poisonous substance to Parminder Singh and after consuming the same he (Parminder Singh) died. He further submits that the appellant, Satnam Singh, has taken a wrong defence by denying the photographs (Ex. CA/1 and CB/1), therefore, this circumstance would show the culpability on the part of the accused and, as such, the appellant be presumed to be guilty.
19. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, Varinder Singh (in CRR-1440-1999), toed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State. He also submits that the death of Parminder Singh has caused a set back to the family members, which though cannot be compensated in any manner, yet the accused may be burdened with the amount of compensation in terms of the prayer made in the criminal revision petition.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the entire Trial Court record.
21. According to the prosecution Parminder Singh (deceased) had a love-affair with Akal Rachna Kaur, daughter of the appellant, Satnam Singh. On the fateful day, Parminder Singh had gone to the University campus where the appellant, Satnam Singh, was working as a Head of the Botany Department and Akal Rachna Kaur was a student of the same department. Parminder Singh after reaching the University met Karnail Singh (PW-5) and told him about his affair with Akal Rachna Kaur. In his Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 12 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) (Karnail Singh) presence, Parminder Singh went to see the appellant, Satnam Singh, and Akal Rachna Kaur, who had come outside the Botany Department and had a talk with Parminder Singh. Within the sight of Karnail Singh (PW-5), the appellant, Satnam Singh, handed over something to Parminder Singh. Parminder Singh thereafter told to Karnail Singh (PW-5) to go and see his friend for the purpose for which he (Karnail Singh) had come to the University. Thereafter Karnail Singh (PW-5) left the spot. Parminder Singh consumed the substance supplied to him by the appellant, Satnam Singh, and thereafter he fell down on the ground. The students and the professors present in the University compound took him to the University Dispensary and after observing his condition to be serious, Parminder Singh was referred to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he was declared brought dead and thereafter the brothers of the deceased were informed.
22. The star witness of the prosecution in the present case is Karnail Singh (PW-5). The learned Trial Court while delivering the judgment observed as under:-
"5. Parminder Singh came to Patiala from Delhi on September 1, 1996. On September 3, at 7.30 a.m. Akal Rachna Kaur telephoned at the residence of Jaspreet Singh where Parminder Singh was staying, the call was received by Jaspreet Singh and Akal Rachna kaur asked him to speak to Parminder Singh. Parminder Singh left the house at 8.00/8.15 a.m. saying that Akal Rachna had sounded disturbed on the Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 13 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) telephone and had said that earlier her parents were not agreeable to the marriage, but she had brought them around and had asked him to come to the university to discuss the matter. Parminder Singh further told Jaspreet Singh that he had been asked to come alone and in case he required him, he will telephone, but in any case Jaspreet Singh should check up after 2-3 hours. Parminder Singh left the house in a Maruti Car No. PB-11-G-8698 and reached the university where he met Karnail Singh (PW5), a mason who had earlier worked for him, and took him along in his car towards the office of Satnam Singh. They saw Satnam Singh and Akal Rachna kaur outside the office and Parmindr Singh after pointing out to Karnail Singh the girl he loved, went towards the accused while Karnail Singh remained standing at some distance.
