Chander Parkash Nagpal and ors. vs Hari Singh

B.S. Nehra, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th November, 1988 of Sh. Manjit Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, whereby he found a primafacie case under section 494 read with section 109 IPC and framed chargesheet against Chander Parkash and Geeta under section 494 IPC and the remaining accused under section 494 read with section 109 IPC.

The facts of the case are that the respondent, Hari Singh complainant (father of Surinder Kaur alias Veena) filed a complaint under section 494 read with section 109 IPC alleging that his daughter Surinder Kaur was married to Chander Parkash on 8121982 at Panipat according to Anand Karaj rites. He spent about Rs. 80,000/ in the marriage and gave adequate dowry but his sonin law, Chander Parkash, the latter''s father and mother and other family members harassed Veena, daughter of the complainant, for bringing inadequate she was turned out of the house by the accused in wearing apparels and accused Sheilo mother of Chander Parkash accused and the latter''s sitters Asha and Seema left her (Veena) at the bus stand, Panipat and threatened her to be put to death. The accused also threatened the complainant in the presence of Biradari and the Panchayat that they will perform the second marriage. Later on, Chander Parkash accused performed the second marriage in April, 1985, according to Hindu rites, with coaccused Gita, daughter of Jeewan Dass. D. L. Verma, Amrik Singh, Kashmir and Smt. Bindra participated in the second marriage. All the remaining accused were present at the time of second marriage and they told the witnesses that Chander Parkash had divorced his first wife. On 1081985, in the Biradari Panchayat, all the accused, except Jeewan Dass, confessed their guilt regarding the second marriage.

Hari Singh complainant has testified on oath that Veena was married on 8121982 according to Anand Karaj ceremonies 4 and he spent Rs. 80,000/ in the marriage and also gave sufficient dowry. He was told by his daughter that her inlaws are greedy and they used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry. Subsequently, Sheilo and Asha accused left Veena at the bus stand Panipat on 2431985. Afterwards, Chander Parkash performed the second marriage with Gita. PW7 J.C. Chaudhary also testified on oath that Chander Parkash was married to Veena in his presence. Later on, he told him that her inlaws used to harass her and demand more dowry. Afterwards, he learnt that Chander Parkash has performed the second marriage. PW6 Amir Chand proved that Chander Parkash accused performed second marriage with Gita according to Hindu rites and all the accused participated in the second marriage and performed the ceremonies. PW1 Jaswant Rai, Record Keeper, proved that in their record, Gita has been mentioned as wife of Chander Parkash PW2 Dr. D.L. Verma also proved that the accused performed the second marriage with Gita, according to Hindu rites and according to the voters'' list Gita is shown to be wife of Chander Parkash.

According to the learned trial Court, the statement of the complainant was corroborated by the testimony of PW7 J.C. Chaudhary and the cumulative reading of the evidence prima facie proved that Chander Parkash was married with Veena daughter of the complainant. The court found that the testimony of PW2 D.L. Verma and that of PW7 I.C. Chaudhary prima facie proved that the accused Chander Parkash had performed the second marriage with Gita accused and that their evidence also proved that all the accused participated in the second marriage and performed the marriage ceremonies. Voters'' list produced by the trial court also prima facie proved that the accused Chander Parkash had performed the second marriage with Gita. Considering the totality of evidence produced before it, the trial court proceeded to frame the charges, as discussed hereinbefore.

The learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously assail that part of the impugned order whereby charges have been framed against Chander Parkash accused, his second wife Gita and his father Ram Baksh and his mother Sheilo. He, however, contended that the order of the learned trial Court framing charges against the other accused, namely, Asha and Seema, sisters of Chander Parkash accused, Harish brotherinlaw of Chander Parkash accused. Sham brother of the said Chander Parkash, maternal uncles Dev Raj and Kishan Chand Verma of the said Chander Parkash and Laxmi mother of the second wife of the said Chander Parkash is wholly improper and unjustified, for the accused, other than the principal accused Chander Parkash, his second wife. Gita, his parents viz. father Ram Baksh and mother Shielo, cannot be said to have abetted the commission of the crime under section 494 IPC.

Section 494 IPC lays down the punishment against a person who marries again during lifetime of the husband or the wife. Section 109 IPC deals with the punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. The sole point for consideration in this case is whether the remaining accused, viz. Asha, Seema, Harish, Sham, Dev Raj, Kishan Chand, Jeewan Dass and Laxmi, petitioners, can be said to have abetted Chander Parkash for the commission of the offence under Section 494 IPC.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence on the record to show that the aforesaid persons have abetted the Commission of the crime under section 494 IPC by Chander Parkash accused. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to satisfactorily point out the relevant evidence which could show that these persons had abetted Chander Parkash to commit the offence under section 494 IPC. The question as to what constitutes abetment, in such circumstances, came up for consideration in Gurcharan Singh v. Harvinder Kaur, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 151 before a Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court after referring to the provisions of section 107 IPC dealing with the definition of the term abetment, found that for constituting an offence under section 107 IPC three ingredients are required to be established, viz. (i) instigation to commit the offence, (ii) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence, and (iii) aiding the commission of an offence. The word "instigate" means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an Act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to do the act by any means, language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. For constituting the instigation, it is necessary that express words should be used to indicate what should be done by the person to whom the directions are given. Abetment necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the crime.

In so far as the other accused, excluding Chander Parkash, his second wife Gita and his parents, are concerned, they cannot be said to have abetted the commission of the offence under section 494 IPC (by Chander Parkash accused), even if it may be assumed for the sake of argument that they were aware of his first marriage with Veena. The mere fact that they participated in the marriage or they accepted some Shagun in the form of Milni etc. during the ceremonies of the marriage, cannot lead to the conclusion that they had abetted the commission of the offence by Chander Parkash accused. In the circumstances, the impugned order, whereby the accused, other than Chander Parkash, Geeta, Ram Baksh and Shielo, have been charged under section 494 read with section 109 IPC is held to be improper and unsustainable. However, nothing could be seriously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the impugned order in so far as the framing of the chargesheet against Chander Parkash and Gita accused under section 494 IPC and against Ram Baksh and Shielo under section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC is concerned. Hence this part of the order is maintained.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order whereby the chargesheet has been framed against Asha Seema, Harish, Sham, Dev Raj, Kishan Chand, Jeewam Dass and Laxmi, petitioners, under section 494 read with section 109 IPC is set aside.