INSTITUTE OF LAW,NIRMA UNIVERSITY Criminal Law- I Case Analysis on Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors 1 Submitted to Mrs. Kiran Gardener Dr. Nitesh Saraswat Submitted by Yash Sampat 10BBL113, BCOMLLB (H) rd
D Section, 3 Semester
1
1989 SCR Supl. (1) 292
Brief facts of the case
Ravinder Kaur, (daughter of the appellant Gurbachan Singh) was married to Satpal Singh in November, 1982 and after the marriage she used to stay with her husband and her in-laws in Raja Sansi,15 k.m. away from her home town and She became pregnant a month after marriage. She used to visit her parents often in a village near Amritsar and used to tell them that there was demand of dowry from her husband and her in-laws since they were not happy with the dowry and insisted her to give more dowry and used to taunt her that her parents didn’t serve proper meals to the in-laws and their relatives and did poor hospitality of the guests. She used to complain that she was continuously tortured and harassed by the in-laws and the in-laws had an implication that she was carrying an illegitimate child and was threatened that she would be thrown out of the house. In April 1983, Gurbachan Singh brought her back to his house and she stayed there for eight days. Then, her husband with her in-laws and their some relatives came to fetch her back but she was not willing to go back with them. Gurbachan Singh called his two neighbours and a social worker from their neighbourhood in order to compromise and make the deal. Her husband and in-laws then verbally promised that in future they would not mis-treat her or make any dowry demands and thus she was then sent back with them. For two months, Gurbachan Singh had no news of his daughter, so on June 23, 1983, he sent his other two daughters, Surjit Kaur and Sajinder Kaur, to visit her. On meeting them, Ravinder wept and told them that she was being beaten and mis-treated. She said she was being taunted continuously and was told that she should die. In their presence Ravinder’s mother -in-law abused her. th
After 2 days on 25 June, 1983, she died around 2:30 P.M. However, she was taken to hospital only after she was already dead, and her parents were informed only at 6.30 p.m. that their daughter had died. The post mortem showed that Ravinder was carrying a male child. Satpal Singh’s maternal uncle had come and informed him that Ravinder had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself on fire. Her parents alleged that her death was caused because of the demand of dowry and continuous harassment, cruel behaviour and constant taunts to her by the in-laws.
They had also alleged that she had been provoked by the in- laws’ conduct and behaviour and thus committed suicide. It was also accused that the father-in- law, mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased have been the abettors of the crime and the deceased died of second to third degree burns. The mother-in-law of the deceased and the mother of the accused Satpal Singh, stated in her statement that she was lying in her house at that time and the de- ceased was cooking food on a kerosene stove, and as such the deceased caught fire accidentally. Gurbachan Singh filed an appeal against them in the Trial Court and in 1984; the additional sessions judge convicted Satpal Singh and his parents of abetment of suicide and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 each. Relying on the oral evidence presented. The convicted persons then appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The High Court was of the view that the guilt of the accused had not been proved because there was absence of evidence and therefore had acquitted them. The complainant and father of the deceased aggrieved by the order of the High Court preferred these appeals by way of special leave to appeal.
PRINCIPLE The appellants had charged the respondents under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code which is about the abatement of suicide which states: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the present case the definition of abetment was significantly expanded in accordance with the circumstances of a married woman’s life. The court also relied on section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which lays down that when a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of marriage, and it is shown that her husband and his relatives had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that her suicide had been abetted by those who treated her with cruelty. Although this section was introduced into the Act in 1983, a few months after Ravinder died, the court held that as it is a general rule relating to evidence, it is retrospective in effect.
In the present case, the Supreme Court by quoted that “persistent ill -treatment of a woman for dowry amounted to abetment to suicide.” and “Torture is Abetment of Suicide .”
DECISION OF THE COURT In the trial appeal in 1984, the additional sessions judge convicted Satpal Singh and his parents of abetment of suicide and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 each. Relying on the oral evidence presented, he pointed out that none of the persons in the house, including Ravinder’s mother -in-law, had any burns on their fingers, this suggested that they had made no attempt to save her. They had also delayed raising the alarm and had probably prevented her from moving out of the house until she was fatally burnt. There had been inordinate delay in taking her to the hospital and in informing her parents. He felt that the accusation of carrying an illegitimate child was enough to drive a woman to commit suicide and that the f amily’s maltreatment of Ravinder amounted to abetment and instigation to suicide. The convicted persons then appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court gave weight to highly technical arguments such as minor contradictions, additions and alterations in the statements of Gurbachan Singh, and acquitted all three accused principally on the ground that there was no evidence that at the time Ravinder committed suicide, the accused had instigated or abetted her action. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Gurbachan Singh filed a private appeal in the Supreme Court aiming to get the fast decision and dispose off the case. The joint Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji and Justice B.C. Ray, on 26 September, 1989 had given the final judgment and it was decided that the accused were guilty of instigating Ravinder to commit suicide. The apex court Upholded the trial court’s decision and ruled that the “persistent demands of the accused for more money, their tortures and taunts amounted to instigation and abetment that compelled her to do away with her life.” Since her husband had fully participated in her mis-treatment, he too was convicted although he was not present in the house at the time when she died. Thus, the definition of abetment was significantly expanded in accordance with the circumstances of a married woman’s life. The court relied on section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which lays down that when a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of marriage, and it is shown that her husband and his relatives had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume,
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that her suicide had been abetted by those who treated her with cruelty. Although this section was introduced into the Act in 1983, a few months after Ravinder died, the court held that as it is a general rule relating to evidence, it is retrospective in effect.
The hon’ble judges referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal v. 2 Prem Chand & Anr held that instigation and abetment must be adjudged in the context of the entire evidence. In the above case, there was written evidence from the side of the deceased party. However, In the present case, the court relied solely on oral evidence which, in most cases of matrimonial cruelty and violence, is the primary evidence and held that “ in the instant case on a proper consideration and weighing of the evidences the only reasonable view that can be taken is that the cruel behaviour and constant taunts and harassment caused by the accused persons while Ravinder Kaur, deceased was in her in-laws house instigated her to commit suicide and in our considered opinion no other reasonable view follows from a proper consideration and appraisement of the evidences on record.”
The bench at last decided to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and uphelded the conviction of the accused of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentence imposed upon them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and finally decided that “ the respondents will immediately surrender in the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar to serve out the remaining period of their sentence.”
2
JT 1989 3 SC 1
