Bhupinder Singh and another vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—By this common judgment, I am disposing of three cases i.e. Criminal Appeal No.522-SB of 2001 preferred by convicts Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh assailing their conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawansahar vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2001 and Criminal Revisions No.1354 of 2001 and 1915 of 2001 both preferred by complainant Ram Lok arising out of the same judgment and order of the trial Court. Appellants Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh stand convicted u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. In Criminal Revision No.1354 of 2001, the complainant has sought conviction of the said convicts u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC, whereas in Criminal Revision No.1915 of 2001, the complainant has sought conviction of accused Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur for offence u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC, whereas the trial Court has acquitted the said two accused.

Prosecution case is that Bhupinder Singh accused is husband of Bimla Devi, since deceased. Their marriage took place about 9 years before the occurrence. Sandeep Singh is brother of Bhupinder Singh. Satnam Kaur accused is their sister whereas Gurbachan Singh accused is their uncle. Bhupinder Singh had illicit relations with some other woman and therefore, he used to maltreat the deceased as told by her to her father Ram Lok-complainant. Panchayats were convened in the matter but proved futile. The deceased filed criminal complaint dated 07.11.1994 against Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh convicts and their mother Shankro for offences under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. During pendency of the said criminal complaint, Bhupinder Singh admitted his fault and agreed to rehabilitate Bimla Devi in the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the complainant left Bimla Devi in the matrimonial home. About three and half months before the occurrence, Bimla Devi gave birth to a daughter. On 02.12.1998, the complainant visited Bimla Devi in her matrimonial home. She told him that she was being maltreated by the accused persons. On 06.12.1998, complainant''s nephew Kishan Lal told the complainant that Bhupinder Singh, Sandeep Singh and Satnam Kaur had taken Bimla Devi to hospital. Complainant along with Kishan Lal went to the hospital and found that Bimla Devi had died due to administration of some poisonous substance. Bhupinder Singh, Sandeep Singh and Satnam Kaur left the dead body in hospital and went away. The complainant firmly believed that all the four accused administered some poisonous substance to the deceased. On statement of complainant to the aforesaid effect, FIR was registered and investigated. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared. Post-mortem examination was got conducted. On chemical examination, viscera was found to contain poisonous substance. Stomach and its contents and piece of small and large intestines with contents were found to contain aluminium phosphide which is a pesticide. In pieces of liver, spleen and kidney and in sample of blood, phosphine, a constituent of aluminum phosphide, was detected. Death was thus caused by poison. Statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation. Baldev Singh PW stated that he had gone to the house of the accused on 05.12.1998. Accused Sandeep Singh had caught hold of Bimla Devi; accused Bhupinder Singh was holding a tablet in his hand; Satnam Kaur accused was holding a glass of water; Gurbachan Singh accused said that Bimla Devi was unwell and therefore, tablet be given to her. Thereupon the aforesaid tablet was administered to her by the accused. On coming to know of the death of Bimla Devi on the next day, the witness realized that the tablet administered to her by the accused was some poisonous substance. During investigation, statement of Sohan Lal was also recorded. He stated about extra judicial confession made to him by all the four accused regarding the occurrence in the same manner as stated by Baldev Singh. The accused also disclosed to Sohan Lal that they have killed Bimla Devi because Bhupinder Singh wanted to marry one Kulwinder Kaur. Accused Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh were arrested on 13.12.1998. On completion of investigation, police presented report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ''Cr.P.C.'') for prosecution of accused Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh only under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, holding the remaining two accused Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur to be innocent and mentioning their names in column No.2 of the report. However, Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur were also summoned as additional accused by the trial Court on prosecution application filed u/s 319 Cr. P.C.

Charge u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC and in the alternative, u/s 306 IPC was framed against all the four accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution in support of its case examined eleven witnesses. Jaswant Singh Draughtsman PW-1 stated that he prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence.

Dr. Usha Devi PW-2 stated about post-mortem examination conducted by her on the body of Bimla Devi. She opined that cause of death was poison.

Ram Lok PW-3, Baldev Singh PW-4 and Sohan Lal PW-5 broadly stated according to prosecution version.

Prem Chand, Advocate PW-6 stated that he had drafted and instituted criminal complaint on behalf of and on instructions of Bimla Devi, since deceased against Bhupinder Singh etc. He had also drafted and filed application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. on her instructions.

Head Constable Ravinder Singh PW-7 and Constable Surinder Pal PW-8 stated that there was no tampering with the sealed parcels of viscera etc. of the deceased in their custody.

