Hari Singh vs State of Punjab

C.S. Tiwana, J.

Hari Singh aged about 55 years has filed this appeal against the judgment dated April 10, 1980 of the Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot, whereby we was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to the payment of a fine Rs. 500/. He was charged with the abetment of suicide committed by his wife Surjit Kaur (45). She died to arsenic poisoning at 5 p.m. on August 30, 1979. According to the prosecution version, it was at 10 a.m. that day that the appellant had given a bearing to her and had then instigated her to kill herself by taking some poison. He had immediately thereafter left the house and was arrested by SubInspector Gurdev Singh P.W. 11 on the morning of August 31, 1979.

First information report in relation to the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by Arjan Singh PW 3 (75) at 6.30. p.m. on the date of occurrence at Police Station, Kotkapura, which is at a distance of three miles from village Dhilwan where the offence was said to have been committed. Arjan Singh is the father of the appellant and the other witness who supported the prosecution case is Nasib Kaur PW (25) who is married daughter of the appellant himself.

Post mortem examination on the body of Surjit Kaur was performed by Dr. Usha Goel PW 1. She had sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner and on obtaining his report the cause of death was given out by her as arsenic poisoning.

Arjan Singh PW 4 put forward this story at the trial that the appellant had developed illicit relations with his own daughterinlaw Jaswinder Kaur. She is the wife of Sukhminder Singh. Jaswinder Kaur got recently married. With regard to illicit relation all the Arjan Singh said was that the appellant began to have an evil eye on Jaswinder Kaur. Surjit Kuar objected to the conduct of her husband. It was on that account that the relations as between the appellant and his wife were said to have deteriorated. Arjan Singh then referred to this specific instance that at 10 a.m. on the date of occurrence the appellant had given a beating to Surjit Kaur. During the course of his crossexamination he referred to another beating administered by the appellant two days earlier to his wife by first blows. On the date of occurrence when some beating was said to have been given by the appellant to his wife besides Arjan Singh, Nasib Kaur PW4 and Sukhminder Singh had intervened and had rescued Surjit Kaur. We have it from the statement as made by Nasib Kaur PW4 that the appellant left the house immediately after he had given the beating at 10 a.m. Further, according to the narration as given by Arjan Singh PW3, it was at 2 p.m. that Surjit Kaur began to feel unwell. Thereafter medical aid was provided to her but she expired at 5 p.m. at the residential house itself.

The appellant coined his own story and alleged that his father Arjan Singh had illicit relations with Surjit Kaur. The appellant had been in Jail for a long period and on account of his absence the illicit relations were said to have developed. The appellant then narrated in his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that when he referred to his fact to his wife that she was having illicit relations with her fatherinlaw she was alleged to have confessed her guilt in this respect. According to the appellant, she felt remorseful on account of her confession and for that reason she committed suicide without being instigated by him.

The trial Court by believing Arjan Singh and Nasib Kaur that the appellant had asked his wife to take poison concluded that there had been instigation on his part for the commission of suicide by his wife. Furthermore, this fact was taken into consideration that the appellant did not care to come back to the house till the time of his arrest. I am of the view that the prosecution evidence brought on record is not sufficient for proving any investigation in the commission of the suicide by Surjit Kaur. Even if we disbelieve the version about the circumstances leading to the suicide to be wholly correct this conclusion can be reasonably reached that Surjit Kaur felt disgust, in living with such a husband who was having illicit relations with his own daughterinlaw. It is not known when arsenic was actually consumed by the deceased and as to how it was procured by her. Even if the appellant had said to his wife in anger that she could die by taking poison if she liked, it would not tantamount to any such instigation for the commission of suicide which could be capable. The taking of arsenic can be said to be an independent act of the deceased. It was not in any manner influenced by any kind of abetment made by the appellant. The beating about which Arjan Singh and Nasib Kaur gave evidence rather shows that Surjit Kaur was tried of her husband and wanted to and her own life. The beating alleged to have been administered cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to be an act of abetment for the commission of suicide.

The conduct of the appellant after the occurrence is not coming back to the house is explained away by this circumstances that he already knew that his father was inimical towards him and could always suspect that on account of the death of his wife he was going to be involved in some kind of case. His conduct cannot be taken to be corroborative fact of his guilt.

For the foregoing reasons, the offence of which the appellant was convicted does not stand proved. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.