Sat Darshan Kalia vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

In the din of crime against women counts the facts of the present case which shows that viceversa in the peculiar facts is also true.

Lalit Walia was a teacher in a renowned institution at Jalandhar. He was married to Kiran Bala in April, 1984. The couple was blessed with two children. Deceased Lalit Walia had his aged parents staying with him. It is apparent that the bliss of the happy married life was not in store for the deceased.

It was on 4.4.1989 that ASI Gurpal Singh received telephonic information in the early hours of the morning that the House No. 24, Shastri Nagar, Jalandhar had been set on fire. He rushed to the said place. It was found that Lalit Walia and his two minor sons Nannu and Chhottu had been set ablaze. ASI Gurpal Singh noticed the smell of kerosene being emitted from the dead bodies. This set the law into motion. The statement of Ram Ditta father of deceased Lalit Walia was recorded in which father of the deceased recited that soon after marriage Lalit Walia and his wife developed strained relations. The wife of Lalit Walia wanted him to drive his parents out of the house. Lalit Walia was opposed to it on the ground that he was the only son of his aged parents and that he was not ready to face the criticism of driving out his old parents. The dispute between the deceased and his wife developed to such an extent that parents of Lalit Walia started living in another house at Lajpat Nagar in October, 1984. Ram Ditta and his wife (parents of the deceased) did not keep good health with the result that Lalit Walia brought them back to his house. This increased the domestic troubles of the deceased and his wife. The wife of the deceased gave filthy abuses to the mother of Lalit Walia besides the deceased himself. The wife of the deceased left her matrimonial house on 2.4.1989 leaving behind the minor children. Thereafter the accusedappellants had again come to the house of Lalit Walia and abused and insulted him. They had come back on 3.4.1989 to repeat the performance of insulting and threatening deceased Lalit Walia.

On the night intervening 3/441989, the parents of the deceased besides their daughter Usha slept in a separate room. At 3.00 a.m. they woke up and noticed that upper floor of the house had caught fire. It was noticed that Lalit Walia and small children Nannu and Chhottu had been burnt. On the basis of this statement, the first information report came into being.

On 5.1.1990 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar framed a charge against the accusedappellants with respect to offences punishable under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Needless to emphasise that appellant Kiran Bala is the widow of the deceased. Appellants S.D. Kalia and H.D. Kalia are brothers of appellant Kiran Bala while appellant Brij Sharma is the wife of S.D. Kalia appellant.

In support of its case, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses so as to establish that there were quarrels between the deceased and his wife. The parents of the deceased were turned out of the house. The appellants even before the fateful day had come, quarrelled and threatened the deceased. Kiran Bala told the deceased that he could die anywhere he likes. Besides that reliance is being placed on the suicide note left by the deceased.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Kiran Bal appellant denied the prosecution evidence led against her and her precise defence was in answer to question No. 9 which reads:

"It is false case. After the marriage I and my husband had cordial relations and we were blessed with two children i.e. both sons. Shri Lalit Walia was a man of very high ambitions and while in service in DAV College, Jalandhar he could not achieve what he wanted to. He even used to have number of tuitions and was over straining himself. In this process, he became alcoholic and used to drink a lot. His family had history of having psychic patience. His two sisters were mentally deranged. They committed suicide by burning. I used to request Lalit Walia not to indulge in excessive drinking and to waste his life. A day prior to the present incident, when I again requested him not to drink liquor he beat me and threw me out of the house under the influence of liquor per force. I had to go to my brother''s house. The present case was got registered against us falsely as the parents of Shri Lalit Walia and his sister wanted to grab the entire property which was jointly owned hy me and my husband including the house where the incident took place. I and my husband had a joint account in Oriental Bank of Commerce. The locker in that bank bearing No. 147 too was being jointly operated upon by us. House was jointly purchased by us. In all the insurance policies of Lalit Walia as well as the National Saving Certificates I was the nominee. The parents of Lalit Walia after getting this case registered, under duress and pressure, got my signatures on a document for depriving me of all the properties which I jointly had with my husband. I am innocent."

Appellant Sat Darshan Kalia in similar terms denied the correctness of the persecution evidence which was put to him in the form of different questions. He stated that he has falsely been implicated with a view to put pressure on Kiran Bala and to deprive her of property which she held jointly with the deceased. Similar was the statement of appellant H.D. Kalia and Brij Sharma wife of S.D. Kalia. In defence the appellants tendered in evidence certified copy of the plaint Ex. DA, that of the written statement Ex. DB, copies of the statement from the Bank Ex. DC, copies of the insurance policies besides certified copy of the agreement Ex. DD.

The leaned trial Court on appraisal of evidence produced on the record concluded that it has been established that prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond all shadow of doubt and held them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. By subsequent order of sentence of even date dated 28.5.1993 the learned trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/. In default of payment of fine, each accused had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Fine if realised was directed to be paid to the father of the deceased.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and the order of sentence, the present appeal has been filed.

