State of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

The long and short of the prosecution case against the accused is that Smt. Iqbal Kaur (now deceased) was married to Ajaib Singh accused in the year 1966. Five children were born out of the marriage in 16 years. The two spouses, were, however, not adjusted properly. Wife Iqbal Kaur had been maltreated by her husband all along after marriage in her matrimonial home for bringing less dowry. Around 9.15 A.M. on April 13, 1983 fatherinlaw of the accused named Amar Singh and the cousin of his fatherinlaw named Baldev Singh had both come to the matrimonial home of the deceased to persuade her husband to desist from his continued course of action in harassing and maltreating his wife.

After getting the advice from his fatherinlaw the accused found a hundred rupee note missing from the almirah. The deceased was getting ready for going to Baisakhi fair. The accused went to her and expressed his displeasure to her over her calling her father and his cousin to give him a piece of advice regarding their mutual treatment and also accused her of stealing the hundred rupee note aforesaid. Wife retorted by hurling a shoe on the accused and told him that she would tear off his beard in case the accused levelled false accusation of theft against her or quarrelled with her on a festival day. Accused took out a country made 12 bore pistol from the dub of his Chadra and fired a shot therefrom towards his wife Smt. Iqbal Kaur. The shot hit her in the chest and killed her instantaneously.

Vide its impugned judgment October 10, 1983 learned trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code holding that Exception I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted. The accused was, however, convicted of the commission of the offence under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period seven years. Feeling aggrieved from the acquittal of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 375DBA of 1984 in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 376DBA of 1984 has also been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the accused under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, A.A.G. Punjab for the appellant State, Shri A.S. Khaira, Advocate, amicuscuraie and have also perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

In the course of his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, accused Ajaib Singh states, "My daughter Jasbir Kaur was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. She had gone to vill. Gondara, her mother''s village. My wife Iqbal Kaur had gone to gurdwara early in the morning after taking tea and serving tea to me and others. She returned at about 6.00 or 6.30 a.m. I asked her that I had kept Rs. 100/ note for harvesting Hari crop and asked her about the whereabouts of that note. She said that she did not know. I told her that it was known to her and me only. She became furious and told me that I have levelled an allegation on her on a religious day. I told her that the allegations were true. She became more furious and threw her shoe me which fell in the courtyard. She told me that she would pull my beard. I used to keep a pistol with me because I had land dispute with my step brother Bawa Singh. I apprehended danger from him. Under grave and sudden provocation I fired at her and she fell down on the cot and died ".

The only question for consideration before us is whether Exception I to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted for application on given facts or not. Relevant Exception reads :

"Exception I. Culpable homicide is not murder if offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisions :

Firstly : That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly : That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly : That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation : Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact."

In Ram Swarup v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 664 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed : "Where the murder was not premeditated but arose out of the mutual fight, the offence falls under section 304 Part I, I.P.C." In the present case alleged murder of Iqbal Kaur by her husband was not premeditated, came out as reaction to her calling her relatives to persuade the husband to desist from cruel treatment towards her and hurling a shoe on her husband when he levelled accusation of theft of a hundred rupee note on her on the festival day. Exception I to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is thus clearly attracted for application on given facts. The offence committed being not murder, the accused was rightly acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Adverting to the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act in respect of 12 bore pistol allegedly recovered from the accused learned trial court observed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of its impugned judgment that the alleged recovery was, in fact, a faked one and the course of conduct attributed to the accused was incredible. Relevant observations read :

"The version given by Saon Singh PW that after the main occurrence the accused returned within five minutes with his pistol, and at that time he was overpowered by him and Baldev Singh who are aged persons and one Jaswant Singh and that they were successful in snatching the pistol from the accused is not worthy of credence. It seems highly unnatural and improbable that after the accused had been able to make good his escape, he would again return to his house within minutes of the occurrence with a missed cartridge in his pistol, so that he could be apprehended and handed over to the police.

Another important aspect of the case is that even though according to Saon Singh PW both arms of the accused had been tied with his turban, but no mark on his arm was found when he was handed over to the police. All these circumstances, taken together, support the defence plea that the recovery of the pistol and the cartridges had been foisted on the accused to strengthen the main case under Sec. 302 IPC against him."

There is thus no case made out against the accused on the basis of alleged recovery. Finding of `not guilty'' returned in favour of the accusedrespondent by the learned trial Court is affirmed.

Both the Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 375 and 376DBA of 1994 filed by the State against acquittal of the accused are rendered wholly without merit and are consequently dismissed.