The State vs Gurbachan Singh

Chopra, J.—Gurbachan Singh respondent was tried by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, for a charge-under S. 302, Penal Code, for the murder of his own wife Mst. Inder Kaur. He, was however. convicted only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S. 304 (1) and sentenced to 31/2 years R. I. The convict has not appealed and appears to be satisfied with the conviction and sentence. This is a State appeal against the supposed acquittal of the respondent of the charge of murder with a prayer chat his conviction be altered to one under S. 302. Penal Code and also that the sentence be enhanced.

Mt. Inder Kaur was married to the respondent some 13 years ago and gave birth to three children; one of them, a girl, died before couple migrated from Pakistan and settled in the refugees camp at Dukhniwaran, Patiala. Inder Kaur''s brothers Darshan Singh P. w. 8 and Sohan Singh had also migrated to Patiala and were living in another part of the town known as Raghomajra. On the day of the incident in question, which took place on the after-noon of 8th May 1952, Darshan Singh and his wife went to take Inder Kaur to their house. This was objected to by the accused on the ground that she had come from their side only a few days before. He did not want her to go with them also because he suspected her of unchastity and of her brother''s privet in her affairs. After the brother had returned Mt. Inder Kaur insisted that she should be allowed to go and this was strongly resented by the accused. The latter then took out a spear and thrust it at her neck, which pierced ''through'' and through. A similar blow almost at the same place was repeated and two more were inflicted on her right thigh. The victim instantaneously succumbed to the injuries. The accused went out with the blood-stained spear in his hand. He proceeded to the Central Police Station and there lodged a report detailing what had lea him to kill his own wife. The spear was taken possession of by the Police and on being sent to the Chemical Examiner and Imperial Serologist was found to have human blood on it. Information of the report was sent to the Police Station Civil Lines to which the place of incident was attached and where the matter in the meantime had already been reported by Mohan Singh P. W. 3. Next day i.e. on 9th May the accused was produced before the A. D. M. Patiala before whom he made a detailed statement confessing his guilt.

Even independently of the confession the guilt of the accused is abundantly established by independent evidence of two of the close neighbours, Himmat Singh & Permeshra Singh and Mohan Singh who also lives in the same locality. They unanimously deposed to have heard cries of the victim coming from the house of the accused and on proceeding that side to have seen the latter coming out with a bloodstained spear in his hand. He told them that he had killed his wife and was going to the Police Station to lodge a report of it himself. They entered the house and found that there was no other occupant and that Inder Kaur was Lying dead on a cot in a pool of blood. The learned trial Judge is of the opinion that Excpn. (7) to S. 300, Penal Code applied because the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation and had thereby lost his self control. He, however, appears to have been influenced by facts which are not borne out from the record. This is what he observed while discussing the point:

It is not disputed that the accused''s wife led a grossly immoral life, and that she was frequently often remonstrated by her husband. She was suspected of a liaison with her brother-in-law (sister''s husband) and she had returned to her husband''s house only a day before the occurrence. She wanted to go back to her brother''s house on the very next day (day of occurrence) with the obvious purpose of continuing with her brother-in-law with their (her brother and his wife''s) connivance; and the accused did not like her to go there.

There is nothing except the statement of the accused himself to show that Mst. Inder Kaur was in- fact leading a "grossly immoral life", and I fail to understand what made the trial Judge to remark that the matter was not disputed. The accused stated that he suspected her fidelity but he did not give any reasons for his suspicion. He did not say What lie had ever seen any stranger visiting her or in her company. The learned Judge is again wrong to say that Mt. Inder Kaur had come from her brother''s house only a day before the murder. Darshan Sinhh appeared as a witness but no question regarding it was put to him.

From the sequence of events narrated by the accused himself in his report it appears that Mt. Inder Kaur had come from her brother''s house some days before the incident. In his confession recorded by the Magistrate the accused stated that for 10 or 11 days after her return she continued insisting on being allowed to go back to her brother''s house. Further on the learned Judge observes and concludes like this:

It is in evidence that the deceased''s brother and sister-in-law also came to their house on that day; and also wanted to take her with them. Some altercation ensued between them (the deceased''s brother and his wife) and the accused; and the woman took sides with her relations on the maternal side. Not only that, she continued quarrelling with her husband even after her brother had left; and she even challenged him (accused) to do what he liked and refused to live with him under any circumstances. This was indeed too much for any husband; and he (accused) naturally lost control of himself. He lifted the spear which was lying in his house and stabbed her in the neck; as the result of which the woman died on the spot.

