Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1700 (PNJ)

Ravinder Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-18

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two Appeals No. 341-SB of 2001, 904-SB of 2001 and Revision No. 1252 of 2001 arising out of the judgment dated 3.3.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was convicted under Section 305 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The case relates to the death of a school girl namely Virpal Kaur aged about 18 years, who committed suicide on account of the alleged abetment made by the accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that Virpal Kaur was the student of 9th standard in Government High School, Raiya and accused was teacher there. On 28.7.1998, Vir Pal Kaur had gone to school as usual. The accused indulged in indecent/obscene activities with Vir Pal Kaur and also threatened to defame her and get her ousted from the school and he would not allow her to marry anywhere. After school hours, she went to the house and disclosed the facts to her father, Avtar Singh PW1, who consoled her and told her that he would complain against the accused while going to the school the next day. On the next day i.e. 29.7.1998, in the morning at about 6:00 a.m. Vir Pal Kaur did not get up. On inquiry, it was found that she had committed suicide. The matter was taken to the Panchayat. Ultimately, Avtar Singh PW1, got registered the case against the accused vide formal FIR Ex. PR under Section 305 IPC. Investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. 4. In order to seek the conviction of the accused prosecution examined Avtar Singh PW1, Roop Singh PW2(maternal uncle of the deceased), Surinder Singh PW3, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, PW4, SI Barjinder Kumar PW5. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused-appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. He further stated that Nirmal Singh was a student of 10th class in their school. On 28.7.1998, Vir Pal Kaur was seen in an objectionable condition with Gurjant Singh by him. Then, he snubbed Vir Pal Kaur and asked her to bring her father to the school. He further stated that Nirmal Singh was a student of 10th class in their school. On 28.7.1998, Vir Pal Kaur was seen in an objectionable condition with Gurjant Singh by him. Then, he snubbed Vir Pal Kaur and asked her to bring her father to the school. Vir Pal Kaur was further told that she would be expelled from the school due to the alleged activities. When she reached her house, she was reprimanded by her parents. While failing to bear the insult, she committed suicide and he was falsely implicated in this case. In defence, he examined Dalbir Singh DW1, who was incharge of allotment of room at Gurudawara Seesganj Delhi and he proved the entry Ex. DA showing that room No. 28 was allotted to one Surinder Singh and he was accompanied by two persons. 6. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. Hence, this appeal. 7. The basic ingredients to complete the offence under Section 305 IPC are as under: (i) The commission of suicide by a person. (ii) The person, who committed the suicide, was under 18 years of age or was insane, or delirious, or idiot in a state of intoxication. (iii) That the accused abetted the commission of such suicide. 8. On bare perusal of the aforesaid constituents, the main constituent to bring the case within the purview of aforesaid section is that the victim should have been below 18 years or should have been insane, delirious, Idiot or in a state of intoxication. If it is so proved then the prosecution is to prove the element of abetment on the part of the accused. But in the instant case prosecution has proved on record that she was below 18 years at the time of incident. The incident took place on 28.7.1998, whereas as per school record, she was born on 16.3.1983. No evidence to the contrary has been brought on record to establish that she was above 18 years of age. As such, the primary constituent for commission of the offence stand answered in positive. 9. Now, coming to the second constituent i.e. abetment, I am to reiterate the meaning of abetment. No evidence to the contrary has been brought on record to establish that she was above 18 years of age. As such, the primary constituent for commission of the offence stand answered in positive. 9. Now, coming to the second constituent i.e. abetment, I am to reiterate the meaning of abetment. The Supreme Court in case Surender v. State of Haryana, 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 288 : 2007(1) RAJ 122 (SC), while dealing with the meaning of abetment observed as under : "It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence has been made out under Section 306 IPC because there is nothing to show any intention to abet or urge the deceased to commit suicide. We do not agree as observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, "to instigate means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage someone to do an act. It is not necessary that express words should be used in order to instigate. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted." 10. The dictionary meaning of the word "to goad" is to do something to urge, and to provoke them. 11. The basic spirit behind all these words i.e. to goad, to urge, to provoke, to aid, to instigate or encourage, lies in the actions or omissions which the accused did by words of gestures so as to bring the person abetted to such a stage and under such circumstances, that he could think nothing more except his end and he was so compelled by the circumstances, that he could do nothing else but to end his life. But, if abettor had called abuses; teased someone; gave some adverse remarks at a single occasion; demanded whatever was due to him or put forward his right or claim against him, the case does not fall within the purview of abetment. 