Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1312 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-27

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated December 4, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby all the appellants, namely, Pritam Singh, Charanjit Singh, Bhagwan Kaur, Amarjit Kaur and Gurdip Kaur have been convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, `the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and also a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each has been imposed. In default of the payment of fine, the appellants have been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. 2. All the present appellants were tried initially under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code for murdering Ranjit Kaur daughter of Naginder Singh who was married to accused Pritam Singh (appellant No. 1). As per the prosecution, the marriage between the aforesaid Ranjit Kaur with Pritam Singh had taken place on November 6, 1980. The case of the prosecution is that about two years prior to the aforesaid death, Ranjit Kaur had given birth to a daughter. On September 19, 1988 at about 10.55 a.m., she died as a result of poisoning. Her parents were informed by the police and on the basis of statement of her father, namely, Naginder Singh the case under Section 302 of the Code was registered on September 20, 1988. 3. The case set up against the appellants is that Naginder Singh had five children. His daughter Ranjit Kaur was married with Pritam Singh accused and his mother Bhagwan Kaur, brother Charnjit Singh and sisters Amarjit Kaur and Gurdip Kaur started insisting that younger sister of Ranjit Kaur should be married to accused Charanjit Singh who was younger brother of Pritam Singh. Naginder Singh and his family refused to accept that proposal and, therefore, the family of Pritam Singh developed hostile attitude towards the deceased Ranjit Kaur. The hostility ultimately resulted in a maltreatment. The allegations of the prosecution are that Ranjit Kaur was also harassed for not arranging the marriage of her sister with Charnajit Singh and ultimately Ranjit Kaur died as a result of consumption of poison. The case finally put up by Naginder Singh before the police was that poison had been administered by the appellants and, therefore, the case under Section 302 of the Code was registered against them. 4. The prosecution led evidence. The case finally put up by Naginder Singh before the police was that poison had been administered by the appellants and, therefore, the case under Section 302 of the Code was registered against them. 4. The prosecution led evidence. Dr. Harjit Singh who was posted in Emergency Department in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana produced the casualty record Ex.PE of the deceased. According to the aforesaid document, the history was narrated by Pritam Singh husband of the deceased and he stated before the Doctor that the deceased had consumed tablets of aluminium phosphide around 8.30 a.m. at village Dhaipai. Dr. Amrik Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Kaur. He also sent stomach and its contents and sample of blood for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner showed that the contents on examination were found to contain aluminium phosphide. 5. In this manner, it stood established that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of poison. 6. Thereafter, the question arises as to whether the deceased was administered the poison by the appellants (accused). The prosecution utterly failed in leading any such evidence which could show that the aforesaid poison had been administered by the appellants and thereby caused the death of Ranjit Kaur. In this manner, even the learned Additional Session Judge found that the case of the prosecution under Section 302 of the Code was not made out. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge converted the offence committed by the accused to Section 306 of the Code on the ground that it was proved on record that they had maltreated and harassed her. On that basis, a finding was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that such circumstances have been created by the accused which compelled the deceased Ranjit Kaur to commit suicide. 7. I have heard Shri S.C. Sibal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the evidence brought on the record. 8. 7. I have heard Shri S.C. Sibal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the evidence brought on the record. 8. In my considered opinion, it cannot be suggested that the prosecution has been able to produce any such evidence which could show that such circumstances have been created which compelled Ranjit Kaur to commit suicide and thereby the present appellants could be held guilty for abetment of the suicide under Section 306 of the Code. 9. Admittedly, the marriage between Ranjit Kaur and Pritam Singh had taken place on November 6, 1980. She had committed suicide on September 19, 1989 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years. In this view of the matter, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not available to the prosecution. After excluding the aforesaid presumption, the prosecution was duty bound to prove its own case by leading cogent evidence. Amarjit Kaur and Gurdip Kaur appellants were already married at the time of the death of Ranjit Kaur on September 19, 1988. The very fact that the aforesaid two ladies have been roped in shows that the purpose of the complainant Naginder Singh was to involve the entire family of Pritam Singh. 10. When the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the facts or circumstances showing any maltreatment on behalf of the appellants or creation of any such circumstances by them which compelled Ranjit Kaur to commit suicide, then obviously their conviction under Section 306 of the Code was wholly unwarranted. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charge against them.