Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Bagga Singh on 2 February, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
Date of Decision: February 02, 2010.
State of Punjab ...Appellant
VERSUS
Bagga Singh ...Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
for the appellant-State.
Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate, and
Mr. Jagnahar Singh, Advocate,
for the respondent-accused.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was
admitted for hearing on 12.12.2000.
The State of Punjab has filed this appeal impugning
-2-
Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
the judgment dated 22.4.2000 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in case F.I.R. No.64 dated
30.7.1998 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
`the Code') registered at Police Station Khamanon, vide which
Bagga Singh (accused-respondent) was acquitted of the charge
framed against him.
The instant case was registered on the basis of
statement made by complainant Fateh Singh on 30.7.1998
before Assistant Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh wherein he stated
that he was married with Darshan Kaur about twenty years
back; that he had four children out of which two were sons and
two were daughters; and that accused-respondent Bagga Singh
was harassing his wife Darshan Kaur with an evil eye for the last
one and a half years. He further stated that the complainant and
his wife Darshan kaur made a number of complaints to the parents
of Bagga Singh to resist him from doing these activities, but
instead of saying anything to their son, they misbehaved with
the complainant and his wife. On 30.7.1998 at about 10 A.M,
accused-respondent Bagga Singh teased Darshan Kaur and
passed lewd comments when she was passing through the
street. Due to this, Darshan Kaur suffered mental tension on her
mind. She consumed Sulphas Tablets (Aluminium Phosphide - a
pesticide) and became conscious. Kuldeep Singh, son of Darshan
Kaur, who was present in the house, informed about her condition
to the complainant. At that time, complainant was present in the
-3-
Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
Abadi of the village. The complainant reached home and found
his wife Darshan Kaur in a serious condition. She was saying the words that she had consumed Sulphas Tablets on account of harassment meted out to her at the hands of the accused-respondent. Charanjit Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant and the complainant rushed Darshan Kaur to a private clinic in the Maruti Car and got her admitted at Khamanon. Darshan Kaur, in the presence of the Doctor, again repeated the same words that she had committed suicide by consuming Sulphas Tablets on account of the harassment meted out to her at the hands of the accused. After some time, Darshan Kaur died.
Assistant Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh along with the complainant and Charanjit Singh went to Village Hawara Kalan and prepared inquest report (Exhibit P.4) and sent the dead body of Darshan Kaur to Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana for post mortem examination.
Dr. Avtar Singh conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Darshan kaur. The viscera of Darshan kaur (deceased) was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner, vide report (Exhibit P.6) opined that the death of Darshan kaur was due to the consumption of Aluminium Phosphide , a pesticide, which is a poison.
After completion of investigation and due formalities, challan under Section 306 of the Code was presented against the accused before the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the -4- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
case to the Court of Session, the offence under Section 306 being triable by a Court of Session.
Charge under Section 306 of the Code was framed against the accused-respondent. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed a trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr.Vivek Kumar Dharni (P.W.1), Dr.Avtar Singh (P.W.2), Sadhu Singh (P.W.3), complainant Fateh Singh (P.W.4), Charanjit Singh, brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.5), Harbhajan Singh, another brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.6), Naresh Kumar, who took Darshan kaur to hospital in his Maruti Car (P.W.7), Assistant Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh (P.W.8), Kuldeep Singh, son of Darshan Kaur (P.W.9), Head Constable Kuldeep Singh (P.W.10) and Head Constable Harjinder Singh (P.W.11).
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-respondent denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He took up the stand that neither he had any relations with Darshan kaur nor he ever tried to develop any relations with her. He did not cut any lewd remarks against her. He further stated that he never went to the house of Darshan kaur. She consumed poison mistakenly. He further stated that it was the talk of the village that Darshan Kaur was being harassed by the complainant-husband due to some personal reasons of family life and his name was introduced later on. In defence, the accused-appellant examined -5- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
Gurmel Singh (D.W.1). Gurmel Singh (D.W.1) stated that Darshan Kaur had illicit relations with one Jagga Singh son of Piara Singh of his village and their remained quarrel between husband and wife due to illicit relations of Jagga Singh with Darshan kaur. The complainant gave beatings to Darshan kaur. This witness further stated that Darshan kaur had been taken to Khamanon hospital by Jagga Singh and at that time she was not in her senses and was unconscious. This witness further stated that the accused and Jagga Singh had quarrelled with each other and later on Jagga Singh managed to get the accused implicated in this false case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that the learned trial Judge, while passing impugned judgment failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the evidence on record. The prosecution evidence was
sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused-respondent and the trial Court erred in not believing the same.
