SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Kiran Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S-1353 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-08-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab., Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in cases of abetment to suicide.

Headnote:

Conviction - Abetment to Suicide - IPC 306, 120-B - The court analyzed the testimonies of the parents of the deceased and found inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements, leading to the conclusion that the allegations against the appellant were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted the lack of evidence regarding the instigatory actus reus and the suppression of material evidence by the prosecution. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased committed suicide by setting himself on fire after a quarrel with the appellant. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abetted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

Finding of the Court:

The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the allegations against the appellant were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted the lack of evidence regarding the instigatory actus reus and the suppression of material evidence by the prosecution.

Issues: Inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of evidence regarding instigatory actus reus, suppression of material evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence and the presence of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant Kiran Kaur was acquitted of the charges framed against her. The impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 29.10.2021, by the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, upon CIS No. SC/17/2016. Through the verdict (supra), the learned trial Judge concerned, convicted the accused-appellant herein for the charges drawn against her, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 120-B of the IPC. Moreover, vide a separate sentencing order, drawn on 29.10.2021, the learned trial Court, proceeded to sentence the convict-appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment of a term of seven years, and, also imposed, upon her, a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, besides in default of payment of fine, sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. Though, co-accused Amrik Singh, and, Sarabjit Kaur also faced charges (supra), but through the impugned verdict, the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, made a finding of acquittal qua the above, but the learned State counsel has not been able to place on record any material, suggestive of the fact that the above verdict of acquittal, as, recorded qua co-accused Amrik Singh, and, Sarabjit Kaur, has been challenged, through an appeal being constituted thereagainst, before this Court, therefore, the verdict (supra) acquires conclusivity.

3. The aggrieved convict Kiran Kaur has chosen to assail the verdict of conviction (supra), and, consequent therewith sentence (supra), as became imposed upon her, by the learned convicting Court, through hers instituting the instant appeal before this Court.

4. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes encapsulated in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PW-9/B is assigned. The appeal FIR is lodged at the instance of the father of the deceased, and, thereins he has set-forth that his elder son Gagandeep Singh was a Security Guard in the hotel and younger to him is Gurdeep Singh, who used to wok in private factory at Dhoula. Gurdeep Singh was married to Kiran Kaur daughter of Amrik Singh resident of Ranjit Colony, near Verka Milk Plant, Sirhind Road, Patiala on 22.3.2015. After some time of the marriage, Kiran Kaur started quarreling with his son Gurdeep Singh that she is graduate and he (Gurdeep Singh) is illiterate and not studied upto her status. She used to quarrel with his son Gurdeep Singh over the issue that he is not of liking of her. In this regard, he and his son many times approached her parents, but they kept on encouraging her. About one month ago, his daughter-in-law went to her parental house at Patiala after quarreling with his son and other family members. Her mother Sarabjit Kaur made phone call several times that they (complainant party) are harassing their daughter and threatened that they would destroy them and that they know as to how to rehabilitate their daughter and further told him to take back Kiran Kaur in the matrimonial home. He (complainant) shared the conversation with his family and relative Darbara Singh son of Raj Singh and thereafter on 22.6.2015, he alongwith his son Gurdeep Singh, wife and Darbara Singh went to Patiala to bring back his daughter-in-law where again Sarabjit Kaur, Amrik Singh and Kiran Kaur told his son that he is not worthy of them and matter be settled. He after begging, brought his daughter-in-law to their house at Barnala where she again started quarreling with his son. His son again informed her parents on phone, but they did not take responsibility of the same.

5. The complainant further mentioned in his statement, that on 28.6.2015, he along with his wife Surinder Kaur was present at home, and, it was about 7.15 P.M., that Kiran Kaur started quarreling with his son Gurdeep Singh, on the ground that she does not want to reside in their house, as he is not suitable match for her, and, that she gave a slap on the face of his son Gurdeep Singh. When he told her that she has not done right thing by giving slap to his son, she told her son that he should die anywhere, and, she would find a suitable match for her. Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top