It is a fact that Darshan Singh and his wife visited the accused on the day of occurrence to take Inder Kaur with them and that in the altercation that ensued between them on one side and the accused on the other Inder Kaur took sides with her brother. In his report the accused had stated that his wife, even after her brother had gone, persisted that she should be allowed to go. The accused resented and threatened to kill her. The threat was replied by saying that she was not prepared to live with him and that he was free to go wherever he liked. In the confessional statement the version was materially improved and it was alleged that she abused the accused and stated that she would prefer to lead an adulterous life than to live with him. The murder was committed sometime thereafter.

The accused got milk from the bazar through his brother, took it himself and also gave it to his six months'' old daughter and then went out to ease himself. On his return he sent out his brother with the child, took out a spear and thrust it into the neck of his wife when she was lying on a cot. Giving a careful consideration to all the facts of the case my own view is that they do not bring it under Excpn. (1) to S. 300 Penal Code. The provocation must be grave and sudden upon an adequate cause and that should be strong enough to make a normal man loose his self control. The peculiar notions of a man about his wife''s subjection to him cannot be allowed to give latitude to murder. The weaker sex is not to be regarded as chattel and a husband cannot be given the right to take the life of his wife at the slightest pretext. Mere unfounded suspicions that his wife was carrying on an intrigue with some one else should not have made the accused jump at the conclusion that her pertinacity ''& obstinacy to go to her brother''s house was meant for that purpose. Furthermore, even according to the statement of the accused the murder was committed sometime after the alleged defiant attitude of the wife. The accused had taken milk after getting it from the bazar through his brother, had gone out for some time to ease himself and on his return had sent out his brother with his daughter to leave him alone with his wife in the house. All this makes me think that there was neither grave nor sudden provocation to the accused, nor had he lost his self-control on any such account and that the case is not covered by Excpn. (1) to S. 300, Penal Code.

Before closing I would like to refer to the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. In AIR 1939 Lahore 436 the accused saw a man going out of the Chobara where his wife was at late hour of the night, He pursued the stranger but could not catch him. He asked the wife as to who he was. She did not reply but abused him in return. Besides, marks of semen were found on her vaginal contents. In AIR 1929 861 (Lahore) the wife, was leading a notoriously immoral life which was a common scandal of the village. Admittedly she had a young lover who appeared as a prosecution witness and deposed to his intimacy with the woman. On the night previous to the murder she had a mysterious and significant disappearance from the bed side of the husband and subsequent protest by the husband resulted in vulgar abuse by her. The husband started beating her with shoe, lost his control, picked up a rough stick which happened to be lying close by and struck the fatal blow to the erring wife which resulted in her death. In - ''Hira Singh v. Emperor'', AIR 1933 Lah 126 (2) the wife was leading an immoral life and had taken a house opposite to that of her husband for carrying on an intrigue with some one else. On the day of the occurrence she abused her husband and insulted him by saying that she would have his daughter and daughter-in-law ravished by the paramour. In - Inayat v. Emperor'', AIR 1933 Lah 869 (2) the accused''s younger sister, the deceased, who had let her husband and was living under the care of accused, was suspected to be of an immoral character. On the night of the murder at about. 3 A. M. she had gone to meet a stranger in the cattle-shed at the back of the house for a clandestine purpose. When the accuses asked the deceased why she did not give up her evil ways she refused to listen to him and gave an insolent reply. Thereupon the accused gave a blow with a hatchet which caused her death. The facts of these cases were thus quite different and there was sufficient material to constitute grave and sudden provocation.

For all these reasons I would accept the State appeal, after the conviction of Gurbachan Singh respondent to one under S. 302. Penal Code and enhance the sentence to one of transportation of life.

Kesho Ram Passey, J.

I agree.