Allowed

Gurmangat Singh v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2012CRA-S/1016/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC for abetting the suicide of his wife. The High Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to prove harassment, specific dowry demand, or instigation beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroboration and lack of mens rea.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted.

Gurmangat Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.1016-SB of 2001 Date of Decision : 16.10.2012

Gurmangat Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶15

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment/order dated 23.08.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appellant-Gurmangat Singh, had been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 306/498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and had been sentenced as under:-

¶16

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶17

-2-

¶18

Under Section	Sentence
306 IPC	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
	five years and to pay a fine of`5,000/-. In default
	of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
	imprisonment for aperiod of six months.
498-A IPC	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
	one year and to pay a fine of`1,000/-. In default
	of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
	imprisonment for aperiod of two months.

¶19

However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶20

Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as reflected in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced hereunder:-

¶21

“2. Brief facts of the case are that on

¶22

12.04.1997, SI Amrik Singh was present in the police station, where MHC produced before his wireless that Ranjit Kaur w/o Gurmangat Singh r/o Gill Sohal has received burn injuries and she died on the way while going to the hospital. On receipt of this wireless message, SI Amrik Singh alongwith other police officials went to S.G.T.B. Hospital. When he reached S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar, Amar Singh son of Inder Singh met him outside the

¶23

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶24

-3-

¶25

dead house of S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar and got recorded his statement in which he has stated that he is resident of village Chamiari and is retired Inspector of Police. He was an agriculturist. He further stated that his elder daughter Ranjit Kaur was married to the accused Gurmangat Singh about 11/12 years ago, and from the wedlock two sons were born. He further stated that Ranjit Kaur informed the complainant and her husband Gurmangat Singh and his other family members used to consume liquor and compelled her to bring more dowry articles and money from her parents. He had been paying the money to the accused as and when demanded, but the accused was not satisfied with the same. The accused used to quarrel with Ranjit Singh on this account. He has further stated that about one month ago, Ranjit Kaur had told him that her husband was demanding more money. He went to the house of the accused in village Nangal Sohal and gave a sum of 4000/- to the accused. The accused had demanded a sum of 2000/- more from the complainant which was to be paid after sometime. He has further stated that on that day, at about 8 a.m. Jagir Singh, younger brother of the

¶26

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶27

-4-

¶28

accused informed the complainant that Ranjit Kaur has set herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil due to the maltreatment and harassment given by the accused to her. Thereafter the complainant and his son Surjit Singh went to the house of the accused and they saw that Manohar Singh father of the accused and grand father of the accused were taking Ranjit Kaur in a car to the Civil Hospital Amritsar for her treatment. He has further stated that he and his son followed them to the Civil Hospital, Amritsar. Ranjit Kaur was admitted in Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar where the doctor declared her dead...”

¶29

In this background, charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, were framed against accused-appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶30

In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined following seven witnesses:-

¶31

PW-1, Rishi Ram, Draftsman, proved the site plan Ex.PA.

¶32

PW-2, LC Harjinder Singh stated that on

¶33

13.4.1997, he along with SI Amrik Singh, had gone to the place of occurrence and one can and match box

¶34

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶35

-5-

¶36

were recovered from the spot. The can was containing kerosene oil.

¶37

PW-3, Surjit Singh, brother of the deceased,

¶38

supported the case of the prosecution.

¶39

PW-4, Anup Singh, a co-villager of the complainant, stated that on 20.3.1997, at about 6.00 p.m., he heard the noise from the house of the complainant, Amar Singh. When he went there, he saw the accused and the deceased present there. The accused was demanding money from the complainant. The deceased was also requesting her father and brother to pay the amount as she was being harassed by the accused.

¶40

PW-5, Dr. Ashok Chanana, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, Government Medical College, Amritsar, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Kaur, proved the postmortem report, Ex.PG, deposed that the burns were anti-mortem in nature and to the extent of about 100%.

¶41

PW-6, Amar Singh, the complainant, reiterated his earlier version given in the complaint. He further deposed that due to the incident, he was depressed and could not give detailed statement.

¶42

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶43

-6-

¶44

Therefore, his supplementary statement, was recorded on 18.4.1997. He further deposed that when he was bring her daughter, Ranjit Kaur, in the case, she told him that she was fed up from her husband due to daily demand of one article or the other and that is whey she poured kerosene on her.

¶45

PW-7, SI Amrik Singh, Security Staff, C.M. Punjab, Chandigarh, deposed about the investigation carried out by him.

¶46

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accusedappellant denied all the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. He stated that he had cordial relations with his wife, Ranjit Kaur. His father-in-law, Amar Singh, was chronic alcohlic and used to demand money from his grand father, due to which, there used to be a dispute between the deceased and her father, the complainant. In defence, the accused examined Shamsher Singh as DW1; and Dilbagh Singh, Warden, CRO, Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, as DW2.