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads:

"306. Abetment of suicide. It 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."

It is apparent from perusal of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code that the scope of this particular provision is confined to abetment of suicide i.e. who aids and abets the commission of suicide. A person can abet the commission of offence in any one of the three ways set out in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The said provisions of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads :

"107. 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, it an act or illegal commission 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 provisions which have been so codified leave no doubt that if a person instigates, abets or aids the other in commission of the offence, it would be an abetment contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Explanation 2 added to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code further makes the position clear that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act. The question as to what would be an abetment to commit suicide contemplated under the Indian Penal Code or constitute instigation for commission of the offence had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and another, AIR 1989 SC 1661. In paragraph 23 it was observed :

"As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or stated in isolation. Such being the case, the instigative effect of the words used by the accused must be judged on the basis of the distraught condition to which the accused had driven Veena Rani. (emphasis added)."

Thus, it has to be seen on basis of the facts of the case whether it amounts to commission of committing suicide and whether the evidence on the record was sufficient to arrive at such a conclusion. In this regard the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 pertaining to appreciation of evidence would be advantageous. It reads as under:

"There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. See the observations of Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, (1950) 2 All ER 458 at p. 459, but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law."

With this background we can revert back to the facts of the case and the evidence on the record. It transpires from the evidence of Dr. B.N. Maini PW1 who performed the postmortem examination of deceased Lalit Walia and his two sons that the case of death was extensive burns. The children had been tied. Dr. Maini further was of the opinion that it was a case of suicide. The suggestion put forward that a fourth person had tied both the children with the deceased and thereafter set them ablaze was negatived. There is no reason to discard the statement of Dr. Maini and it must, therefore, be held that the cause of death was extensive burns and that deceased Lalit Walia after tying the two children and himself set ablaze. In this process he committed suicide.

Since in the facts of the present case the abetment is not pertaining to commission of the suicide by a woman, but by the husband, presumptions under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 cannot be drawn. Short of the said presumptions under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the law would be the same for men and women in the country.

It is alleged that there was hardly any dispute pertaining to the parents of the deceased living with the deceased and Kiran Bala. The evidence in this regard is on the record to establish otherwise. It transpired in the statement of Smt. Tripta Devi PW5 who is the sister of the deceased that relations of the deceased with Kiran Bala were not cordial. She stated that accused Kiran Bala used to quarrel with the deceased because she wanted him to take up a separate residence from his parents. The deceased did not agree. Ultimately in 1984 the parents of the deceased took up a separate residence in a separate house. Even after the separation when the parents of the deceased started living in another house, the quarrel between the deceased and Kiran Bala did not end. In July, 1988 at the instance of Kiran Bala the parents of the deceased started living with them in the old house. The witness had been crossexamined and confronted with her earlier recorded statement under Sections 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where she had not stated about the parents of the deceased having been forced to live separately or that even after the parents of the deceased took up a separate residence, the relations remained strained between the deceased and his wife. Total omission in this regard does not necessarily give rise to a logical finding that statement of the witness is to be ignored. It is patently an omission of the Investigation Officer to interrogate the witness about this aspect of the matter. She finds herself in good company and support comes in evidence of Tarlok Singh PW7. The witness adds that about a year prior to the incident when the deceased expired, the parent of the deceased were turned out of the house and they started living separately. He is an independent witness and once again it appears that the Investigating Officer did not interrogate the witness about his important aspect.

It is in the evidence that the deceased was the only son of Ram Ditta Mal PW8. Besides the old parents, the deceased had a disabled sister as it transpired during the crossexamination of Smt. Tripta Devi. In such like circumstances, there would be a natural anxiety for the parents to live with their only son. When the father of the deceased Ram Ditta Mal PW8 was crossexamined, the suggestion was put to him that on account of stay of Ram Ditta Mal in there house there used to be disturbance to the students who came for tuition and therefore, the deceased had arranged separate accommodation for his parents. The suggestion has promptly been denied. When appellant Kiran Bala widow of the deceased was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she altogether denied that parents of the deceased were turned out of the house. No such reason as was suggested to Ram Ditta Mal had been given. It cannot, therefore, be taken to have established that because of the tuitions of the students, the parents of the deceased were asked to stay separately. There is no reason to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that at best it would only provide harassment to the deceased which is not abetment. In its strict sense harassment may not be abetment to an offence but if it acts as like slow poisoning as in the facts of the case it can drive a person to put an end to his life.

The said fact cannot be looked into in isolation. The evidence was produced so as to establish the strained relations between the deceased and his wife and use of abusive language as against the deceased. In the statement made by appellant Kiran Bala under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she accuser the deceased to be an alcoholic and that a day prior to the incident she was thrown out of the house. The said plea is an afterthought because important facts cannot be lost sight of. The deceased and his wife had two small infant children. There was no occasion for her to leave them alone. Thus, this assertion of the appellantwife of the deceased cannot be believed.