12. Now, coming to the appreciation of the evidence in the present case, it may be observed that the case is based on the testimony of two witnesses namely, Avtar Singh PW1, father and Roop Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, before whom, Vir Pal Kaur complained about the atrocity committed by the accused upon her. 12. Now, coming to the appreciation of the evidence in the present case, it may be observed that the case is based on the testimony of two witnesses namely, Avtar Singh PW1, father and Roop Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased, before whom, Vir Pal Kaur complained about the atrocity committed by the accused upon her. Statements of both the witnesses are contradictory qua the fact as to what was explained by Vir Pal Kaur before them. Avtar Singh PW1 stated that his daughter told him that teacher Ravinder Pal Singh tried to catch hold of her arm, thereafter, he threatened that she will be expelled from the school, in case, she narrated the incident to anybody. During the cross examination, he stated that this incident with Vir Pal Kaur was for the first time. He does not know what was the intention of the accused while catching hold of her arm. Vir pal Kaur died due to the incident of insult at the instance of the accused. To the contrary, Roop Singh PW2 had stated that Vir Pal Kaur told him and Avtar Singh that the accused indulged in some indecent act by taking her in room of the school that day and had also threatened her that if she narrated the incident, she would be defamed and expelled from the school and she will not be allowed to marry. Again the aforesaid statement is contradictory to the initial version given by Avtar Singh in the FIR Ex. PR where he got recorded that the accused called Vir Pal Kaur in the room of the school where he indulged in obscene activities with her and threatened her that he will get her expelled from the school and will not allow her to marry anywhere. Thus, to conclude, both the witnesses are not very clear as to what actually happened in the school; what was the actual incident. Both are contradictory in their statements, therefore no reliance can be placed upon them. 13. It would also be important to mention here that the testimony of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, PW4, at the time of the post mortem examination observed that uterus was non gravid and was of normal size, hymen was absent. During the cross examination, he stated that she being having possibility of sexual intercourse earlier,cannot be ruled out. 13. It would also be important to mention here that the testimony of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, PW4, at the time of the post mortem examination observed that uterus was non gravid and was of normal size, hymen was absent. During the cross examination, he stated that she being having possibility of sexual intercourse earlier,cannot be ruled out. By this evidence, inference could be drawn that the deceased was not so simple and sensitive as she posed. 14. While examining the present case in the back-drop of the aforesaid evidence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place in the school where 250/3000 students were studying and there were 17/18 teachers also but none of them was examined to establish if any such occurrence took place in the school. The witnesses did not testify physical assault but they talked of only obscene activities or that the accused caught hold of her arm. 15. As per prosecution, the deceased lodged the complaint to Avtar Singh and Roop Singh PW2 at 9-00 p.m. But immediately after the school hours, she must have disclosed about the occurrence to the inmates of the house including her mother but neither any inmate or mother of the deceased was examined to support the version given by her. According to Avtar Singh this incident took place for the first time. They did not inform anybody about illegal act of the accused. During the night, they also remained silent and there is no evidence that deceased was so much disturbed and that Vir Pal Kaur could take such an extreme step. It was a co-educational school where the girls do boldly face such gestures every day. In any case : 1. Sufficient time had elapsed between the incident and the reaction shown by her. 2. No other circumstance intervened in between the words uttered by the accused and the step taken by the deceased. 3. The deceased had exposed her heart before her father and maternal uncle and she was assured of taking action against the accused, therefore, no direct nexus between the words uttered and the step taken can be said to be established. Mere catching hold of her arm by the accused does not amount to abetment of suicide so as to bring the same within the purview of Section 305 IPC. Mere catching hold of her arm by the accused does not amount to abetment of suicide so as to bring the same within the purview of Section 305 IPC. 16 Having perused the trial Court judgment, I find that the same is based on misappreciation of the evidence. As such the interference with the impugned judgment has become inevitable. For the forgoing reasons, I hereby accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused Ravinder Pal Singh of the charge framed against him and direct him to be set at liberty. The bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. The fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. Consequently, Crl.A. No. 904-SB of 2001 and Crl.R. No. 1252 of 2001 for enhancement of sentence stand dismissed.