Rishi Kumar vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Rishi Kumar accusedappellant was married to Saroj deceased in February, 1981. Husband Rishi Kumar native of village Ladayan was employed as Telephone Operator at Rohtak. After marriage Saroj also came to Rohtak and the two started living in a rented house in Jagdish Colony, Rohtak. One Shanti Parkash, a Harijan native of same village Ladayan, who is an employee of the State Bank of India at Bahadurgarh, was also a tenant in another portion of the same house and as living therein with his wife Tarawati and children. Rishi Kumar and Shanti Parkash, both tenants in the same house, had a commensality of kitchen. A year after marriage Saroj told her husband Rishi Kumar that since both of them hail from the same village Ladayan and Shanti Parkash was a Harijan, it was not advisable to have a common mess with a Harijan and people in the native village Ladayan will look down upon them on this score. Rishi Kumar, who was stealthily carrying on with Tarawati, did not relish the talk of his wife regarding taking exception to commensality of kitchen with Tarawati, gave her a severe beating for her utterances in this regard and forced her to continue running a common mess with Tarawati wife of Shanti Parkash.

Saroj conveyed the happening aforesaid to her sisterinlaw Sarla, wife of her brother Mohinder Lal, who in turn apprised her husband Mohinder Lal of it. Mohinder Lal talked about it to Raj Kumar, husband of his elder sister Anguri alias Savitri Devi. Raj Kumar broached the subject with Rishi Kumar who just put him off by diverting the topic of discussion.

On the occasion of marriage of her younger brother Naresh Kumar Saroj persuaded her parents to give more presents to Tarawati, who had come to attend that marriage uninvited in the company of her husband Rishi Kumar so that her husband may get pleased with her on the ground that his keep had been honoured more than their own daughter Saroj by his parentsinlaw. It, however, did not click nor bring in the desired result.

Shortly before the marriage of Naresh Kumar, Saroj had become pregnant from the loins of Rishi Kumar. While sitting in her parents house in the course of marriage aforesaid, Saroj had conveyed the factum of pregnancy to her mother and sisterinlaw and also said that Rishi Kumar, her husband was always accusing her of infidelity and saying that the foetus in her womb was not his. Ishwar Piari nurse working in Medical College Hospital at Rohtak, who also resides in Jagdish Colony, Rohtak, told Mohinder Lal, brother of the deceased, on 16th April, 1984 that on 15th April, 1984, Tarawati had brought the deceased to her for carrying out abortion of the child in the womb of Saroj but the witness did not do so because Saroj was not consenting to it and wanted to derive the pleasure of her giving birth to first child. Allegations of infidelity on the part of Saroj towards her husband Rishi Kumar by means of her having conceived a child through some third person were also being made by Shanti Parkash and Tarawati aforesaid. Getting fed up with this kind of life and leaving a suicide note Exhibit PB addressed to Tarawati keep of her husband Rishi Kumar, Saroj set her mortal remains on fire at 4.00 pm on 15th April, 1984.

All the three of them named Rishi Kumar, Shanti Parkash and Tarawati were prosecuted before the learned trial court under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Husband Rishi Kumar was also charged separately under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well. Vide its judgment dated 2nd April, 1985, the learned trial court acquitted all of them of the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rishi Kumar, husband of the deceased, was however, convicted of the commission of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to be released on good conduct probation for 2 years on furnishing a personal bond and a surety Bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/. The accused was also ordered to pay Rs. 1000/ as costs of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved from the decision of the learned trial court, accused Rishi Kumar has filed Criminal Appeal No. 443DB of 1985, against his conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. State of Haryana has filed Criminal Appeal No. 443DBA of 1985 against the acquittal of all the three accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Mohinder Lal, brother of deceased Saroj, has filed Criminal Revision No. 1131 of 1985. All the three, two Criminal Appeals and a Revision have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.

