Bara Singh vs Gurmit Kaur

M.L. Singhal, J.

Balkar Singh son of Bara Singh was married to Gurmeet Kaur daughter of Rulda Singh about 6 years prior to 5/96. 1 years prior to 5/96, they got a son from their wedlock. Balkar Singh was a driver. For the last 4 years prior to 5/96, Balkar Singh was putting up separate in village Laliani. Gurmeet Kaur was quarrelling with him and her parentsinlaw. Balkar Singh tenanted a house at Pipli about 2 years ago and was putting up with his wife Gurmeet Kaur there. About 15 days ago Balkar Singh vacated the house situated in Pipli and came to village Laliani with the household effects. He told his father Bara Singh that Gurmeet Kaur had gone to Thanesar to her mother Satwant Kaur after quarrelling with him. On 12.5.96 at about 12 noon, Gurmeet Kaur called Bara Singh to Thanesar to her mother''s house through telephonic message to him. Balkar Singh went to Gurmeet Kaur to her mother''s house on receipt of the telephonic message at about 2.30 P.M. On 13.5.96 at about 12 noon, Gurmeet Kaur conveyed her fatherinlaw Bara Singh on phone through Kuldeep Singh shopkeeper that Balkar Singh was lying admitted in University Hospital in serious condition and that he should come there. On receipt of this telephonic message Bara Singh along with his son Joginder Singh, Dalip Singh Numberdar and Bhupinder Singh reached University Hospital. Bara Singh, Joginder Singh, Dalip Singh and Bhupinder Singh found Balkar Singh dead on a cot in the hospital. Bara Singh made statement Ex.PD to this effect on 13.5.96 at 8.15 P.M. before SI Sadhu Ram. He laid suspicion on Gurmeet Kaur, her mother Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh @ Rulda Singh for the murder of Balkar Singh by administering something poisonous to him. On the basis of statement Ex.PD, entry No. 36 was recorded in the Daily Diary Register on 13.5.96 at PS City Thanesar Ex.PD P1. No case was registered on the statement of Bara Singh Ex.PD by the police. On 4.6.96 Bara Singh made application to SHO, PS City Thanesar praying that case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code be registered against Gurmeet Kaur, Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh @ Rulda Singh for the murder of his son Balkar Singh. In application Ex.PE, he reiterated the same facts as he had narrated in statement Ex.PD. On 4.6.96 case FIR No. 162 was registered at PS City Thanesar under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, accused were challaned under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code.

Case was committed to the court of Sessions by Shri A.K. Raghav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide order dated 12.8.96. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra charged the accused with offence punishable under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

With a view to bring home to the accused the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. Anupma Singh, Medical Officer, LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra PW1, Dr. D.S. Saini, Senior Medical Officer, LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra PW2, ASI Ramesh Chander PW3, Bara Singh PW4, Natha Singh PW5, Gurbax Singh PW6, Kuldeep Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8, Dr. H.K. Sobti PW9, Mukesh Kumar Draftsman, SP Office, Kurukshetra PW10, SI Sadhu Ram PW11, Shri Sewa Singh SHO, PS City Thanesar PW12, Constable Satbir Singh PW13 was examined on affidavit. Affidavits Ex. PK and PL of H.C. Om Pal and Constable Devinder Singh respectively were tendered into evidence. Report of chemical examiner Ex.PW/PN was also tendered into evidence. Accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the imputations appearing in prosecution against them and stated that it is a false case. Gurmeet Kaur stated that she had cordial relations with her deceased husband Balkar Singh and there was perfect harmony between them. He had some dispute with his father Bara Singh regarding land and there used to be tension between them on that score.

On the conclusion of the trial, Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra found the charge not proved against the accused and acquitted them.

Aggrieved from the order of acquittal, Bara Singh has come up in revision to this court.