Satnam Singh spoke to Parminder Singh in an agitated manner that he had made their lives miserable. Satnam Singh also said that he could not marry his daughter to Parminder Singh as he himself was a Saini by caste while Parminder Singh was a Jat. At this Parminder Singh had replied that he could not live without Akal Rachna Kaur and he should not be treated in this manner. Whereupon, Satnam Singh told him that there was only one way out which was that he had brought a packet containing poison, which either he himself would take or Parminder Singh should take. At this Akal Rachna Kaur remarked that it would not make no difference to her if Parminder Singh should die. Thereafter, Satnam Singh handed over the packet containing poison to Parminder Singh who took it from him. Parminder Singh consumed the Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 14 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) poison from the packet and nobody stopped him from taking it. This entire episode was witnessed by Karnail Singh (PW5) from a distance and the prosecution case is that Karnail Singh also overheard the conversation which took place. According to Karnail Singh, after Parminder Singh had taken the poison, he continued to argue with the accused and was told by Parminder Singh to go and meet his friend which Karnail Singh did and after meeting his friends, Karnail Singh returned to his village.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
29. On the morning of September 3, the deceased had been called to the University on telephone by Akal Rachna Kaur. The prosecution has produced Karnail Singh (PW5), who met the deceased at the University gate and accompanied him to a spot outside the Botany department where both the accused were standing. At this stage, the deceased came out from the car and walked to the accused, but Karnail Singh stayed back though allegedly remained close enough to hear the conversation. According to Karnail Singh, after Parminder Singh had been given the poison packet by Satnam Singh and told to take the poison, Akal Rachna kaur remarked that it will make no difference to her if Parminder Singh should die, Parminder Singh took the poison, but continued to argue with the accused. At this stage, Karnail Singh retreated from the spot and went to meet his friend with whom he had only tea & biscuits & then he returned to his village from where he went to Rajasthan in search of medicinal herbs. Karnail Singh Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 15 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) did not report the conversation to Parminder Singh's family whom he had known well. It was after four months that Karnail Singh suddenly appeared and on learning that Parminder Singh had died divulged the detail of that last conversation. The point to be considered is whether Karnail Singh (PW5) is a truthful and reliable witness. Karnail Singh is a mason by profession and alleged that he had constructed a cattle shed in the house of the deceased and had known him from then. In cross-examination, he admitted that his village was 35-40 kms from the house of the deceased and that he had been brought for constructing the cattle shed by Jaswinder Singh, the uncle of the deceased who also appeared as PW4. Further, Karnail Singh stated that he had been brought from his village by the uncle of the deceased (Jaswinder Singh PW4) first to the house of the deceased and then taken to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala where he made the statement. There are other flaws in Karnail Singh's statement. It seems very unlikely that the deceased would have confided in Karnail Singh, a mere mason from a far off place, that the person whom he loved had telephoned him and called him to the University and that her name was Akal Rachna Kaur. It is equally unlikely that the deceased would have taken him to the office of Akal Rachna Kaur's father and pointed out the accused to him. It appears that at around the time when Karnail Singh showed-up, the police had not made any headway in the case against the accused which had been registered under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC. There had been no evidence of murder and no steps had been taken to detain the accused. Therefore, the complainant party must have been keen to introduce Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 16 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) such a witness from outside the University circles, who would depose to the final conversation between the accused and the deceased. They found that person in Karnail Singh an itinerant mason from a distant village, who appeared to be under some influence of Jaswinder Singh (PW4). Once the complainant party found that Karnail Singh was agreeable to help them, a fresh representation was presented to the Senior Superintendent of Police on December 24, 1996 for a further inquiry into the matter. This was marked to the S.P. (City) Sh. Pritpal Singh (PW10), before whom Karnail Singh was produced and then Karnail Singh's version presented before the Investigator, who continued the investigation under Section 306. Karnail Singh is a completely false and made-up witness and no reliance can be placed on his statement whatsoever. He was a chance witness, who met the deceased at the University gate purely by chance. Though he stated that he heard the conversation, he told this to no one for four months. The prosecution had produced no corroborative evidence of the fact that Karnail Singh had accompanied the deceased on the day of the occurrence or that he had witnessed and heard the deceased and the accused engaged in conversation. Indeed only Karnail Singh was introduced but there was no direct evidence that the deceased had met the accused. Therefore, there can be no hesitation in holding that Karnail Singh is a false and unreliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his statement and on the prosecution version which he had presented." (emphasis added)
23. The above observations of the learned Trial Court Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 17 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) cannot be said to be perverse or against the material available on record. In the light of above, if the statement of Karnail Singh (PW-5) is excluded from consideration, then the circumstances appearing against the accused can be summarized as under:-
♦ Old association of the family of the accused with the family of the complainant;
♦ Joining of the accused in the marriage of Jaspreet Singh, brother of Parminder Singh (deceased);
♦ Photographs taken at the time of marriage of Jaspreet Singh;
♦ Love-affair between Parminder Singh and Akal Rachna Kaur;
♦ Postmortem report;
♦ Report of the Chemical Examiner; and ♦ Investigation part.