Referring to the suicide note Exhibit PB learned counsel for the accusedappellant Rishi Kumar contended that the deceased having given a clean chit to her husband and the learned trial court having concluded after discussing the contents of the suicide note aforesaid that Rishi Kumar accused was a simpleton and the deceased herself had desired in the note that he should not be harmed. According to the learned trial court, the deceased would have continued to bear all the abuses and beating of her husband Rishi Kumar even with his advances towards Tarawati and the insistence of having a common mess with a Harijan family. None of these was, in fact, the penultimate cause of her commiting suicide. In this view of the matter, in given circumstances of the case, the accused ought not to have been convicted and punished for the commission of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The argument advanced by his learned counsel is of no avail to the accusedappellant and does not ensure for his benefit at all. Clean chit given by the wife to her husband is in line with the reverence a Hindu wife has for her husband. It only exculpates him of the liability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The course of action attributed to accusedappellant Rishi Kumar in abusing and beating the deceased, forcing her to have commensality of kitchen with Harijan family of her native village, levelling against her the accusation of infidelity towards himself by carrying in her womb the child of someone else, other than the accused appellant and pressurising her to agree to the abortion of the foetus in her womb, all fall in and are covered by the definition of `cruelty'' obtaining in clause (a) of the explanation appended to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. There is thus no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accusedappellant Rishi Kumar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence part of the judgment would, however, be looked into later.

Adverting to the State appeal and the Criminal Revision filed by Mohinder Lal, it would be appropriate to refer to the legal provisions first and then to see if those are attracted for application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case or

For facility of reference, the same are being set out hereinafter :

"306 Abetment of suicide : If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

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."

The word "instigate" literally 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 the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. To constitute instigation it is not necessary that express words should be used to indicate what could be done by the person to whom the directions are given. The offer offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is actually done by the person whom he abets. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetted was the instigation and nothing else, for it is humanly impossible for any tribunal to decide exactly how much the instigation actually weighed in the mind of to person abetted.

It would thus appear that the abetment defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code can be of instigation, conspiracy or intentionally aids. It is not enough that the act of the alleged abetor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aid through active complicity is the first of the offence of abentment under the third paragraph of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

A reference to the assailed judgment recorded by the learned trial court on 2nd April, 1985, would reveal that the learned trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it against all the three accused reached the following conclusions :

(i) Their Saroj deceased committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her wearing apparel ;

(ii) That accused Rishi Kumar was under the spell of coaccused Tarawati leading to a firm conviction in the mind of the deceased that her husband Rishi Kumar had illicit relations with Tarawati.

(iii) That the deceased was being forced by her husband Rishi Kumar accused to have a common mess with the Harijan couple and their children to her utmost annoyance and that to stifle her opposition accused Rishi Kumar had abused and beaten her at intervals, and

(iv) That the deceased was being constantly harassed by utterances of having conceived a child through someone else other than her husband Rishi Kumar and was being forced to undergo abortion of the foetus in her womb on that score.

The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the conduct attributed to any of the three accused in this case either individually or collectively renders them culpable for abetment to suicide committed by Saroj deceased at 4.00 P.M. on 15th April, 1984.

From the reading of clause firstly of Section 107, it is clear that a person who instigates another to do a thing abets him to do that thing; in this sense it makes instigation tantamount to absertment. A person is said to instigate when he goads, provokes, incites, urges or encourages another to commit a crime. Maltreatment of the deceased Saroj by accused Rishi Kumar at intervals by beating and hurling abuses on her under whatsoever pretest and the creation by Rishi Kumar and his believed keep coaccused Tarawati of circumstances which made the deceased end her life by suicide, as held in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi), 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 350, does not amount to abetment within the meaning of word `abetment'' as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of `Not guilty'' returned against them by the learned trial court on this score is, therefore, affirmed. State appeal filed against their acquittal under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, dismissed. Criminal Revision filed by Mohinder Lal in so far as it prays for conviction and sentence of the three accused on the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is also rendered without merit.

While awarding sentence to accused Rishi Kumar for his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court lost sight of the fact that instances of bride killing are alarmingly or the increase if society is to be got ridden of this growing evil. It is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offences brought home to the accused, the court must deal with the offenders most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to Rishi Kumar accused is under and manifestly inadequate. Failure of the learned trial court to impose proper sentence has, in fact, resulted in miscarriage of justice. Sentencing order passed by the learned trial court against accused Rishi Kumar on 2nd April, 1985, is consequently set aside. For his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, accused Rishi Kumar is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. Personal bond and surely bond furnished by the accused in the learned trial court in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall both stand discharged. Rs. 1000/ deposited by him as costs of the proceedings shall also be refunded to him.