For the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter, the impugned judgment regarding acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 306 of the Code is not legally sound. Although it is well-settled that the High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial Court and if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is -6- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
favourable to the accused should be adopted, but each case has its own facts. Paramount consideration of the Court is always to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the conviction of an innocent is no less than from the acquittal of guilty. In this case, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case point towards the fact that the trial Court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence while acquitting the accused-respondent under Section 306 of the Code is concerned.
Section 306 of the Code, which reads as under:-
" 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The prosecution was to prove as to whether the accused- respondent had abetted Darshan Kaur to commit suicide. The prosecution, in order to prove this offence, examined complainant Fateh Singh (P.W.4), Charanjit Singh, brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.5), Harbhajan Singh, another brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.6), Naresh Kumar, who took Darshan Kaur to hospital in his Maruti Car (P.W.7) and Kuldeep Singh, son of Darshan Kaur (P.W.9). Kuldeep Singh, on the relevant day, was -7- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
present in his house when the accused-respondent passed lewd remarks against the deceased by catching her from her arm. On the other hand, the accused-respondent, in his defence examined Gurmel Singh (D.W.1), who stated that Darshan Kaur had illicit relations with one Jagga Singh son of Piara Singh of his village. He further stated that their remained quarrel between the complainant and Darshan Kaura (deceased) due to illicit relations of Jagga Singh with Darshan kaur. The complainant gave beatings to Darshan kaur. This witness further stated that Darshan kaur had been taken to Khamanon hospital by Jagga Singh and and at that time she was not in her senses and was unconscious. He further stated that the accused and Jagga Singh had quarrelled with each other and later on Jagga Singh managed to get the accused implicated in this false case. The trial Judge formed the opinion that the version given by Gurmel Singh (D.W.1) was more probable than the one given by the prosecution. For discarding the prosecution version, the trial Judge mainly disbelieved the presence of Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9) son of Darshan Kaura and the complainant at the house. Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9) was a student of 9th Class. The trial Judge observed that the prosecution has failed to prove as to how Kuldeep Singh was present in his house because no evidence was led by the prosecution to show whether there was holiday in the school on that day. Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9), in his deposition in Court stated that on the relevant day, he had not gone to the school as he was ill. He stated that -8- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
his mother was present in the house on that day whereas his father had gone to the `Abadi' of the village. He stated that the accused-respondent came from the side of his house and caught hold the arm of his mother and stated " Ki Hall Hai Tohada"
"Kade Mera Ve Kam Sar Deyo" (lewd remarks seeking sexual favours from Darshan Kaur). Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9) being a student of 9th Class, was mature enough to understand the intention of the accused-respondent. Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9) stated that when the accused-respondent passed these lewd remarks by catching the hand of her mother, her mother gave abuses to him. She came out of the house in the street and the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, his mother went inside the room and started weeping bitterly and consumed some thing. When Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9) came near to his mother, he found that the condition of her mother was serious as she had consumed Sulphas Tablets due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused. Kuldeep Singh then went to his father, who was present in the `Abadi' of the village and informed him about the incident. Darshan Kaur was then taken to hospital. Complainant Fateh Singh (P.W.4), Charanjit Singh, brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.5) and Harbhajan Singh, another brother of Darshan Kaur (P.W.6) have supported the version given by Kuldeep Singh (P.W.9). Harbhajan Singh (P.W.6) further deposed that the accused was harassing his sister previously and his father had gone to settle the matter. He further stated that the accused had admitted -9- Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
his guilt in the Panchayat. These witnesses have no enmity with the accused-respondent to depose falsely against him. If the evidence of Gurmel Singh (D.W.1) that the deceased was having illicit relations with Jagga Singh and on that account there used to be quarrel with the complainant and Darshan Kaur, is to be accepted, then the complainant would be the first person to name that Jagga Singh in the commission of this crime than the accused- respondent Bagga Singh. The evidence furnished by Gurmel Singh (D.W.1) is an afterthought and he has come forward to help the accused-respondent so that he could be saved from the punishment for the crime committed by him(accused-respondent).
In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding
that the accused-respondent Bagga Singh has committed the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code for abetting
Darshan Kaur to commit suicide.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment
acquitting the accused-respondent under Section 306 of the Code
is set aside. Accused-respondent Bagga Singh is convicted
under Section 306 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
Accused-respondent Bagga Singh is ordered to be
taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence imposed upon
them. He will, of course, be entitled to set off for the period
-10-
Criminal Appeal No.1237-SBA of 2000.
he remained in custody during investigation or trial. Necessary
information in this regard be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehgarh Sahib.
February 02, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL )
ak JUDGE