Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Sarwan Singh has come up in appeal against the conviction and sentence of three years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/, in default further two months'' rigorous imprisonment under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by his order 31st January, 1983.

Sukhdev Kaur (since deceased) daughter of Ajit Singh PW4 was married to the appellant for the last about twenty years. She gave birth two sons and one daughter from the loins of the appellant. All the three children are alive and the youngest one is a son. The appellant was addicted to intoxicants. He mortgaged his entire land and later on wanted to sell the whole land. Ajit Singh PW4 got a civil suit filed in the Civil Court from Sukhdev Kaur. The suit was decreed and the land was transferred in the name of Sukhdev Kaur. a loan was raised by Sukhdev Kaur from the land mortgage bank to redeem one of the mortgages made by the appellant. One buffalo and one cow were got attached by the back in lieu of the loan. Ajit Singh paid Rs. 2800 and got the cattle released from attachment. After a year the appellant again got the same land mortgaged for Rs. 1000 by putting pressure on Sukhdev Kaur. The appellant used to maltreat sukhdev Kaur and she used to get a sum of Rs. 200 to 400 from her father at intervals. The appellant told Sukhdev Kaur that she should further mortgage the land for another sum of Rs. 6000 or she should jump into the canal. Ten days prior to the present occurrence which took place on 17th June, 1982, Ajit Singh PW again went to the village of the appellant and in his presence also the appellant quarreled with Sukhdev Kaur. The appellant told her that either she should arrange for a sum of Rs. 6000 or jump into the canal. Ajit Singh PW pacified both the parties and left for his village.

On 19th June, 1982, a grandson of Ajit Singh PW came to him at Chandigarh from village Khanjarwal and told him that Sukhdev Kaur had been missing since 17th June, 1982. Ajit Singh PW immediately went to the village of the appellant and found that some villagers and some of his relations were already present there and were searching for the body of Sukhdev Kaur in the canal. The deadbody of Sukhdev Kaur was detected near the fall of the canalwater into a minor. Ajit Singh PW, after leaving his companions near the deadbody went to Police Station, Jagraon, and lodged first information report Exhibit PA there on 20th June, 1982. The deadbody of Sukhdev Kaur was recovered from the canal on 20th June, 1982. An inquest report was prepared by an Assistant SubInspector and the deadbody was brought to Moga for post mortem examination. Dr. Anup Sood PW1 performed autopsy on the deadbody of Sukhdev Kaur on 21st June, 1982, at 11.10 a.m. Following is the report of the post mortem examination :

"There was greenish and blackish discoloration of the body. The skin was peeled off at places. The body was foulsmelling and swollen. Mouth was open. Eyes were closed and swollen. The tongue was protruding and swollen. Brain was hyperaemia. Forthy fluid was coming from mouth and nostrils.

On opening, the chest and trachea were found congested and it contained muddy fluid. Lungs were swollen, oedematous. They were pitting on pressure. On dissection, they exuded large quantity of forthy bloodstained fluid.

Stomach was containing muddy fluids. Heart was empty and healthy. All the other organs were normal.

In my opinion, the death in this case was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning which was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."

The appellant was arrested on 24th June, 1982, and after due investigation was sent up for trial.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication and stated that his fatherinlaw was a greedy person and got the land transferred in the name of his daughter Sukhdev Kaur and that he was falsely implicated in this case to exclude him from inheriting the land. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

The prosecution, apart from Dr. Anup Sood PW1, examined Rajinder Singh PW2 who prepared jamabandi copy Exhibit PE and gave it to the Investigation Officer. PW3 Bachittar Singh, Manager of Land Mortagage Bank, Jagraon, stated on the basis of the record that on 14th May, 1976, Sukhdev Kaur wife of Sarwan Singh of village Dalla took a loan of Rs. 8300 from the bank. PW4 Ajit Singh is the father of Sukhdev Kaur and also the first informant in the case. PW5 Jalour Singh was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. PW 6 Mohan Lal Assistant SubInspector proved the signatures of SubInspector Sant Singh on first information report Exhibit PA. This witness investigated the case.

The only evidence which has come on record against the appellant is that he was addicted to intoxicants, had mortgaged his land and wanted to sell the same and that Sukhdev Kaur used to bring money from her father off and on and after the land was transferred in the name of Sukhdev Kaur he used to tell her to mortgage the same further to arrange for money or should drown herself. Apart from this, there is not an iota of evidence to show that he actually aided or abetted the commission of suicide by Sukhdev Kaur. Mr. K.S. Doad learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that the solitary statement of Ajit Singh PW even if taken at its face value would not disclose the commission of an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In this context he has placed reliance on a Division Bench authority of this Court reported as Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1983 (1) Rent Criminal Reports : 553 1983(1) C.L.R. 660 , wherein their Lordships very elaborately interpreted the definition of `abetment'' of an offence. Their Lordships were pleased to hold that the expression `instigate in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as `urge on, incite, bring about by persuasion'' and in Esbster, it has been defined as `urge forward, provoke with synonyms of stimulate, urge, spur, provide, tempt, incite, impel, encourage, animate''. The word `instigate in common parlance would mean `to go, to urge forward or to provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act.'' Judging the facts of the present case on the touchstone of this authority there is no evidence that the appellant either instigated Sukhdev Kaur to commit an offence or omitted to do something which he was required under the law to do. I agree with contention of the learned counsel that in view of the evidence on record the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to the appellant.