The prosecution must prove its charge against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of abetment as per Section 107 IPC was crucial in determining the sustainability of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Harminder Singh Madaan, J. - Accused Santosh Rani, Jaswant Singh, Amar Kaur and Natha Singh were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC and vide judgment dated 6.10.2005 they were convicted under Section 306 IPC and vide order of even date, they were sentenced as under:

2. The accused-convicts-Santosh Rani, Jaswant Singh, Amar Kaur and Natha Singh, who are appellants before this Court pray that the appeal be accepted, the impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution version are that complainant Kartar Kaur widow of Amar Nath, resident of Old Moga had submitted a written complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga on 20.3.2002, inter alia, stating that her son Angrej Singh, who was serving in Punjab Police had committed suicide during the intervening night of 14/15.2.2002; this fact came to notice of the family on 15.2.2002 in the morning; the dead body of Angrej Singh was cremated; Angrej Singh had left behind letters in drawer of his bed and they could lay their hands on such letters 1-2 days later; in such letters Angrej Singh had attributed his death to his wife Santosh Rani, brother-in-law Jaswant Singh, father-in-law Natha Singh and mother-in-law Amar Kaur. The complainant further stated that Angrej Singh had got married with Santosh Rani about three years prior to his death and the couple had a son, namely, Sartaj Singh; subsequently the relations between the couple got strained, as such Santosh Rani started residing in her parental house and she had filed a maintenance petition against Angrej Singh; she had also submitted an application before Women Cell, Moga; Kashmir Kaur, Incharge, Women Cell had made efforts to get the matter compromised but to no effect; Santosh Rani had got Angrej Singh attacked from unidentified persons several times; Santosh Rani had also moved an application before the police at Faridkot on a few occasions; as such Angrej Singh used to be get arrested on such application being submitted by Santosh Rani.

4. Going further in the complaint, the complainant stated that she had sent message of death of Angrej Singh to Santosh Rani and her family members but none of them came to attend the cremation of Angrej Singh, in that way, Santosh Rani, her father-Natha Singh, mother-Amar Kaur and brother-Jaswant Singh had compelled Angrej Singh to commit suicide. Along with the written complaint, the complainant had attached hand written letter of Angrej Singh.

5. On receipt of that complaint, the matter was inquired into by Deputy Superintendent of Police, who sent inquiry report to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga and thereafter FIR No. 59 dated 23.3.2002 for the offences under Sections 306/34 IPC was registered against accused Santosh Rani, Jaswant Singh, Amar Kaur and Natha Singh at Police Station City, Moga. Accused were arrested in that case. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against all the accused was prepared and filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga.

6. On presentation of challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, he supplied copies of documents relied upon in the challan to all the accused free of cost as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then finding that offence under Section 306 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga vide his order dated 13.12.2003 committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga.

7. Learned Additional Session