Gurmel Kaur and ors. vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Three appellants, namely Gurdial Kaur, her son Baldev Singh and her husband Siri Chand have come up in appeal against their conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. recorded by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Bhatinda vide his order dated 16.5.1983. All the three appellants have been sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ each, in default R.I. for one month.

Manjit Kaur, since deceased, was married to Baldev Singh appellant about 13/4 years earlier to the present occurrence which took place some where on 10th March, 1982. Three months prior to the present occurrence, Gurdev Singh PW6 member Panchayat of village Pacca Kalan was informed by Jangir Singh father of the deceased and Joginder Singh uncle of Manjit Kaur deceased that she had been turned out from the house of her inlaws, but Manjit Kaur was again brought to her inlaw''s place by Gurdev Singh, Joginder Singh and others PWs. 3/4 days after that, Baldev Singh appellant is alleged to have told these witnesses that he did not want to keep Manjit Kaur since she did not give birth to any child. Siri Chand appellant told that he wanted to marry his son for the second time. However, on the request of these three PWs, the appellants agreed to keep her in the house. On 7.3.1982 Baldev Singh appellant went to his fatherinlaw''s place and told him that Manjit Kaur was missing from the house since morning. Jangir Singh PW then called Tara Singh, Joginder Singh & Gurbachan Singh and told them about this fact and requested them to search for her daughter. Jangir Singh lodged report Exhibit PD at Police Station Saddar, Bhatinda about the missing of his daughter. On 11.3.1982 A.S.I. Mohinder Singh PW received a letter from S.D.O. Public Health, Bhatinda, which is Exhibit PF informing him that one dead body was floating in the water tank of village Teona which was maintained by the Public Health Department. A.S.I. Mohinder Singh PW took out the dead body from the water tank of 12.3.1982 in the morning. He prepared the inquest report Exhibit PB and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Dr. Subash Chander PW 1 performed autopsy on the deadbody of Manjit Kaur on 12.3.1982 at 4.00 P.M. In the following term is his report :

"Length of the body was 5'', 2". Body of a moderately built woman, eyes were closed, mouth was half open. Forth Fluid was coming out of the nostrils and mouth. She was wearing one printed salwar and printed kameej and banian which were sent and soiled. She was wearing 5 bangles in right hand and six bangles in the left, a ring in left ring finger & two rings in little and ring finger of right hand. One koka was in left nostril. All these belongings were sealed in a packet. The skin of hands and feet were corrugated and shrivled. The skin was peeled off at two places at the back. Hair and mouth was also soiled with mud. Mud was present in the (sic) nails and also. Rigor mortis was absent and post mortem staining was present. Tebej was also present. No external mark of injury."

In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to asphyxia which was due to drowning.

On 13.3.1982 Jangir Singh PW made a statement Exhibit PE before Mohinder Singh A.S.I. on the basis of which formal first information report Exhibit PE/1 was recorded by M.H.C. Gurdev Singh PW8 at Police Station Saddar, Bhatinda at 5 P.M. S.I. Naurang Singh PW 9 visited the spot on 16.3.1982 and prepared the site plan Exhibit PG. Baldev Singh and Siri Chand appellant were arrested by the A.S.I. Mohinder Singh on 19.3.1982. After due investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial.

When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and stated that since Manjit Kaur did not bear any child, she was also depressed. She was got medically treated at many places. Baldev Singh appellant informed his inlaws about the missing of Manjit Kaur and he had been searching for her also. Her body was found floating in the water tank. The appellants, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

Apart from Dr. Subhash Chander PW 1 whose evidence has been referred to in the earlier part of the judgment, the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt to the appellants examined Jangir Singh PW 2 father of Manjit Kaur, Gurdev Singh S.D.O. P.W. 3 who sent a letter Exhibit PF to the police. Joginder Singh son of Kehar Singh, PW 4 is a cousin of Jangir Singh PW 2. Joginder Singh PW 5 son of Kapoor Singh brought about this marriage. He deposed regarding the maltreatment by the appellants towards Manjit Kaur. Gurdev Singh PW6, Member Panchayat who along with Joginder Singh and Jangir Singh PWs resettled Manjit Kaur after she was turned out by her inlaws. Amar Singh PW 7 is the maternal uncle of Majit Kaur deceased. He also after learning that Manjit Kaur was missing had been searching for her along with PWs. M.H.C. Gurdev Singh PW 8 recorded the formal first information report Exhibit PE/1. S.I. Naurang Singh PW 9 partly investigated the case. PW 13 A.S.I. Mohinder Singh also partly investigated the case. P.W. 10 Jagjit Singh HC, PW 11 Gurdev Singh HC and PW 12 Major Singh constable tendered their evidence through affidavits.

Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted in the foremost that from the evidence on the record, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that Manjit Kaur has committed suicide much less that the appellants had abetted her in committing suicide. To support his argument he has referred to the report lodged by Jangir Singh PW father of Manjit Kaur, since deceased, on 9.3.1983 wherein he only stated that her daughter was missing and he did not make any allegation against any one nor did he say that he suspected foul play. It is in evidence of Jangir Singh PW himself that Baldev Singh appellant went to him on 7.3.1982 and informed him that Manjit Kaur was missing since 7.3.1982 morning and she was not traceable inspite of efforts made by him. According to the doctor who performed autopsy on the deadbody of Manjit Kaur on 12.3.1982 at 4.00 P.M., the time between death and post mortem examination was 36 hours. So according to this report possibly the death took place not before 10.3.1982. There is no evidence as to where Manjit Kaur was for all these three days and what happened to her during these three days. It cannot be ascertained as to whether she threw himself in the water tank or slipped in the tank or somebody threw her in the tank. PW 5 Joginder Singh son of Kapoor Singh has clearly stated that she was being got treated by the appellants from a number of doctors and that since she could not bear a child she used to remain depressed. The possibility that she committed suicide out of depression also cannot be ruled out in view of this evidence. Although Jangir Singh PW learnt about the death of Manjit Kaur on 11.3.1982 or 12.3.1982 he did not care to lodge any report against the appellants till the evening of 13.3.1982. From this also it can be concluded that these allegations in all probabilities were an afterthought. Mr. Sangha has placed reliance on Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab (1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 553) : a Division Bench authority of this Court, where their Lordships were pleased to hold that abetment can be by an act of omission or commission. An act of omission would only amount to abetment if somebody was legally bound to do something which he omitted to do. The act of commission would be to instigate, incite or bring about by persuasion any person to do an act. The word `instigate'' would meant to urge, forward or to provoke or incite or encourage any body to commit suicide. In the case in hand even there is no evidence as to at what time Manjit Kaur committed suicide if at all it was so. So I am of the view that this authority is applicable on all fours and the ingredients of section 306 I.P.C. are not made out as per the evidence brought on the record in this case. In these circumstances, I am constrained to allow his appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charge.