Paramjit Kaur and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—By this order I propose to dispose of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. 13381-M of 1995 titled Parmajit Kaur and another v. The State of Punjab and Anr. and Criminal Misc. No. 13994-M of 1995 titled Mangal Singh v. The State of Punjab, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

It is the case of respondent No. 2-complainant Narain Singh that Paramjit Kaur was married to his son Jaspal Singh in the year 1983. From this wedlock two children, a male and a female, were born. Jaspal Singh died on 21-5-1994. As per the complainant, Paramjit Kaur was in love with one Dr. Nirmal Singh and they in conspiracy with other petitioners administered poison to the deceased in liquor, as a result of which Jaspal Singh died on the same day. The complainant further submits that since the police failed to take any action upon the complainant, he filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, on or about 20-10-1994. The complainant claims to have earlier believed that his son had died a natural death, but it is only after he came to know of the report of Chemical Examiner to the Government of Punjab, which is dated 20-7-1994 that his son was administered poison i.e. Aluminium phosphide, which is a pesticide. This poison was detected in a viscera of | contents of stomach, small and large intestines, and '' Phosphine, a constituent of aluminium phosphite, was detected in heart, lungs and blood. Further the case of the complainant, as put forward in the complaint, is that he had come to know from Dr. Mastan Singh that he had seen the deceased, Dr. Nirmal Singh, Mangal Singh and his mother, shouting and abusing Jaspal Singh. He also saw them taking wine and he saw Paramjit Kaur holding pesticides in her hand. Afterwards Jaspal Singh had vomitted.

The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that the deceased Jaspal Singh was a habitual drunkard and used to take drugs. The death has resulted from such drugs and excessive-drinking and they are not responsible for his death. The petitioners further submit that their case is fully established from the statement recorded of Narain Singh, the complainant, on 21-5-1994, which reads as follows :-

Today at about 2-00 p.m., my son Jaspal Singh returned to the house from outside. He had taken lot of drugs. After enterting inside, he fell down and became unconscious. I along with Bhajan Singh s/o. Surjan Singh arranged a conveyance and removed him to Heart Hospital, Jalandhar. My son breathed his last in the hospital. Nobody is responsible for the same and I am not interested in taking any action against anybody. My son has died as he had consumed lot of drugs. I have heard the statement, which is correct.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and they are being falsely implicated in this case. According to the learned counsel the entire story is an afterthought in the face of the statement of the complainant himself made before the police on 21-5-1994. The counsel for the complainant has argued that all the petitioners have conspired together and they committed heinous crime of administering poison to the deceased and have killed Jaspal Singh, as Paramjit Kaur wants to get married to another person because she was sick of her husband due to his excessive drinking and taking drugs.

One fact which cannot be lost sight of is that all parties are in agreement with the fact that the deceased Jaspal Singh was drinking regularly and infact used to drink excessively and take drugs as well. At present this Court is not concerned as to which of the two versions is correct or not. All these are questions of fact which will have to be determined only alter proper evidence has been adduced before the concerned Court. Equally important factor is that two minor children are involved in this case and who are practically without shelter as on date. Their mother and grand parents both are in jail. As there were disputes between the husband and wife, the children were living with the mother along with grand parents.

It is equally a settled principle of law that in the offences which are punishable with death or for imprisonment of life, the provisions of S. 438, Cr. P.C. will normally be not available to an accused. The learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tirlok Chand Juneja v. The State of Haryana 1978 CLR 313, placed greater reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibia Vs. State of Punjab, , where it was held as under:-

That the discretion under S. 438 Cr. P.C,, be not exercised with regard to offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court at that stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundness.

The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have already furnished bail bonds before the trial Court which have been accepted, but these bail bonds have obviously been accepted in furtherance to the ex parte interim order of this Court dated 9-8-1995 and subject to the final orders being passed in these petitions. Certainly the story put forward by the complainant after a considerable lapse and specially the version put forward by Dr. Mastan Singh is not free from doubt. There is no explanation on record as to why Dr. Mastan Singh did not disclose this information for a considerable period of five months i.e. till October 1994, when the complaint is stated to have been filed. The two minor children cannot be permitted to be on the road. There has to be somebody to look after these minors unless the facts and circumstances of a case would call for an order to the contrary, At the same time, the Court has no reason to believe that the entire case of the complainant is baseless or false specially in view of the report of the Chemical Examiner.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases, Criminal Misc No. 13944-M of 1995 is dismissed and the anticipatory bail application of Paramjit Kaur in Criminal Misc. No. 13381-M of 1995 is also dismissed. However, petitioner No. 2 Mrs-. Parkash Kaur shall be released on bail. The interim order made in her favour dated 12-8-1995 is confirmed subject to the conditions stated therein. The trial Court is further directed to proceed in accordance with law and consider applications, if any, filed by any of the other co-accused.