Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Raj vs Bhim Ram And Another on 13 October, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009
Date of Decision:October 13,2010
Hans Raj ...........Petitioner
Versus
Bhim Ram and another ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh,Advocate for the petitioner.
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Hans Raj was convicted for an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 3.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa. Vide order dated 7.1.2009, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 354 IPC . Hence, the present revision petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-
"2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution that on 3.8.2007 a ruqa was received in the police station from the Civil Hospital, Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 2 Sirsa regarding admission of Pammi Bai. On receipt of the same, ASI Amar Nath rushed to Civil hospital, Sirsa to record the statement of injured Pammi Bai. After reaching there he moved an application before the doctor who was attending the injured to ascertain as to whether she was fit to make statement or not. On that application the doctor reported that the patient was not fit to make statement. On the next day i.e. 4.08.2007 a ruqa was received from the civil Hospital, Sirsa, regarding the death of Pammi Bai. On receipt of the same, ASI Amar Nath along with other police officials, rushed to the Civil Hospital and there he recorded the statement of Hans Raj father of Pammi Bai. He stated that he is resident of village Nataar and is labourer by profession. He has four kids out of which three are sons and one daughter namely Pammi Bai (since deceased). He further stated that near to his house, there is a house of Bhim Ram son of Laddu Ram, odd Rajput. Five days prior the death of Pammi Bai, Bhim Ram through the roof of houses, came to the roof of his house where his daughter was sleeping on a cot. His son Rinku aged about 12 years was also sleeping on a separate cot near the cot of Pammi Bai. At about 4.00 p.m. Bhim Ram son of Laddu Ram came on the roof of his house and started outraging the modesty of hid daughter. His son Rinku woke up and saw that accused was trying to outrage the modesty of Pammi Bai and she was prohibiting the act of the accused. Despite of it, he went on doing indecent activities with the body of Pammi Bai. His son and his daughter raised alarm and also abused him and thereafter the Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 3 accused managed to run away from the roof of his house. In the next morning his son Rinku and his daughter Pammi Bai disclosed this incident to him. His daughter has also disclosed to him that two months prior to the present incident Bhim Ram also came on the roof of their house when she was sleeping and he tried to outrage her modesty but she could not disclose this fact to the members of her family so that there may not be dispute between two families and after this she started weeping. Thereafter he disclosed this fact to the family members of the accused and also to his father. After hearing this fact beating was also given to the accused by his father and thereafter the accused managed to run away from the village. Later on a Panchayat was also convened. After this incident due to insult his daughter did not take any edible. Since she was engaged in village Jammal and her marriage was to be solemnized after one month of this incident, therefore, she could not tolerate this insult and finally she took some poisonous substance. Thereafter, she was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Sirsa and she expired there. Five days prior to her death, Bhim Ram tried to outrage her modesty and she could not tolerate this insult and ended her life by consuming some poisonous substance. On his this statement present case was registered under Section 354/306 of IPC. He prepared the inquest report regarding the death of Pammi Bai and then autopsy on the dead body of Pammi Bai was also got conducted. Though doctor who conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body has handed over a copy of PMR, some Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 4 sealed parcels. One of the sealed parcel was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. The result of the same shows that contents of Ex.No. 1, 2 and 3 gave positive test for Aluminum Phosphide and Ex.No.4 gave positive test for Phosphide. Contents of Ex.No. 5 gave positive test for Saline only. The Investigating officer got the dead body photographed. He also rushed to the spot and prepared rough site plan. He also recorded statements of PWs under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completing the necessary investigation the accused was challaned by Sh.Moji Ram the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station Sadar Sirsa."
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal.
The learned trial Court in para 10 of the impugned judgment has observed as under:-
"10.There is a merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused. Taking consideration that the alleged occurrence of outraging the modesty of deceased Pammi Bai, had taken place on 31.07.2007 and the matter was reported to the police on 4.08.2008 but this fact cannot be ignored that immediately after the commission of offence under Section 354 IPC. PW4 organized a Panchayat and the accused did not participate in the same. Not only this, the occurrence pertains to unmarried girl and everyone thinks to sort out the matter as personal level failing which there may be many obstacles in her marriage. In this way, the delay stands explained with cogent reasons. PW4-father of the Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 5 deceased, is not eye witness of the alleged occurrence whereas PW5-younger brother of deceased is eye witness and he has stated that the accused tried to outrage the modesty of Pammi Bai. He along with deceased abused him and thereafter accused managed to run away from there. He has also stated that previously also accused tried to outrage the modesty of deceased and this facts was disclosed to him by his sister. The statement of deceased could not be recorded because immediately after her admission in the hospital, she expired. There is nothing on the file to show that accused has abetted the commission of offence. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might not happy with her engagement at village Jammal. This fact has been stated by DW1 and DW2. Admittedly the marriage of deceased was to be celebrated after one month of this incident and she ended her life by consuming some poisonous substance. There is no instigation on the part of accused which leads to commission of alleged offence. Taking into consideration the authority on which reliance is being placed by learned counsel for the accused it is crystal clear that the accused at the most has committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC but so far the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, he has no concern with the same and he never intended to do so. Since PW5 has categorically stated that the accused had tried to outrage the modesty of his sister Pammi Bai and he has also seen him with his own eyes,therefore, I am of the considered view that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 354 Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2009 6 of IPC whereas he never instigated the deceased to commit suicide and in this way he is not responsible for the death of Pammi Bai, therefore, I acquit the accused from the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and held him guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Let be he heard on quantum of sentence."
The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent under Section 306 IPC are sound reasons. The respondent has been convicted and sentenced under Section 354 IPC. The quantum of sentence does not call for any interference.
Dismissed.
(Sabina) Judge October 13, 2010 arya