It is in the evidence of Smt. Tripta Devi PW5 that relations of the deceased with his wife were strained. Tarlok Singh PW7 also supported the said fact that Kiran Bala often used to quarrel with the deceased. He is their neighbourer. The manner in which appellant Kiran Bala left her children which ordinarily a mother will not do supports the version that there were strained relations between the deceased and Kiran Bala.

It is admitted by Kiran Bala appellant that a day before the incident when the deceased committed suicide there was a quarrel. The reason given by appellant Kiran Bala that under the influence of liquor she was turned out of the house is not believable. Tarlok Singh PW7 explains that on 2.4.1989 at 8.30 p.m. he was present in his house. On hearing the noise he came out of the house. Several residents of the locality were present there. Some students were also there. Appellant Sat Darshan, his wife and wife of the deceased were in street. They were quarrelling with the deceased. When appellant Kiran Bala left the house of the deceased, she had told the deceased that she was going to her parents'' house to live and deceased may die anywhere he likes. To state that deceased was a chicken hearted person and may be having a suicidal tendency will not be correct. The Court finds no reason to ignore the statement of Tarlok Singh PW7. Sometimes words and behaviour acts and causes greater damage than lethal weapon. Here the wife of the deceased was telling him that he could go and die anywhere.

To crown it all is the suicide note left by the deceased. It reads:

"I am writing this by believing in presence of God and a little before my last breath.

Sd/ Lalit Walia

dated 3.4.1989.

It runs as under:

I do not at all like dying. But when I look at the circumstances, I find no way out. I have worked hard but I could not earn peace. To whom should I blame ? It was in my luck to have such a nagging wife and quarrelsome inlaws. I would not have taken my flower like children with me. But I am sure that lady shall definitely spoil and finish the life of these children. My heart goes for my flower like children. They have seen nothing of life and they also seem to be unlucky. Yesterday, Kiran, S.D. Kalia and Brij insulted me to an extent that it would not have been possible for me to forget it throughout my life. This lady has made my life and of my parents miserable. She used to abuse them and beat them and if I retaliated, blame of bringing less dowry was brought forward.

It is my desire that my insurance, provident fund, house, bank account and from out of my property moveable or immovable, Kiran should not get even a single pie. After my death my parents are entitled to the same and thereafter my sister Tripta shall get the same. However out of the house Kiran should get 1/5 share because I have already got registration in her name to that extent. Yesterday while leaving the house she had taken with her Rs. 10,000/ and clothes. My good bye to all. No body need to weep. Every body should pray that no one should get such wife and inlaws.

Sd/ Lalit Walia

dated 3.4.1989."

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the said suicide note was produced on the next day of the death and is a forged document. The handwriting of the suicide note has been proved besides the sister of the deceased (Smt. Tripta Devi PW5). She is conversant with his handwriting. It is not shown that it is not in the hands of the deceased. Smt. Tripta Devi had come on hearing the death of her brother and explained that she had found the suicide note in the almirah of the deceased. The delay in producing the same and its recovery is thus explained.

Perusal of the contents of the suicide note would show the mental agony that was being suffered by the deceased as a result of act and conduct of his wife. So much so that he even set ablaze his two infant children. It even recites that Kiran Bala used to assault and abuse the parents of the deceased.

All these facts so established have to be read together. The deceased was a teacher in a college. The facts established would go to show that he would not have acted in that manner unless he had felt instigated by the utterances of his wife and her behaviour. All this torture and allegations necessarily caused depression in his mind and drove him to an extent to put an end of his life and his children by sprinkling kerosene oil and set ablaze. Circumstantial evidence as well as statements of the witnesses clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiran Bala instigated and abetted in this regard.

The learned trial Court rightly convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

As regards other appellants who are close relations of Kiran Bala appellant, the role assigned is that a day before the incident they had come and quarrelled with the deceased but beyond that there is not much evidence against them. It was that incident in which they were taking part. However, only Kiran Bala had used the words that deceased may die anywhere he likes. In these circumstances keeping in view the isolated role of that incident and that there being very little other evidence, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. It cannot be held that they had driven the deceased to do the said act or instigated him.

As regards the sentence of Smt. Kiran Bala, it has to be taken note of the fact that the incident is of 61/2 years ago. The long trial is a mitigating factor in the present case. Therefore, the interest of justice would be fully met if the sentence is reduced from 5 years to 3 years rigorous imprisonment but without any change in respect of the fine imposed. It is so ordered.

For these reasons given above, the appeal is partly accepted. Appellants S.D. Kalia, Brij Sharma and H.D. Kalia are acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. The appeal filed by Kiran Bala appellant is dismissed subject to the modification in the sentence awarded by the trial Court. She should surrender to her bail bonds.