Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramzan @ Guddu vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: 9 - 5 - 2011
Ramzan @ Guddu .....Appellant
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
1. Whether 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?
***
Present: Mr.Suveer Sheokand, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Ramzan @ Guddu was tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which vide impugned judgment dated 7.1.2003 acquitted him for offence under Section 302 IPC, however, held him guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [2]
The appellant was named as an accused in case FIR No.139 dated 29.10.1999 registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh under sections 302/306 IPC. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the statement Ex.PF made by Balbir Kaur PW2 daughter of deceased Manjit Kaur. Balbir Kaur in her statement stated that she was aged 16 years. She was a student of 10th class. She along with her sister Paramjit Kaur and younger brother Deepa used to reside with her mother in Village Ajnali in a rented house of Gurbachan Singh. Her father Bhajan Singh was working as a rickshaw puller at Ludhiana and elder brother was also doing the work of labourer at Ludhiana. On 27.10.1999, her father had come to village Ajnali. On 28.10.1999, she along with her mother Manjit Kaur and father Bhajan Singh had gone to the house of Amriko wife of Mukand Singh of Village Ajnali to meet them. Accused Guddu @ Ramzan had installed a flour mill on the canal minor of Village Ambe Majra. He also arrived at the house of Amriko. Coming there, Ramzan @ Guddu asked mother of the complainant as to why she had come to the house of Amriko as she (Amriko) was having a bad character, upon which parents of the complainant told that they had come to meet her and this will not make any difference. On this, Ramzan @ Guddu started beating Bhajan Singh, father of the complainant. Complainant and her mother Manjit Kaur made an attempt to intervene. They were also given beatings by Ramzan @ Guddu. Complainant and her parents returned to their house. They were followed by Ramzan @ Guddu on his scooter. On coming, Ramzan told that he had been supporting them financially and meeting expenses for the house hold for the last 3/4 years and he will not allow them to leave the village. Ramzan @ Guddu used to eat and sleep in the house of Manjit Kaur. Manjit Kaur told Bhajan Singh to Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [3] bring 2/3 persons from the village so that luggage could be taken to Ludhiana and they could shift to Ludhiana. Ramzan @ Guddu when came to know about it, he came in the night and started maltreating mother of the complainant and told her that she had been living with her for the last 3/4 years and at this juncture, she cannot desert and neglect her. He also gave a threat that he will eliminate her husband and children, upon which Manjit Kaur asked him that either he should kill her by administering poisonous substance or she will kill herself by consuming something poisonous. Till morning Ramzan @ Guddu lived in their house. A suspicion was raised that either her mother had consumed something poisonous or it was administered to her by the accused, due to which she had died at about 8.00/9.00 in the morning. Complainant informed her father and relations in this regard. When they came, complainant accompanied her father Bhajan Singh to lodge the report. Sub Inspector met them on the way at Battianwala Chowk, Gobindgarh, where her statement was recorded, leading to the registration of FIR.
From the above-said FIR, following facts emerge:-
(a) That Manjit Kaur deceased was mother of three children including the complainant;
(b) That husband Bhajan Singh and elder son of Manjit Kaur were living at Ludhiana;
(c) Manjit Kaur had developed illicit relations with the accused and for the last 3/4 years, accused was residing with Manjit Kaur;
(d) On 27.10.1999 husband of Manjit Kaur had come from Ludhiana and on 28.10.1999 Manjit Kaur along with her Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [4] husband had gone to the house of Amriko which was objected to by the accused;
(e) On arrival of the husband of Manjit Kaur, accused had given beatings to the husband of Manjit Kaur and when Manjit Kaur and complainant intervened, they were also given beatings;
(f) The accused had objected to shifting of Manjit Kaur to Ludhiana where she intended to join her husband. Accused had made a protest that at this juncture, he cannot be deserted or neglected;
(g) As per complainant, deceased had told the accused either to administer poisonous substance to her or she will herself consume some poisonous substance;
(h) Complainant further stated that on the next morning i.e. 29.10.1999, deceased was found dead and a suspicion was raised that either the deceased had herself consumed some poisonous substance or the accused had administered the same.