¶47

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no independent corroboration to the statements of Surjit Singh and Amar Singh, whose statements are full of contradictions and improvements, which are not believable. He further argued that as per the story of the prosecution itself, Jagir Singh was sent by the

¶48

-7-

¶49

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶50

family of the appellants to inform the parents and brother of the deceased and this fact is sufficient to prove that the appellant was innocent. He further argued that there is not abetment on the part of the appellant, nor there was any demand of money. The learned counsel further argued that there learned trial Court has failed to give any weight to the defence version.

¶51

On the other hand, the learned State counsel argued that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused-appellant under Section 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to five years and with fine.

¶52

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶53

Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-

¶54

“ 107. Abetment of a thing. --A person abets the doing

¶55

of a thing, who-

¶56

First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶57

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

¶58

Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶59

Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful

¶60

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶61

-8-

¶62

misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily cases or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

¶63

In this case, the marriage of deceased Ranjit Kaur, took place with Gurmangat Singh, accused, about 12 years prior to the incident. The couple has two children of young age, but none of them was neither examined in Court, nor cited as a witness. They are the best witnesses to depose about the conduct of the accused. In order to prove abetment, it is essential to prove the conduct of the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. When an offence is committed within the four walls of the house, the inmates are the best witnesses, who could depose about the relations between the accused and the deceased. So, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.

¶64

There is no evidence that the accused-appellant had been harassing the deceased for bringing more money. No doubt, Anup Singh, PW-4, Sarpanch of the Village, stated that accused was demanding money from PW-6, Amar Singh, father of the deceased, on 20.03.1997 at about 06.00 p.m., when he visited the house of PW6, Amar Singh. Ranjit Kaur, deceased, was also requesting her father, PW6, Amar Singh, and PW4, Surjit Singh, to pay the amount because she was being harassed by the accused. This is the solitary instance which has been brought on record for demand of money by the

¶65

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶66

-9-

¶67

accused. The purpose of the demand of money was to get released the hypothecated gold ornaments. PW-4-Anup Singh stated that Amar Singh was requesting the accused to wait for 2/3 days but the accused was insisting for instant payment. He allegedly stated, “if amount is not paid, then Ranjit Kaur should die”. This statement/remark will not constitute any abetment. The deceased died of unnatural death on 12.04.1997. This statement was allegedly made at the residence of the complainant, who is the father of the deceased. There was sufficient gap between the alleged utterances and the death. The accused-appellant might have uttered these words in a fit of anger but there was no mens rea in his mind. There is material contradiction in the statement of PW-4 Anup Singh and PW-6 Amar Singh, regarding the demand of money. PW-4 Anup Singh stated that on 20.03.1997, at about 6.00 p.m., he went to the house of Amar Singh, retired Police Inspector and say the accused -appellant was demanding money from PW-6 Amar Singh. On the other hand, PW-6 Amar Singh, stated that on February 1997, his daughter came to his village and told him that her husband was demanding a sum of `4,000/- and if she would not bring money, she should go and die in the well. PW-6 Amar Singh has stated that the accused demanded money in the presence of her brothers and asked her to die and that is why she had committed suicide. However, it cannot be believed that the words uttered by the accused to the deceased on 20.03.1997, lead the deceased to commit suicide on 12.04.1997. Except this solitary incident, there is no

¶68

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶69

-10-

¶70

reference to any other act or incidence whereby the accused appellant had committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide.

¶71

There is no evidence on record regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. No neighbourer has been examined by the prosecution to prove the harassment.

¶72

In Ramji Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 2010(4) RCR (Crl.) 924 (Pb.), a woman having three sons committed suicide after 10-11 years of marriage. The father of the deceased lodged complaint that his daughter was being harassed by accused-husband by raising demand of dowry but no specific incident was indicated except one incident. It was held that there was no allegation of any instigation, provocation or positive act on the part of the accused. So, the conviction was set aside.

¶73

In Shankar Mange Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000(4) RCR (Crl.) 229, it was held that the accused-husband was in the habit of drinking and beating his deceased wife, deceased fed up and committed suicide and it was held that husband was not guilty of abetment as no allegation that husband instigated intentionally and aided his wife to commit suicide. To constitute offence of abetment there must be instigation and intentional aid with mens rea. In Hari

¶74

Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR (Crl.) 119, the accused gave bearing to his wife and said in anger that she would die by taking poison, the wife committing suicide and it was held to be a case of no

¶75

CRA No.1016-SB of 2001

¶76

-11-

¶77

abetment.

¶78

In Cyriac and another Vs. The SI of Police, 2005(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 525 , the accused insulted the deceased by saying “Why can't you go and die?”, the deceased committed suicide on the same day. In that circumstances, it was held that no offence of abetment is made out because there was no mens rea.

¶79

For the foregoing reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

¶80

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 16.10.2012 JUDGE

¶81

atulsethi

¶82

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter? : Yes/No

Gurmangat Singh v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmangat Singh v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharminder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gulshan Kumar Toni & Anr. Vs Kuldip Singh Ghai & Ors.

Hardayal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rupinder Singh @ Ruby & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Lakha Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.