State of Punjab vs Kirpal Singh and ors.

S.D. Bajaj. J.

First Information Report No. 48, recorded against the three accused in Police Station Saddar Jalandhar at 11.00 P. M. on Oct. 8, 1982 reads :

"I am a resident of village Kala Singhia P. S. Saddar Kapurthala. About one year ago, I had married my one daughter Mohinder Kaur with Kirpal Singh s/o Sohan Singh Jat r/o village Gakhalan P. S. Saddar Jalandhar according to rites. After her marriage, she continued living in the house of her inlaws. During that period, she used to visit our house several times. She used to return after staying for one or two days or we ourselves took her to the house of her inlaws. But my daughter Mohinder Kaur used to tell me and my wife Pritam Kaur that her husband Kripal Singh was in the habit to maltreat her illegally by saying "your parents are poor. When you come from their house you come with empty hands and you do not take any thing from your parents." But, we remained helping our daughter according to our capacity and used to send her in the house of her inlaws after making her understand. Sometime back our daughter was to deliver a child and my son Santokh Singh had brought Mohinder Kaur to our village from (her inlaw''s) village Gakhlan. About 21/4 months ago, Mohinder Kaur gave birth to a female child. About 11/4 months after Darshan Kaur who is the motherinlaw of Mohinder Kaur visited our house and told us to prepare the girl as the wanted to take her along. Upon which we sent the girl with her motherinlaw in the house of her inlaws. After living in her inlaws'' house for a period of one month her motherinlaw Darshan Kaur made Mohinder Kaur board the bus from the Bus Stand of village Chogawan to village Kala Singhia. My daughter Mohinder Kaur came and told me that her motherinlaw, husband and sisterinlaw whose name is Chhinder Kaur were taunting her by saying that she had given birth to female child so they would not keep her in their house. On 7101982 in the evening my soninlaw Kirpal Singh had come to our house and having quarrlled with us he took Mohinder Kaur and her female child with him. Today, the 8th October, 1982 one person came to our village at about 1.30 p.m. from village Gakhlan and he gave information, "Our daughter has been burnt due to bursting of a stove and she has been admitted in Ohri Hospital at Jalandhar. After going there, you can see her." Upon this information, I along with my son Santokh Singh, elder soninlaw Malkiat Singh s/o Inderjit Singh, Jat r/o Batala reached Hospital at Jalandhar. After reaching there, we found our daughter lying burnt and un conscious. Dharshan Kaur motherinlaw of Mohinder Kaur and one other woman Swaran Kaur met us and we enquired about the reasons of burning of Mohinder Kaur from them. But they did not give any satisfactory reply. I wanted to take my daughter in Civil Hospital for her treatment but within our sight, my daughter Mohinder Kaur died in Ohri Hospital. Then with the help of my son Santokh Singh, I took the dead body of my daughter to Civil Hospital. Darshan Kaur and Swaran Kaur aforesaid ran away from the Hospital to some where else. On account of greediness, Kripal Singh s/o Sohan Singh, his (Kripal Singh''s) mother Darshan Kaur and Chhinder Kaur the sisterinlaw of Mohinder Kaur deceased having connived with one another have caused the death of my daughter Mohinder Kaur."

On being charged with the commission of the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code all the three accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated July 1, 1983 learned trial Court reached the conclusion that the utterances or the course of action attributed to the three accused in prosecution evidence did not constitute abetment, that accused Kirpal Singh was on duty in Mandi Gobindgarh at the relevant time and that there was no meeting of minds or common intention shared by all the three accused. Consequently all the three accused were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 715DBA of 1983 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the appellant State, nemo for the three accused arrayed as respondents in spite of due service and have perused the relevant record.

Entries 2 and 59 made in roznamcha of Police Lines, Patiala, at the instance of DW2 Harbhajan Singh and DDR No. 12 dated 7th October, 1982 in the roznamcha of Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh, rule out the possibility of Kripal Singh accused having brought his wife from village Kala Singhia in Kapurthala district to Patiala on October 7, 1987 or of being her by had side in the early hours of the morning on 8101982 at the time of occurrence. Accusation of abetment against him is, therefore, wholly unfounded.

Only conduct attributed to motherinlaw Smt. Darshan Kaur and sisterinlaw Surinder Kaur is that they were taunting the bride for bringing less

dowry and having given birth to a female child. Law point involved for determination is, would it amount to abetment by instigation persuading the

bride named Mohinder Kaur (now deceased) to commit suicide. In Hari Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 123 and Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 660 this Court held that it did not constitute abetment by instigation. Relevant

observations read :

"Mr. Harbans Singh, counsel for Rajinder Kumar, and Mr. H. L., Sibal. counsel for Raj Kumar, have canvassed before us that the evidence on the record even if accepted at its face value, makes out no offence against either of the appellants. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the requisite ingredients of abetment as defined in section 107 IPC, have not been established against them by the prosecution. Elaborating the submission, it has been stressed that the appellants were neither guilty of instigation nor of aiding in the commission of the crime either by any act or by an illegal omission as envisaged by the provisions of section 107 IPC.

There appears to be merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants. Section 107 IPC is in the following terms

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.

Expression `instigate'' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as urge on, (sic) Webstor, 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."

In this view of the matter finding of not guilty'' returned by the learned trial court qua the three respondents is, therefore, affirmed.

In result appeal filed by the State of Punjab fails and is consequently dismissed.