JASBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 2 of the Supreme court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. On the basis of a private complaint made by one Gurmukh Singh, Public Witness 11, Jasbir Kaur (A 1 the appellant before us, one Surjit Kaur, her mother (A 2 and her brother Amarjit Singh, who died during the committal proceedings, were charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under S. 302/34 Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Amar Kaur, the deceased in the case, by administering poison. The case was committed to the court of Sessions as against A 1 and A 2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both of them. The complainant Public Witness 11 filed an appeal against the acquittal. A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court admitted appeal only against Jasbir Kaur, A 1 and did not issue any notice to A 2 thereby confirming her acquittal. The High court convicted Jasbir Kaur A 1, the appellant before us under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 with a direction that the fine, if realised, shall be paid to the son and daughter of the deceased. The prosecution case is as follows.

(2.) Amar Kaur the deceased was the sister of Public Witness 11. She was given in marriage to Amarjit Singh. Public Witness 11 used to treat the deceased as his daughter and spent considerable amount, at the time of her marriage in December 1959. A day prior to the occurrence the deceased sent one Dayal Singh, a farm worker to Public Witness 11 with a request that he should visit her house. Public Witness 11 went there and found that the deceased and the accused persons were altercating among themselves. The deceased told Public Witness 11 that she had been advising her husband Amarjit Singh against drinking andgambling but A 1 and A 2 instead of stopping him from indulging in these nefarious activities used to encourage him and took sides with him in quarrels between wife and the husband. Public Witness 11 suggested to the deceased that she and her children should leave the village and accompany him to his village to live with him. But the deceased was not prepared. On the following day i. e. 31/05/1973 at about 5.30 p. m. information was sent to Public Witness 11 that the deceased had passed away. Public Witness 11 was taken aback and went to the village of the accused followed by Public Witness 8, the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana. Along with Public Witness 11 his daughter Smt Baljit Kaur and his son Rajinder Singh Public Witness 10 also went. There Public Witness 11 found the deceased lying on a cot covered with a chaddar. The appellant (A 1 and her mother A 2 were sitting by the side of her bed. Public Witness 11 enquired from them as to what was the cause of death. He was informed by Amarjit Singh, husband of the deceased that she died because of hysteria. Public Witness 11 did not believe this and he suspected some foul play as the accused were not weeping as is usual with the ladies when a member of the family passes away. Public Witness 11 depuled Public Witness 10 to go to the Police Post. Goraya to lodge a report. Public Witness 10 accompanied by Public Witness 8 went to the Police Post where a report was lodged which was recorded by Public Witness 13 ASI who left for the house of the deceased. There he found only the appellant and her mother A 2 present. The two children of the deceased, Public Witness 12 Bhupinder Singh, a boy aged about 12 years and daughter Maninder Kaur were also not present. The ASI did not find any injuries on the dead body. He, however, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem which was conducted by doctor. The doctor. Public Witness 1 collected the viscera and pieces of liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased in two separate bottles and pieces of small and large intestines of the deceased in another bottle. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner. Public Witness 2. The Chemical Examiner found the presence of organic phosphorus compound in the three bottles. Public Witness 2 also opined that organic phosphorus was a poisonous matter and had the capacity to kill human beings if administered in the quantity of 25 miligrams or more. Public Witness 1 on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner forwarded the same with his opinion to the Station House Officer, Police Station Phillaur on the basis of which a criminal case was registered under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The ASI found the accused persons missing. He recorded the statements of PWs 10 and 11. On 12/07/1973, Inspector Harbhajan Singh, DW 1 took over the investigation. Public Witness 11 apprehending that the case was not being properly investigated, sent representations to the Superintendent of Police and inspector General of Police. DW 1 who was investigating the case submitted a cancellation report with a request to cancel the case. Thereafter Public Witness 11 made a representation to the Chief Minister and he got a reply that the matter was being inquired into. Public Witness 11, however, filed a detailed complaint in the court on the basis of which the committalproceedings were initiated and on committal the trial commenced before the Sessions court. Sixteen witnesses were examined. The case rested mainly on the evidence of Public Witness 12 the son of the deceased aged about 12 years. He deposed that on the day of occurrence he came to the house from the school during the recess at 10. 30 a. m. He found his mother knitting the sweater and he asked for the money which has been given by his maternal uncle. In the meanwhile A 2 asked him to go and take food. He went into the kitchen where he found A 1 and A 2 sitting. A 1, the appellant gave him a glass of tea and asked him to deliver the same to the deceased. Accordingly Public Witness 12 gave the glass of tea and the deceased started taking the tea. Public Witness 12 collected Rs. 15. 00 from the suitcase and delivered the key to his mother and left the house. Before going he also washed the glass in which tea was served to his mother. He returned from the school at about 1.30 p. m. and found the deceased lying on the cot. He went upstairs to finish his home-work and after one hour he came down. He still found his mother lying on the cot covered with a chaddar. He called for her but she did not speak. Then he started weeping. At about sunset time Public Witness 11 came. 2-3 days later he and others went to Ludhiana. There he told Public Witness 11 about serving of the tea etc. On the basis of this information it was suspected that the accused administered poison to the deceased in the tea. The accused denied the offence.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge held that there was inordinate delay in giving the report and that Public Witness 12 was not a reliable witness and that he and Public Witness 11 improved their respective versions from stage to stage and the possibility of suicide by the deceased could not be ruled out. The High court disagreed with the findings of the trial court. The learned Judges, however, held that the evidence of Public Witness 12 established that the appellant gave a glass of tea to Public Witness 12 and asked him to give the same to his mother and therefore she must be held responsible for having administered poison.