The above-said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
It seems that during investigation, the witnesses had stated that accused was the one who had administered the poisonous substance to the deceased.
On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Initially, on 1.9.2000, the appellant was charged for offence under Section 306 IPC. Later, on 31.10.2002, the charge was amended and the appellant was charged for offence under Section 302/306 IPC. The Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [5] charge stated that on 28.10.1999 in the area of Village Ajnali the appellant had committed murder of Manjit Kaur by administering her aluminum phosphate and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. In the alternative, charge under Section 306 IPC was also formulated. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
Balbir Kaur complainant appeared as PW2. She reiterated as to what was stated by her in the FIR. However, she improved the prosecution case from what was stated in her statement Ex.PF and in Court she stated that on 29.10.1999 at about 8.00/9.00 A.M., her mother was present in the house. At that time, her brother Deepa was also present in the house. Accused was quarrelling with her mother and was objecting to her shifting residence to Ludhiana. When she did not agree, accused gave her something in a glass against her will and she was forced to consume something which was wrapped in a piece of paper. Accused had forced her mother to take water from the glass. When mother took the same, her throat was trembling and within 15 minutes she died. She stated in Court that she made the statement Ex.PF to the police except portion Mark A to Mark B. Portion Mark A to Mark B was nothing but what was stated in Court, that something wrapped in a piece of paper was mixed in water and deceased was forced to drink the same. It was stated by her that her mother had already died before the arrival of her father.
Deepa alias Jagjit appeared as PW3. He was a boy of 11 years. After the Court made enquiries regarding his undertaking to comprehend the case, he was made to depose, Deepa alias Jagjit PW3 also reiterated as to what was stated by complainant PW2 Balbir Kaur.
Dr.Baljit Singh PW1 had conducted the autopsy on the dead Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [6] body of Manjit Kaur aged 45 years. No injury was found on her person. Her viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination. On receipt of report Ex.PA of the Chemical Examiner, the doctor had opined the cause of death to be consumption of aluminum phosphide, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Surinder Singh PW4 stated that Manjit Kaur was his sister's daughter. He took the dead body of Manjit Kaur to the hospital and identified the dead body to be of Manjit Kaur.
PW5 Constable Gurdeep Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex.PF to prove the link evidence.
SI Paramjit Singh PW6 proved recording of statement Ex.PF of Balbir Kaur complainant, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PE and recorded formal statements of the witnesses under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
PW7 HC Rajinder Datt submitted his affidavit Ex.PG to prove the link evidence.
Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence. It was specifically stated by him that he had no illicit relations with deceased Manjit Kaur.
No evidence was led in defence.
The learned trial Court to record acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC had observed as under:-
"8. ......In the cross-examination this witness has stated that no body from the neighbourhood came to them at the time of Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [7] quarrel and none was called by her to take her mother to the hospital though persons were present in the room. This witness has admitted that they raised hue and cry when accused gave a glass containing something. She has further stated that Shri S.S.Boparai DSP visited their house and did not ask anything from them nor she herself told anything regarding giving anything in the glass to her mother. She further stated that she did not lodge any report with regard to beatings with the police at the hands of the accused to her father. She also stated that the police had not recovered anything from the spot. She has specifically stated that the fact regarding non-mentioning of the words regarding `glass' came to her knowledge after a period of about three months when the accused was released on bail. She has admitted that DSP has conducted enquiry with regard to the incident. PW3 Deepa alias Jagjit aged 11 years also deposed in similar terms and contradicted to his sister and states that they had called the persons from the locality after the liquid was administered to her mother but no body turned up and her mother was taken to the hospital. Further as per evidence of PW6 SI Paramjit Singh, Investigating Officer enquiry was conducted by DSP Amloh and he was not aware of the fact that whether accused was found innocent or not. Enquiry report so conducted is not forthcoming on the file. Had there been any forcible administer of poison to the deceased by the accused there would have been mark of violence as the deceased was healthy Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [8] lady of 45 years but as per PW1 Dr.Baljit Singh he has clearly stated that there was no injury on her person. Thus, in all assessment of evidence, discussed above, I find that story with regard to administering of poison forcibly by the accused has been introduced to make an offence under Section 302 IPC and so I conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and he is liable to be acquitted on this count."
