Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 321
2011(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar
Criminal Appeal No. 457-DB of 2001
Gurdev Kaur (Gurdebo) & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 27/01/2011}
For the Appellants:Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302 & 306--Murder--Abetment to Suicide--Appellants were charged and convicted under section 302 of IPC--Court on the basis of evidence on record found them to have committed the offence of abetment of committing suicide under section 306 of IPC--Court converted the conviction under section 302 to section 306 of IPC and awarded the rigorous imprisonment of 4 years alongwith compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to be paid to the sons of the deceased.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872--Circumstantial Evidence--Held; that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature and have shown to be closely connected with principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances--It can also not be forgotten that a great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.221--Charge--Criminal Courts have the power to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence.
Mr. Arvind Kumar, J.:- The appellants are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of deceased Baljinder Kaur, for whose murder they were tried and ultimately held guilty by the learned trial Court. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and each of them has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the defaulter is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution case finds its origin in the statement (Ex.PD) made by Tarlochan Singh (PW5), the father of the deceased Baljinder Kaur, wherein it is mentioned that his daughter Baljinder Kaur was married with Ranjit Singh somewhere in the year 1992 and out of this wedlock two male issues are in existence. There was dispute over partition of property between his daughter and son-in-law on the one hand and mother-in-law, father-inlaw and brother-in-law i.e. the appellants on the other side. On 24.5.1999 when Ajit Singh (PW6), the brother of Baljinder Kaur had gone to her house to meet her, then Baljinder Kaur asked him to inform the parents about the teasing and maltreatment received by her at the hands of her in-laws over the property dispute and requested her father to come and solve the problem. The complainant on 25.5.1999 at about 5:00 p.m. when reached at the matrimonial home of his daughter along with Amarjit Singh (PW9), then they noticed Gurdebo, Balasa Singh and Surjit Singh, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively coming out from the room of Baljinder Kaur. As soon as the complainant and Amarjit entered the room of Baljinder Kaur, they noticed her hanging with the roof by putting a plastic rope. She was made to lie on the ground and found already dead. The complainant suspected that his daughter was murdered by her in-laws, aforesaid on the property dispute.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, case FIR (Ex.PD/1) was registered by ASI Karnail Singh (PW2) and investigated upon by SI Sukhjit Singh (PW10). Special report was sent through C. Jugal Kishore (PW3). The dead body of Baljinder Kaur was sent to the general hospital for postmortem which was done by Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW1) and in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from strangulation. Jasmeet Singh (PW8) prepared the scaled site plan. The case property was handled by HC Nirmal Singh (PW4).
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 27.5.1999 the accused suffered an extra judicial confession regarding committing the murder of Baljinder Kaur before Harpal Singh (PW7) and he produced them before the police, leading to their arrest.
5. Charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellants and during trial the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, referred to above.
6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the case of the appellant was of denial and false implication. According to them they were living separately from Baljinder Kaur and have no concern with her death.
7. In defence they examined Ranjit Singh, husband of Baljinder Kaur as DW1 and DW2 Kartar Singh, a co-villager.
8. The learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence adduced on record, held the appellants guilty under Section 302 IPC for causing the murder of Baljinder Kaur and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel and with the assistance rendered by them, have carefully gone through the records of the case.
10. In this case the unnatural death of Baljinder Kaur is not in dispute. According to the prosecution she was murdered by the appellants while according to the latter she committed suicide following the mental distress on account of her ailment. The prosecution case rests upon the testimonies of Tarlochan Singh (PW5), Amarjit Singh (PW9) and Ajit Singh (PW6) the father, uncle and brother respectively of deceased. In their testim