24. For the sake of discussion, even if the above said circumstances are taken individually or collectively, then also the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306, IPC, are not attracted to connect the appellant, Satnam Singh, and Akal Rachna Kaur with the alleged crime because the association of the two families, joining of the accused side in the marriage of Jaspreet Singh, brother of the deceased, the love-affair between Parminder Singh and Akal Rachna Kaur and the suicide committed by Parminder Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 18 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Singh after consuming 'Aluminum Phosphate', would not prove that either appellant, Satnam Singh, or Akal Rachna Kaur or both of them abetted Parminder Singh (deceased) to commit suicide. According to Section 107, IPC, a person abets the doing of a thing when he:
i) Instigates a person to commit an offence; or
ii) Engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence; or
iii) Intentionally aids a person by any act or illegal omission to commit an offence or illegally omits the doing of an act which would prevent the commission of the offence.
25. While dealing with a matter under Sections 107 and 306, IPC, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) held as under:-
"Facts of the case:
3. The prosecution case briefly put is that Sita Devi, married to Rajinder Kumar some five years, prior to the occurrence had a son from him, who on the date of occurrence, was about six months old. It appears that Rajinder Kumar appellant and his wife had stopped seeing eye to eye with each other with the result that for the last 22 days, prior to the occurrence he had stopped returning to his house. He was employed at the shop of Raj Kumar appellant.
Sita Devi held Raj Kumar to be responsible for discord between her and her husband and for the abnormal Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 19 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) conduct of Rajinder Kumar of absenting from home. Her efforts of persuading Rajinder Kumar to come back to her appear to bear no fruit. At about 8 a.m. on the date of occurrence, Sita Devi deceased came to the shop of Raj Kumar to make a final bid at persuading of Rajinder Kumar to resume normal visit to the matrimonial home. He, however, told her off saying that he would not come to house and would ill treat her. Sita Devi thereafter went back to her house and returned with a bucket of kerosene oil and again told Rajinder Kumar accused that if he would not accede to her request of returning to her she would burn herself. Both of them are said to have told her that she could go ahead with her plan, the same would not affect their health. Sita Devi then and there sprinkled kerosene oil upon her body and with a matchstick set herself on fire right in front of the shop of Raj Kumar accused. Neither of the accused is said to have made any effort to save her by extinguishing fire or removing her to the hospital for medical aid. It was Sohan Lal P.W. 5 who happened to be present there who removed her to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. Tarlok Nath P.W. 1 who had admitted the deceased in the hospital at 9.45 a.m. sent ruqa to the police A.S.I. Jai Singh P.W. 7 who on receiving the telephonic message reached the hospital and at 11.10 a.M. recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence and hearing of Dr. Suresh P.W. 3, on being certified by the latter that she was in a fit condition to make the statement. On the basis of the said statement, the case was registered against the two accused. Sita Devi died on the same day at 3.05 P.M. Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 20 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) Findings:
"8. Even if the evidence of the PWs Sohan Lal and Sukhdev Singh is accepted at its face value, although it is an improvement upon the dying declaration on a most crucial and material point pertaining to the protest made by her to the accused soon before committing suicide to the effect that if Rajinder Kumar did not comply with the request of agreeing to return to the matrimonial home she would commit suicide and the accused having said that she could do what she liked as that would not affect them, it at best amounts to an omission on their part of not having tried to dissuade her from committing suicide. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether such omission on their part would satisfy the requirement of clause thirdly of Section 107, Indian Penal Code Clause thirdly envisages not a simple omission but an illegal omission. The omission would be illegal only if what has been omitted, to be done was required under the law to be done by such a person. Counsel appearing for the opposite side has failed to show any law that requires a person, whether a stranger or a close relation, to stop a stranger or a close relation from committing a crime. If it is to be otherwise, then, in our opinion, even most innocent persons would be found guilty of abetment of suicide and other offences if they were unable to comply even with the most unreasonable demand of their children or their spouse or of utter stranger made on the point of committing suicide.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Kapoor Prashant
2013.08.30 10:56
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 21
CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
12. Expression 'instigate' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as urge on, incite, bring about by persuasion and in Webster, it has been defined as urge forward, provoke with synonyms of stimulate, urge, spur, provide tempt, incite, impel, encourage, animate. The word 'instigate' in common parlance would mean to go, to urge forward or to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.
