Smt. Gurdev Kaur vs State

P.D. Sharma, J.—The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ferozepur tried Smt. Guddi u/s 304, Indian Penal Code, for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the deaths of Mukhtiar Singh and Jarnail Singh Smt. Gurdev Kaur was also tried for abetting her in committing the offence for which she had been charged. The first of them was convicted u/s 328, Indian Penal Code, of two counts and was ordered to be released on her entering into a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 1,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the mean time to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. The second, however, was convicted under sections 304/109, Indian Penal Code, and awarded five years'' rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences were made to run concurrently. She has come up in appeal.

The prosecution story briefly stated runs as follows. Smt. Guddi accused was married to Mukhtiar Singh deceased a Jat. She was Mazhabi by caste and was aged nine years only at the time of the incident. Smt. Gurdev Kaur accused-appellant is wife of Mohinder Singh a brother of Mukhtiar Singh. Smt. Guddi was not well treated by her husband. Smt. Gurdev Kaur advised her that she should administer insecticide in the chapatis to her husband. This insecticide was lying in her house and was meant for spraying the crops. On 27th October, 1965, Smt. Guddi mixed this insecticide in the flour and prepared four chapatis. She gave these four chapatis to her husband to eat, who had three and left one in the basket meant for keeping chapatis. Jarnail Singh who was his siri was also taking meals along with him. Smt. Guddi had given four chapatis to larnail Singh which she had prepared out of the atta which was not mixed with insecticide. Jarnail Singh ate them and wanted more. Smt. Guddi was busy then in making dung-cakes. Mukhtiar Singh in her absence gave him the chapati which he had returned and was lying in the basket. Thereafter both Mukhtiar Singh and Jarnail Singh left in their cart for the fields. They both felt sick after some time Mukhtiar Singh was brought home and from their was taken to Mukhtiar Police Station but he died in the way. Jarnail Singh also was removed to Mukhtiar Singh's house by one Sadhu Singh P.W. 5 where he also died a few minutes later. He had told Sadhu Singh that he and Mukhtiar Singh got sick after taking the chapatis given by Smt. Guddi. Sadhu Singh conveyed this information to Kaila Singh P.W. 3, Jagat Singh P.W. 4, Avtar Singh and others present in the house of Mukhtiar Singh. Smt. Guddi when questioned by them admitted that she had administered insecticide to the two dead persons at the abetting of Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kaila Singh a brother of Jarnail Singh deceased went to Police Station, Muktsar, and lodged the first information report on the same night at 11.00 P.M. Exhibit P. 13.

Mulkh Raj A.S.I. Police P.W. 7 went to the spot and arrested the accused appellant and Smt. Guddi. The latter was interrogated by him led to the recovery of the packet of insecticide from an earthern reservoirs in her kotha P. O/2. She also produced Kauii P. O/1 before the police. The Chemical Examiner on a analysis found that the recovered portion of the insecticide contained endrine.

Dr. Prithipal Singh P.W. 1 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of Mukhtiar Singh and Jarnail Singh. He sent the two viscera's duly sealed to the Chemical Examiner who after examination opined that those contained endrine.

Shri R.D. Garg, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, P.W. 2 recorded the confessional statement of Smt. Guddi Exhibit P. 12 on 2nd November, 1965. He had done so after observing all the formalities laid down by the law.

Smt. Gurdev Kaur, accused appellant in her statement denied having investigated or advised Smt. Guddi to administer insecticide to her husband Mukhtiar Singh. She is said to have been involved by Kaila Singh a brother of Jarnail Singh deceased on account of some enmity. Smt. Guddi also denied having administered any poisonous thing to her deceased husband Mukhtiar Singh or his Siri Jarnail Singh. She further explained that Jarnail Singh on the day of the incident did rot take his meals at their house. As regards her confessional statement Exhibit P. 12 she said that it was made by her as tutored by the police. She finally said that Gurcharan Singh Sarpanch had forced and also tutored her to make some statement and added that her relations with her husband were very cordial.

The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses out of whom one is doctor, the other is Magistrate and the third A.S.I. whose statements have already been noticed. Out of the remaining four, Kaila Singh P.W. 3 and Jagat Singh P.W. 4 were examined to prove the extrajudicial confession made by Smt. Guddi about having administered insecticide in chapatis to her husband at the instance of the accused-appellant. Sadhu Singh P.W. 5 was grazing cattle near Mukhtiar Singh's filed at 3 P.M. on the day of the incident. He saw Jarnail Singh lying on the ground with cold-sweats who on enquiry informed him that he and Mukhtiar Singh after taking chapatis given to them by Smt Guddi had fallen sick. The witness brought Jarnail Singh to the house of Mukhtiar Singh where Kaila Singh, Jagar Singh, Avtar Singh and other persons were already present. He conveyed them all what Jarnail Singh had told him. He conceded in his cross-examination that Smt Guddi accused and Mukhtiar Singh never quarlied in his presence. Viru Singh P.W. 6 is said to have seen the accused-appellant talking to Guddi on the day of the incident.

He was examined by the police on the third day after the incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the retracted confession of Smt. Guddi and the fact as deposed to by Viru Singh that he had seen Smt. Guddi and Smt. Gurdev Kaur talking before the incident coupled with the presence of endrine in the visceras of the two deceased and the recovered portion of the insecticide found the charge u/s 304/109, Indian Penal Code, proved against the accused-appellant.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the evidence before the trial Judge was totally insufficient to bring home the charge to the accused appellant. He was very much correct in his submissions. The only evidence which was available to the Court below in order to determine the accused-appellant's guilt was the retracted confession of Smt. Guddi aged 9 years and the fact that both of them were seen talking by Viru Singh P.W. on the day of occurrence. It is common ground that both these women were married to two brothers, and so in the ordinary course of events were likely to meet and talk on various topics of common interest. The retracted confession of Smt. Guddi carried practically no weight as it was not made on oath and was not tested by cross-examination. Its truth was also denied by the maker herself who had thus lied on one or other of the occasions There could be no conviction on the basis of such retracted confession without the fullest and strongest corroboration of material particulars. Corroboration in the full sense implied corroboration as to the factum of the crime and as to the identity which is not forthcoming in this case. My view finds support from a decision of the. Supreme Court i Pyare Lal Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan, The Rattan Lal and Another Vs. The State, . The accused-appellant indeed was convicted and sentenced on very flimsy and unreliable evidence.

The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant are set aside. She is acquitted of the charge. She is on bail. Her bail bond stands discharged.