JEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 21st October 1974 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Mst. Jeet Kaur under Section 306 IPC to 15 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are these : The accused is step mother of Inderjeet Singh of Karanpur. Deceased Sahab Kaur was married to Inderjeet Singh 6 or 7 years before the incident. Illicit relations between Inderjeet Singh and his step mother were suspected by Sahab Kaur and therefore, the relations of Sahab Kaur with her mother-in-law were strained. On 30-6-73 at about 7 30 a.m. Mst. Sahab Kaur committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting fire to her body in the kitchen of her house at Karanpur. The shrieks of Sahab Kaur attracted neighbors including P.W. 2 Malkiyat Singh, P.W. 4 Preetam Singh, P.W. 5 Balwant Singh and P.W. 6 Ramgang. These witnesses and other neighbours extinguished the fire Mst. Sahab Kaur was removed to the Government Dispensary Karanpur where she succumbed to her injuries. Dr C.H. Sharma conducted the autopsy & confirmed the cause of death due to burns and reported the matter to the S.H.O. Karanpur The S.H.O. Jagmal Ram of Police Station, Karanpur conducted enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that Sahab Kaur committed suicide, however nothing was found against Jeet Kaur. There was a public agitation that Jagmal Ram had not conducted the enquiry impartially &, then fore, on 17-7-73 the enquiry was entrusted to the Circle Officer Arjun Singh who sent a report to the police station, Karanpur with the allegation that Mst. Sahab Kaur had committed suicide and she was abetted by accused Jeet Kaur. After the case was registered under Section 306 IPC against accused jeet Kaur, statements of the three eyewitnesses Mst. Ramlubhai, Malkiyat Singh and Satya Narain were recorded. A challan was filed in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Karanpur who committed the accused to face Sessions trial for the said offence under Section 306 IPC. During the trial the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ramlubhai, P.W. 2 Malkiyat Singh and P.W. 3 Satya Narain as eye witnesses of the incident and P.W. 4 Preetam Singh P.W. 5 Balwant Singh and P.W. 6 Ramganga who reached the scene of incident soon after the incident. P.W. 7 Mehtab Kaur, P.W. 8 Harnam Singh and P.W. 9 Karan Singh were examined to prove the strained relation between Sahab Kaur with her husband Inderjeet Singh & accused Jeet Kaur. P.W. 10 Jagmal Ram is the SHO Karanpur who registered the case on the first information report made by the Circle Officer. Arjun Singh and also who conducted the enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Strang-(sic), enough the Investigating Officer Arjun was not examined, by the prosecution.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge somehow believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge repelled the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that there was no plausible explanation for the delay in lording the FIR on the ground that it was not possible earlier as Jagmal Ram did not conduct the enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. impartially. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no positive evidence was led in this case to show that Jagmalram did not conduct the enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. impartially. Inquiry case the FIR was delayed and, therefore, the possibility of concocted case against the accused could not be ruled out and the learned Sessions Judge was in error in lot closely scrutinising the statements of the eye witnesses I am inclined to agree with the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant The learned Sessions Judge failed to advance any cogent reason to hold the three eye witnesses reliable. P.W. 1 Ramlubhai has stated that she went on the roof of her house and saw that the accused was quarrelling and beating Sahab Kaur. She again went to her roof at about 7:30 a.m. and heard Sahab Kaur saying that she was accused every day and therefore, it would be better if she had died. The accused retorted that if Sahab Kaur was the true daughter of her father she night commit suicide by burning herself The accused farther told Sahab Kaur that she might take the match box and kerosene oil was available in the kitchen. After 8 or 10 minutes she heard the cries of Sahab Kaur that she was being burnt. This statement under Section 174 which was not recorded soon after the incident does not support theory of suicide but rather the theory of murder because she heard Sahab Kaur crying that she was being burnt. In the cross examination she stated that Jagmalram examined her the same day and the told him the true story This does not appear to be corroborated by the facts. P.W. 10 Jagmalram was not cross-examined to the effect that he wrongly recorded the statement of Ramlubhai during the enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The witness further stated that the Circle Officer recorded the statements 6 or 7 days after the incident. This also does not appear to be true because the case was registered 17 does after the event The police statements under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of the witness is again contrary to her statement in the court. The witness was examined on 1773 i.e. the next day of the incident under Section 174 Cr.P.C. wherein she has not narrated the incident as deposed to in the court but rather was alleging the murder of Sahab Kaur by the accused. In view of the earlier statement of the witness during the enquiry under Section 174, I am of the view that it would not be safe to rely upon her statement made in the court. The witness further appeared to be a chance witness in as much as that on both the occasions of the quarrel she went to her roof for one reason or the other. The same criticism would apply to the statements of P.W. 2 Milkiyat Singh. The statement of P.W. 3 Satya Narain can be safely knocked out simply on the ground that he was not even examined under Section 174 Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, definitely of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was be error in believing the three eye witnesses without considering the effect of the delayed FIR and the earlier statements of P.W. 1 Ram Lubhai and P.W. 2 Mtlkiyat Singh. The learned Sessions Judge was also in error in not considering the effect of non-examination of P.W. 3 Satya Narain during the enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. That apart it is extremely doubtful even the mere retort by the accused as alleged by the prosecution and sought to be proved by the three eye witnesses would amount of abetment. There are no reasons to believe that when the accused gave a retort to Sahab Kaur that she might commit suicide she had no reason to believe or had the necessary mens rea that Sahab Kaur would commit suicide on mere retort or she would in instigated to commit suicide. I failed to understand how the mere retort by the accused would instigate Sahab Kaur to commie suicide. It might be that Sahab Kaur committed suicide because of the quarrel with the accused but it could not hi said that Sahab Kaur was persuaded to commit suicide because of the instigation by the accused Such a retort during the quarrel could hardly have any persuasive effect over the deceased However, this is of academic interest only because in my opinion the three eye witnesses examined in the case are not reliable and it would not be safe to rely on their testimony to find that the incident happened as alleged by them. This could mean that the prosecution his failed to prove the offence under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC. against the accused.