13. The retort made by the accused when the deceased threatened to commit suicide if Rajinder Kumar did not agree to her request, did not amount to instigation by any stretch of imagination. If such a retort is accepted to be constituting instigation, then to cite only one example, the parents would be guilty of abetment of suicide if even when most unreasonable demand is made by their child, which they are not in a position to comply with, on the threat of committing suicide and they were to retort that the child could do so as they were not in a position to agree to his/her request. The framers of the Code surely could never have intended this to happen."
26. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mukesh, 2012 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 489, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held as under:-
"17. In catena of cases, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that something said in a fit of anger cannot be held to be abetment of suicide. Therefore, even if the accused-respondent had told Smt. Geeta "to kill herself", the said words would not bring his acts within the definition of Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 22 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M) abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Act."
27. In addition to the above, the submission made by the learned counsel for the State that the appellant, Satnam Singh, and his co-accused, Akal Rachna Kaur, had taken a false plea with regard to their relations with the complainant side, would not come to the rescue of the prosecution since it is the basic principle of criminal law that the prosecution has to stand on its legs and if it proves allegations from its own evidence, in that eventuality the falsity of the evidence or denial of a patent fact by the accused can be taken as one of the factors for strengthening the prosecution case. Reference in that regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Hakkim and another v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Tamil Nadu, 2010 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 500, wherein it was held that while dealing with circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.
28. In the present case, after excluding the statement of Karnail Singh (PW-5), there is not an iota of word or circumstance so as to hold that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused in any manner. The prosecution cannot be allowed to submit that the accused had taken a false plea, therefore, even without proving the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306, IPC, the accused be held guilty for the said offences. Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 23 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
29. Yet another circumstance, which needs discussion is that initially on 3.9.1996 the case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The investigating agency was not able to collect any evidence connecting the appellant, Satnam, and his co-accused, Akal Rachna Kaur, with the alleged crime, therefore, Karnail Singh (PW-5) was managed by the complainant side to depose in their favour. After a considerable gap of approximately four months, Karnail Singh (PW-5) contacted the police and made the police to believe that he had met Parminder Singh (deceased) in the University campus on the fateful day and had seen the appellant, Satnam Singh, and Akal Rachna Kaur talking with him (Parminder Singh). This fact clearly goes to show that the complainant side/prosecution had gone so jealous that after the death of Parminder Singh, they wanted to secure conviction for the appellant and Akal Rachna Kaur at any cost.
30. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal appeal bearing CRA-S-721- SB-1999 deserves acceptance and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant, Satnam Singh, is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The fine imposed on him by the learned Trial Court, if deposited, be returned to him.
31. As a sequel to the above discussion, the criminal revision petition bearing CRR-1440-1999, filed by the complainant, Varinder Singh, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-721-SB-1999 (O&M) and 24 CRR-1440-1999 (O&M)
32. The Registry is directed to return the lower Court record forthwith along with a copy of the judgment passed by this Court.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE July 4, 2013 PKapoor B-29-183 Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.30 10:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order