Surinder Kumar and ors. vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Three appellants, namely Surinder Kumar, his mother Anjna Devi and his aunt (Tai) Soma Devi have came up in appeal against their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jullunder vide her order dated 16.2.1983, under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants have been sentenced to R.I. for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. Parma Devi, grandmother of Surinder Kumar appellant who was also tried along was acquitted of the charge as case against her was not found free from doubt.

Santosh Kumari deceased was married to Surinder Kumar appellant on 15.6.1980. After the marriage in the month of Sawan, Santosh Kumari deceased went to Agra to live with her parents. During this period the deceased complained to her parents and her brother that she was being maltreated by the appellants for having brought insufficient dowry. On the occasion of Karva Chauth, Satish Kumar PW4, brother of deceased Santosh Kumari went to the place of the appellant i.e. Nawanshahr. He was informed by Santosh Kumari deceased that the appellants were asking for a T.V. Set. Satish Kumar PW told her that they were not in a position to meet the demand, as his father was not keeping good health. On 9.4.1982 Janak Raj Sharma PW sent a telephonic message to Satish Kumar PW that Santosh Kumari had been burnt by her inlaws'' family. When she was removed to the Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr, Janak Raj PW5 and his wife Krishna Rani PW6 came to the hospital and enquired from the deceased as to how she got the burns. She told them "Tel Dala Aag Lagai". However, later on in the absence of the appellants, Santosh Kumari told Krishna Rani PW6 that Anjna Devi, Soma Devi appellants along with Parma Devi, their coaccused (since acquitted) poured kerosene oil on her and Surinder Kumar appellant set her on fire. Santosh Kumari unfortunately expired on the same day at Civil Hospital, Jullunder. She made her statement Exhibit PA before Dr. D.S. Virk, PW 1 which was proved as a dying declaration. Dr. Virk sent information to Police Station, Nawanshahr. On receipt of the information constable Bakhshi Ram PW9 went to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr, but when he learnt that Santosh Kumari had been removed to Civil Hospital, Jullunder, he reached Civil Hospital, Jullunder. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statement Exhibit PH of Janak Raj PW. The autopsy on the dead body of Santosh Kumari was performed by Dr. Parminder Singh PW3, on 10.4.1982 at 11.00 A.M. In his opinion all the burns on the dead body were antemortem in nature and death was caused by shock due to extensive burns. These burns were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Satish Kumar PW brother of the deceased reached Nawanshahr on 10.4.1982 and he learnt from Janak Raj PW about the incident. He lodged the report Exhibit PG on the same day at Police Station, Nawanshahr at 8.00 P.M. Darshan Kumar S.I. went to the spot, took into possession cot Exhibit P5 stained with blood from the residential house of Surinder Kumar appellant. He also took into possession Jerry cane Exhibit P1 match box Ex. P2, burnt hair of the deceased Exhibit P3, and clothes Exhibit P4, vide memo Exhibit PJ. These articles were taken into possession from the roof of the adjoining house of one Jagdish Raj. S.I. Darshan Kumar prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PO. The appellants and their coaccused were arrested on 12.4.1982. Photographs of the spot Exhibits PM/1 to PM/5 along with their negatives Exhibits PM/6 to PM/10 were also taken into possession. Surinder Kumar appellant was chargesheeted under section 302, I.P.C. and the remaining appellants were chargesheeted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were tried by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jullunder.

The appellants, when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they had normal relation with the deceased and that she committed suicide of her own. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.

The prosecution evidence consist of the statements of Dr. D.S. Virk, PW1, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased; Dr. G.D. Chawla PW2 admitted the deceased in Civil Hospital, Jullunder; Dr. Parminder Singh PW3 performed autopsy on the dead body of Santosh Kumari; Satish Kumar PW4 brother of the deceased lodged the first information report; Janak Raj PW5 had arranged the marriage between Santosh Kumari deceased and Surinder Kumar appellant, and he along with his wife Krishna Rani PW6 had some talk with the deceased before she expired; Madan Lal Sharda, Draftsman PW7 prepared the site plan Exhibit PK; Gian Chand PW8 took the photographs of the spot; HC Bakhshi Ram PW9 prepared the inquest report and S.I. Darshan Kumar PW10 investigated the case.

The learned trial Judge has come to a finding that case under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has not been proved against the appellants. The dying declaration of Santosh Kumari deceased made to Krishna Rani PW was disbelieved by the learned trial Judge on the ground that Krishna Rani PW had made an improvement in her earlier statement before the police. For coming to the conclusion that a case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, the learned trial Judge mainly relied upon dying declaration made by the deceased to Dr. D.S. Virk, PW1 wherein the deceased had stated that "Main Iss Zindgi Tun Tung Hain, Jo Hoia Achha Hoia. Mannu Bidha Dio. Mein Tel Nal Jalli Hain Meri Kismat" (I am fed up with this life. Whatever happened has happened for the good. Make me sit. I am burnt with Kerosene oil, my fate). The earlier utterances made by the deceased before Janak Raj and Krishna Rani PWs were "Tel Dala Dia Silai Lagai" (Oil poured Match stick lignited). After coming to the conclusion that the appellants have abetted the commission of suicide by Santosh Kumari, the learned trial Judge found that the deceased was maltreated by the appellants on account of having brought insufficient dowry. That was why she was fed up with her life and was not leading a happy life.

Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken me through the statements of Satish Kumar PW4, Janak Raj PW 5 and Smt. Krishna Rani PW6. Satish Kumar PW 4 has stated in no uncertain terms that he had been writing letters to the appellants and to his sister and there was no mention that she was ever maltreated on account of insufficient dowry. He also admitted that he did not make any mention in the first information report about the harassment being meted out to the deceased on account of insufficient dowry. Janak Raj PW5 and Smt. Krishna Rani PW6 stated that deceased never complained to them that she was ever maltreated by the appellants. According to Mr. Mann, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is not based on any evidence on the record and is just a surmise. The learned counsel has gone to the length of saying that even if for the sake of argument it be admitted that she was maltreated by the appellants they cannot be held guilty under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the recent authority of this Court reported as Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) C.L.R. 660 : 1983(1) Recent CR 553 ). In this authority, their Lordships while interpreting abetment, held that it means to provoke or to persuade a person to do an act. From the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said that there were reasons on the record to show that the appellants either provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. So in view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that case against the appellants is not free from doubt. Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside their conviction and sentence.