State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal. Dr. D.S. Saini, Senior Medical Officer, LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra together with Dr. Rajesh Saini and Dr. Rahul Garg performed postmortem examination on the dead body on 14.5.96 and in their opinion cause of death was poisoning due to Aluminium Phosphide and it was so opined on the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner. Dr. H.K. Sobti, PW9 stated that on 13.5.96 when Balkar Singh was brought to his clinic as an OPD patient, he was given first aid and then referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. At that time gastric lavage was done. Later on he handed over gastric lavage to the police of PS City Thanesar.

Bara Singh PW4 who is father of the deceased is star witness of the prosecution. He has stated that Gurmeet Kaur stayed with her husband Balkar Singh for a period of 1 years in the same house in which he was residing. During this period of 1 years, she had been quarrelling and fighting with Balkar Singh. After about 1 years of marriage, Balkar Singh shifted to Pipli along with Gurmeet Kaur. She got a child about 1 years after they had shifted to Pipli. About 1015 days prior to 13.5.96, Balkar Singh came to village Laliani from Pipli with the household effects after leaving Gurmeet Kaur at Pipli as they had quarreled with each other. Balkar Singh told him that Gurmeet Kaur was quarelling with him and that she was not willing to stay with him and that she wanted to remarry. On receipt of telephonic message from Gurmeet Kaur, Balkar Singh went to Pipli i.e. Kurukshetra in the house of Gurmeet Kaur''s parents. Balkar Singh told him before leaving village Laliani that he had received telephonic message from Gurmeet Kaur that she wanted to meet him once, and on this telephonic message, Balkar Singh left village Laliani district Karnal for Kurukshetra. He received telephonic message from Gurmeet Kaur that he should come as Balkar Singh had been admitted in a hospital on 13.5.1996. On receipt of telephonic message on 13.5.96, he reached LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra along with 45 persons and found Balkar Singh dead. He stated that he had suspicion that his son Balkar Singh had been killed by Gurmeet Kaur, Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh by administering him poison. Strange enough, he has not stated at all the basis of his suspicion that they had killed Balkar Singh. Basis of his suspicion appears to be that Balkar Singh was not to the liking of Gurmeet Kaur. Gurmeet Kaur wanted to get rid of him and remarry and with a view to enable herself to get rid of Balkar Singh and to remarry, Gurmeet Kaur, her mother Satwant Kaur and her brother Ravinder Singh @ Rulda Singh joined each other and murdered Balkar Singh. This is only the impression of Bara Singh. Statement of Bara Singh that Gurmeet Kaur had been quarrelling with Balkar Singh and Balkar Singh was not to her liking and she wanted to remarry does not find corroboration. Natha Singh PW5 who is Balkar Singh''s maternal uncle stated that 1011 days earlier to 13.5.96, Balkar Singh met him at his residence and stayed there for a night and during his stay, he told him that his wife was quarrelling with him thinking that he was not a suitable match for her and that she wanted to remarry. Balkar Singh further told him that his motherin law Satwant Kaur and brotherinlaw Ravinder Singh also felt about him likewise. In his crossexamination, he stated that he had never stated so when he made statement before the police during investigation. Gurbax Singh PW6 stated that on 11.5.96 at about 78 A.M., Balkar Singh returned from Kandla (Gujarat) and he told him that he was to go to Kurukshetra to his inlaws and he took Rs. 600/ from him. In his statement Ex.DA recorded by the police during investigation, he had not stated that Balkar Singh had gone to Kandla (Gujarat) on his truck as driver and he returned to his village on 11.5.96 at about 78 A.M. He could not produce any documents to show that Balkar Singh had really gone to Kandla and returned on 11.5.96. Gurbax Singh PW6 stated that he made statement to the police a month after 13.5.96. If that was so, there may not be a ray of truth in his statement. Kuldeep Singh PW7 stated that he received telephone thrice from Gurmeet Kaur on 11.5.96 at about 7 P.M. that either he should get Balkar Singh connected with her on the telephone or ask him to ring her at Kurukshetra. Balkar Singh was not found present at his house on the night intervening 1112.5.96 and he told about this telephonic message to him at about 89 A.M. on 13.5.96. Balkar Singh told him that he would go to Kurukshetra after getting permission of his employer or talk to Gurmeet Kaur on phone. He received second telephonic message from Gurmeet Kaur on 13.5.96 at 11 A.M. informing that Balkar Singh was seriously ill and that he should pass on the message at his residence and thereafter he informed Bara Singh, whose residence is close to his shop, at about 12 noon that day the message conveyed to him by Gurmeet Kaur on phone that Balkar Singh was in hospital and that he should inform Bara Singh. In his crossexamination, Kuldeep Singh PW7 stated that Gurmeet Kaur told him during first telephonic talk that he should immediately inform Bara Singh about the condition of Balkar Singh. This shows that the accused could not be the killers of Balkar Singh. If they had been his killers why should Gurmeet Kaur have told Kuldeep Singh during her telephonic talk that he should immediately inform Bara Singh about the condition of Balkar Singh.