ASI Rounki Dass PW-9 stated that in his presence, Joginder Pal SI/SHO had taken into possession four letters, wedding card (on which some money accounts were written) and autobiography of Bhupinder Singh.

ASI Amrik Singh PW-10 and Joginder Pal, Inspector PW-11 stated about investigation of the case conducted by them.

The accused in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. It was alleged that Bhupinder Singh was having illicit relations with some lady. On account of it, the deceased used to remain under depression and committed suicide. All the accused were residing separately from one another.

In defence, the accused examined two witnesses i.e. Ram Dhan, Sarpanch DW-1 and Tarsem Lal, Ex-Sarpanch, DW-2. They stated that all the accused ere residing separately from one another.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar vide impugned judgment dated 16.04.2001 convicted accused Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh u/s 306 IPC but acquitted them of the alternative charge u/s 302 IPC read with Section 102 B IPC and acquitted accused Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur in toto and vide order of even date, each convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-Feeling aggrieved, both the convicts have filed criminal appeal No.522-SB of 2001 whereas complainant Ram Lok has filed Criminal Revisions No.1354 of 2001 and 1915 of 2001.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files with their assistance.

Learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously dispute the conviction of Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh for offence u/s 306 IPC but prayed for reduction in their sentence. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence.

Learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner contended that prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of all the four accused for offence u/s 302 read with Section 102 B IPC. Therefore, they should be convicted and sentenced accordingly. Prayer for award of compensation to the complainant was also made by learned counsel for the complainant.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Death in this case is proved to have been caused by poisonous substance as is evident from the report of chemical examiner coupled with testimony of Dr. Usha Devi PW-2. The death, therefore, could either be homicidal or suicidal. Learned trial Court after examining the evidence in detail in the light of arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and by assigning detailed reasons based on analysis of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and the same was abetted by Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh accused only. The said conclusion is reasonable and plausible view of the evidence on record. The said finding of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it suffers from jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As regards acquittal of Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur, both of them were found innocent even by the police after investigation. The trial Court has also acquitted them after analyzing the evidence in detail. There is presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. The said presumption gets doubly strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court to acquit these two accused is reasonable view of the evidence on record and therefore, the said view cannot be reversed to order conviction of the acquitted accused even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that another view of the evidence was also possible. It may be added that accused Satnam Kaur was already married for more than fifteen years before the occurrence and was residing in her matrimonial home in different village. Consequently her involvement in harassment of the deceased or abetment of suicide by her is reasonably improbable. Similarly Gurbachan Singh accused is uncle of husband of the deceased and was residing separately from them. His involvement in the occurrence is also, therefore, reasonably improbable. Acquittal of both these accused is thus well founded.

As regards offence for which Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh should be convicted, the same argument applies to them also. If two reasonable views are possible, view favourable to the accused has to be taken. In the instant case, the trial Judge after dissecting the evidence in great detail has taken the view that case against these two accused falls u/s 306 IPC. The said view is reasonable view of the evidence on record. It is supported by detailed and cogent reasons. Consequently, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, conviction of these two accused cannot be altered to graver offence u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Prosecution evidence is, however, sufficient to prove the guilt of these two accused u/s 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the aforesaid, I find that impugned judgment dated 16.04.2001 passed by learned trial Judge thereby acquitting accused Gurbachan Singh and Satnam Kaur and convicting accused Bhupinder Singh and Sandeep Singh u/s 306 IPC is well founded and does not warrant interference in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The same is accordingly upheld.

As regards sentence, the occurrence took place almost thirteen years ago. During this long period, the convicts have faced the agony of trial including present appeal. Keeping in view the same, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the convicts warrants some reduction. It may be mentioned that convict Bhupinder Singh being husband of the deceased deserves to be sentenced more severely than convict Sandeep Singh who is younger brother of husband of the deceased. However, the complainant should be compensated by the convicts by paying some compensation.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to convict Bhupinder Singh to rigorous imprisonment for five years and sentence of imprisonment awarded to convict Sandeep Singh to rigorous imprisonment for three and half years, while enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.5,000/-each to Rs.30,000/-each. The additional amount of fine of Rs.50,000/-shall be paid to the complainant Ram Lok as compensation. In default of payment of fine, defaulting convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

With modification in sentence as aforesaid, criminal appeal No.522-SB of 2001 stands disposed of accordingly. The accused-appellants who are on bail shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Criminal revisions No.1354 of 2001 and 1915 of 2001 are both dismissed.