Shakuntla Rani vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Shakuntala Rani appellant has come up in appeal against her conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his order dated 25th January, 1983. The learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 750/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The other two coaccused of the appellant, namely, Kharaiti Ram her husband and Seema Rani her daughter were also tried along with her but were acquitted since the charge against them did not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Banarsi Dass has filed Criminal Revision No. 484 of 1983 for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant. Both the appeal and the revision would be disposed of by this judgment.

The prosecution case in short is that Sudesh Kumari (since deceased) was married to Narinder Kumar son the present appellant. A lot of money was spent by her father Shri Mohan Lal Dhir on her marriage which took place in June, 1981, but the appellant and her coaccused were not happy as they thought that the dowry brought by the deceased was insufficient. The appellant and her coaccused wanted a television set to be given to Narinder Kumar aforesaid for which an amount was also given to him by Subhash brother of Sudesh Kumari deceased. In spite of all this appellant and her coaccused used to taunt and harass her. PW2 Banarsi Dass, an uncle of the deceased, was informed by Narinder Kumar''s younger brother on 19th May, 1982, at 7 P.M. that Sudesh Kumari had gone upstairs to sweep the room and was found dead at about 10 or 11 a.m. On 20th May, 1982 Shri Banarsi Dass and his brother Mohan Lal Dhir reached Mukerian at about 3.30 a.m. and found Sudesh Kumari dead and made an application, Exhibit PG, to the police on the basis of which a formal first information report was recorded at Police Station Mukerian, at 2.30 p.m. on 20th May, 1982.

Dr. Alkesh Arora, PW1 performed autopsy on the dead body of Sudesh Kumari on 20th May, 1982, at 1.30 p.m. His report is as under :

"There was no mark of ligature around the neck. She was wellbuilt, young female. Face was cyanosed and suffused, lips were cyanosed, mouth and eyes were closed. Sub conjunctival hemorrhages were present. Pupils were dilated. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs. Tongue was caught between the teeth. Post mortem staining was present over the back at places. Anterior portion of the tongue lying outside the teeth was congested and lacerations were present over this part of the tongue corresponding to the teeth. Bloody froth was coming out of mouth and nostrils. Blood was coming from left ear.....Membranes of the brains were congested......Both the pleurae were congested. Larynx and trachea were congested. Both the lungs were congested.....Right side of heart contained dark coloured blood. Mucosa of mouth, pharynx and esophagus were also congested.....Liver, spleen, and kidney were congested......Uterus was normal and nulliparous size. On dissection, it was found to be normal."

In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to asphyxia. This opinion was expressed subject to the report of the Chimical Examiner. The viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit PL, organophosphorus was found in the same.

The appellant and her coaccused were sent up for trial after due investigation.

In her statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution. She stated that Sudesh Kumari was suffering from mental depression and had been got treated at Sandhu Nursing Home, Patiala, and that the she committed suicide. However, no evidence was examined in defence.

The prosecution case mainly hinges on the evidence of PW 2 Banarsi Dass, PW4 Rama, PW7 Neelam Rani and PW8 Kewal Krishan. All that they have stated in their evidence is that the appellant and her coaccused was asking for more dowry and for that reason were harassing and illtreating the deceased.

The main and only contention raised by Mr. Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, is that even if the allegations of the prosecution are taken at their face value the case does not fall within the mischief of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In this context, he has placed reliance on Raj Kumar. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) CLR 660, a Division Bench judgment of this Court, wherein their Lordship were pleased to hold that to make out a case of abetment their must be instigation which in common parlance would mean, `to go'' to urge forward or to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. I find that there is no evidence of any of these elements which would constitute an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the State, has no quarrel with this proposition and fairly concedes that the case is covered by the aforesaid authority.

In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.