State of Punjab vs Sham Lal and Another

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Om Parkash real brother of Veena (now deceased) reported to the police in Police Station, Batala, around 11.00 A.M. on March 4, 1984:

"We are two brothers Kewal Krishan is younger to me and is bachelor. My father Short Lal is bed ridden for the last 6 years. I have six sisters. Out of them, 4 are married and two are unmarried. I am the only bread winner in my family. I sell vegetables on the Pheri and make both ends meet with great difficulty. About three years ago, one of my sisters, named Devi is married to Madan Lai son of Jagdish Lal, Mahajan, resident of Mohalla, Jogian, Batala. About 1 1/4 years back, our''s son in law Madan Lal had suggested his uncle Sham Lal''s son Gulshan as a match for my sister Veena. We made him clear that we had nothing to offer except our daughter in marriage. Smt. Kailasho w/o Sham Lal who is aunt of Madan Lal, said that they had everything in their house, we had no greed for anything and seek Veena''s hand. On being agreed to this proposal, we married Veena to Gulshan son of Sham Lal, Mahajan resident of Jogian Mohalla, Batala, with Hindu Customary. We spent money in the marriage beyond our capacity. Sometime after the marriage, whenever they (Veena and her husband) used to visit her parents house, she complained her mother Veero Devi and Bharjahi, Kamlesh that her mother-in-law Kailasho was an outspoken lady and harrassed her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. She usually says that her (Veena''s) parents have insulted them in the baradri. My husband Gulshan and father-in-law Sham Lal are also harassing her in the same manner. My mother, my wife and I used to send her back with the advice that it behaves good if the daughters reside in their in law''s house and she should bear their taunting in order to keep the prestige of her parents and that she was well aware of her parent''s condition When Veena came to our house in the month of last December along with her child Sapna aged 6 months, she wept bitterly saying, "When you came with the clothes for my first child, for my husband and for mother/father-in-law, they took it ill and said that they never needed the said clothes and further said that the person who gave the clothes had not ashamed further remarked that it would have been better if they had put ashes on my head."

and then they would have felt pleasure. My sister Veena also said that she would not go to her in law''s house. At this the entire family members got preplexed and I told this fact to my neighbour Kabul Singh S/o Angrez Singh, Jat and asked him to solve this problem. Kabul Singh also came to our house. Uncle Bishan Dass mother Veero Devi and I encouraged and assured her, saying that she should return to her laws and that we would come to her in-law''s house within a few days, after getting together and we would pacify them. In the month of January, 1984,1 along with Kabul Singh and uncle Bishan Das came to the Batala at the house of Gulshan s/o Sham Lal, Mahajan. Mahajan and folded hands before Sham Lal, Gulshan and Kailasho, after going inside and entreated them that at that time they were financially tight, next month the marriage of the daughter of Uncle Babu Ram was to be solemnised and when Veena would come to Amritsar at the marriage we would give you (articles) before our capacity in order to please them. Gulshan was also requested to attend the marriage on 21.2 1984 with Veena positively. Apart from it, request was also made to Gulshan, Kailasho and Sham Lal to treat Veena with love and affection. We told them whenever she visits Amritsar, she looks sad. We also affectionately assured Veena and came back. We had sent a Marriage Card to them at Batala by Dak to. attend the marriage of Uncle Babu Ram''s daughter on 21.2.1984. But neither daughter Veena nor her husband Gulshan came to attend the marriage at Amritsar. In addition to it, the marriage of Bholi @ Usha daughter of my uncle Sardari Lal was fixed to be solemnised on 4 3.1984 and her marriage card was also sent to them at Batala. We kept on waiting Veena till yesterday, but today one person came from Batala and informed us at our house that our daughter Veena had been burnt by her in law''s. On receipt of said information, my mother Veero Devi sent a neighbour''s child to me. Today I along with Shri Kabul Singh, aforesaid Bishan Dass, uncle, Babu Ram mother Veero, my wife Kamlesh reached Batala. When we reached at the house of Sham Lal situated Mehla Joglan, Batala at about 101/2 O''clock, they were today to take the dead body for cremation. We stopped them. Her husband Gulshan father-in-law Sham Lal and mother-in-law Kailasho intentionally tortured my sister Veena and compelled her to burn herself. On seeing her entire body with clothes burnt, appears that my sister Veena has been burnt by her in-law''s by putting (kerosene oil) on her. Action may be taken against Gulshan, Sham Lal and Kailasho."

On being charged with the commission of offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code all the three accused pleaded ''not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated November 15, 1984 learned trial Court acquitted all the three accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 177-DBA of 1985 in this Court.

We have heard Shri S.K Sharma, D.A.G. Punjab for the appellant State, Shri R.S. Rai, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Relevant Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads:

"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, wno-

Firstly-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.

Explanation I. A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

There is no evidence of conspiracy or intentional aiding against the three accused. The sole point for determination is if the alleged taunting for lesser dowry attributed to them in the words, "When you came with clothes for my first child, my husband, his mother and father took it ill and said that they never needed these clothes and remarked further that the person who gave them should have felt ashamed of it and that it would have been better if instead of giving these clothes they had gut ashes (sua) or on my head" nearly 8 months before her death could serve as abetment through instigation persuading her to commit suicide on March 4, 1984. Expression ''instigage'' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as ''urge on, incite bring about by persuasion and an Webster, 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. The course of action attributed to the three accused does not amount to abetment by instigation.

Omission to send the deceased to attend the marriages of her uncle''s daughters on February 21, 1984 and March 4, 1984 can also be not termed as abetment through instigation for the suicide aforesaid because as held in Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1983 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 660, clause thirdly to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code envisages not a simple omission but an illegal omission. The omission would be illegal only if what has been omitted to be done was required under the law to be done by such a person. Counsel appearing for the opposite side has failed to show any law that requires a person whether a stranger or a close relation to stop a stranger or a close relation from committing a crime. If it is to be to otherwise, then, in our opinion, even most innocent persons would be found guilty of abetment or suicide and other offences if they were unable to comply even with the most unreasonable demand of their children or their spouse or of utter stranger made on the pain of committing suicide."

For the reasons given above there is no merit in the State appeal. Dismissed.