After recording acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC by observing as under:-
"9. .....Daughter of the deceased has clearly stated that her mother had illicit relations with the accused for the last 3-4 years and he used to stay in their house. It has also come in the statement of daughter and son of the deceased that accused used to harass and beat their mother and persistently taunted and tortured the deceased that in case his orders were not obeyed and they dared to leave village Ajnali and settle at Ludhiana he would kill her and her entire family. Both the children witnesses have no ill-will or animus to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Accused himself has not led any evidence in defence to prove his innocence. It is a matter of common knowledge that no Indian lady would end her life unless and until under compelling circumstances and in the present case due to ill-treatment harassment meted out to her Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [9] at the instance of the accused she ended her life by consuming some poisonous substance not even caring for her minor children. ...."
Mr.Suveer Sheokand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that Balbir Kaur PW2 and her brother Deepa @ Jagjit PW3 have been disbelieved by the trial Court qua the story of murder set out by them. It is stated that these witnesses had coined a false version that the accused had forcibly administered poison to the deceased. It is stated that Balbir Kaur was aged 16 years at the time of her examination in Court whereas Deepa @ Jagjit was aged 11 years. Counsel has stated that even this Court hold that these witnesses being child were not tutored and the version divulged by them is improbable, unnatural and unconvincing. It is submitted that if witnesses can resort to falsehood and material portion of their deposition is held to be false, their testimonies should be discarded as a whole.
Mr.B.S.Sra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab has stated that falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus is not a rule to which Courts in India adhere to while appreciating the evidence. He submitted that if testimonies of witnesses qua administering poison by the appellant are not believed, they can be believed qua other part of their testimonies.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by counsel for the parties.
Against acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, no appeal or revision has been preferred by the Lstate or the complainant.
Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [10]
In the present appeal, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC, has been assailed.
The question upon which this Court has to ponder is that even if the entire prosecution case is taken to be true, whether any offence under Section 306 IPC has been committed or not?
Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 643 has considered the law as propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in various judgments. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu's case (supra), reliance was placed upon Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Cri) 740; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 186; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 385; Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 947 to hold that abetment to suicide means ,a person would be held to have abetted the doing of a thing or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. It was said in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu's case (supra) that infliction of physical torture by the accused one day prior to the day of incident cannot be assumed to hold that the appellant had played any role either instigating or aiding the commitment to suicide.
In the present case, PW1 Dr.Baljit Singh who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has specifically stated that there was no injury on the person of Manjit Kaur. Therefore, the allegation that the deceased was given beatings on 28.10.1999 and 29.10.1999 does not stand to scrutiny. As per prosecution case, deceased was having illicit relations with the accused for the last 3/4 years and they were residing together. On arrival of the husband, deceased intended to shift to Ludhiana. Crl. Appeal No.157-SB of 2003 [11] The accused objected and threatened the deceased not to shift to Ludhiana. Probably, the illicit relations had come known to the husband. The deceased intended that accused should leave her and permit her to migrate to Ludhiana. Even if this Court assume that accused was threatening the deceased not to shift to Ludhiana and had given beatings to her also, it will not be sufficient to infer that accused intended that Manjit Kaur should commit suicide. The view taken by me is further fortified by the observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 603 wherein it was held that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act of suicide by the accused. It was further held that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own ideas of self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight- jacket formula in dealing with the cases of suicide. It was further held that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The view taken in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu's case (supra) and Gangula Mohan Reddy's case (supra) has been further reiterated in M. Mohan v. State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 272. Therefore, taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it is difficult to uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant.
Hence, the present appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 9, 2011. JUDGE RC