Surjeet Kaur PW8 stated that she had been residing in the same house in which Gurmeet Kaur resided for a period of about 3 years. They left that house as they had constructed their own house. Gurmeet Kaur and her husband resided in that house in which she resided for about 3 years. After they had shifted from that house to a new house, Balkar Singh and Gurmeet Kaur had been visiting her. On 13.5.96 at 11 A.M., Balkar Singh came to his house in serious condition and he sat on a cot. He told her that he was coming from Laliani that very day. His condition deteriorated. Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh came to her house along with several others. In crossexamination, she stated that so long as Gurmeet Kaur and Balkar Singh resided in the said house, their relations were cordial. Relations of Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh accused were also cordial with Balkar Singh. Even after Balkar Singh and Gurmeet Kaur had shifted to another house, they had been visiting her and their relations had been cordial. Neither Balkar Singh nor Gurmeet Kaur ever told her that their relations were not cordial or there was any rift between them. In this case, thus, there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial which could be suggestive of the fact that Balkar Singh had been murdered by these accused.

Whether there is any evidence which could be suggestive of the fact that Gurmeet Kaur, Satwant Kaur and Ravinder Singh had abetted the death of Balkar Singh. Section 107 Indian Penal Code defines "abetment" of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing who

First Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.

A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.

Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

Abetment under the penal code involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettors should substantially assist the principal culprit towards the commisison of the offence. Nowhere concurrence in the criminal acts of another without such participation therein as helps to effect the criminal act or purpose is punishable under the Code.

A person is said to instigate another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word `instigate'' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. A person abets by aiding when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof, the intention should be to aid an offence or to facilitate the commission of an offence. In this case, there is, thus, no evidence that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by Balkar Singh. Section 306 Indian Penal Code makes abetment of suicide punishable. It is not believable that Gurmeet Kaur who was married 6 years ago to Balkar Singh and bore a son for him, was feeling that he was not a befitting match for her. Assuming that Gurmeet Kaur was entertaining any such feeling about Balkar Singh, there was no occasion for Balkar Singh to have taken poison and killed himself. Taking of poison and killing himself was an act of Balkar Singh himself when there is no evidence that any of the accused brought poison and gave it to Balkar Singh.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner submitted that it is not a case of suicide but a case of murder and that this court should accept the revision, set aside the order of acquittal and remand the case to the police for reinvestigation. It was submitted that the revisional jurisdiction should be invoked at the instance of private complainant where the interests of public justice require interference in the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. He drew my attention to Pakalapati Narayan Gajapathi Raju and others v. Banapalli Peda Appadi and another, AIR 1975 SC 1854 in support of this submission. There can be no dispute with regard to this proposition of law. In this case, however, during investigation it was found that it was not a case of murder and it was found that Balkar Singh had committed suicide on having been abetted by the accused to commit suicide. If Bara Singh was not satisfied with the investigation of the police, he could urge reinvestigation by some other agency or he could go in for private complaint.

For the reasons given above, I do not find any weight in this revision. So, the same is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.