GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH & ORS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 292

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, B.C. RAY

Case summary

Abetment does ·not involve the actual commission of the crime ·abetted; it is a crime ' apart. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the totality of evidence on record held that the accused were guilty of abetment to suicide and · as such punishable under Section 306 of the I.

Judgment text

• GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH & ORS. SEPTE~BER 26, 1989 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B. C. RAY, JJ. ] Criminal Trial-Criminal charge must . be brought home- Proved beyond all reasonable . doubt-abetment separate and· distinct offence-Letting guilty escape is'. not doing justice according to law. Raviitder Kaur, daughter· of Gurbachan Singh was married to ·C Satpal Singh in November, 196Z. She died on 25th June, 1983 at about 2. 30 P. M. It was alleged, she co~tted suicide because of the harassment, constant taunts and cruel behaviour of her in-laws towards her and persistent demand for dowry and insinnuations that she was carrying an illegitimate child. It is alleged, provoked by th. e aforesaid conduct and behaviour she committed suicide. The father-in-law, mother- . in-law a. nd the husband of the deceased have been the abetters of the crime and the deceased died of secondi~o third degree burns.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the totality of evidence on record held that the accused were guilty of abetment to suicide and · as such punishable under Section 306 of the I. P. C. On appeal by the accused the High Court was of the view that the guilt of the accused had not been proved and as such acquitted them. The complainant and father of the deceased aggrieved by the order of the Hi11:h Court preferred these appeals by way of special leave lfo appeal. This Court holding that the order of acquittal made by the High Court is not sustainable and affirming the conviction of the accused under section 306 of I. P. C. and the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, HELD: (Per Sabyasachi Mukharji J. ) Abetment is a separate and , distinct offence provided the thing abetted is an offence. Abetment does ·not involve the actual commission of the crime ·abetted; it is a crime ' apart.

[295G] ' Criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all reasonable doubts. While civil case may be proved by mere preponde- # ranee of evidence, in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH 293 ch11rge beyond «asonable doubt. There must not be any'reasonable doubt' of the guilt of the accused in respect of the particular offence charged. The courts musfstrictly . be satisfied that no innocent personinnocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he is charged-is convicted, even at the risk of letting of some _guilty persons. Even after the introduction of S. 493A of the I. P. C. and S. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof must be beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard In either ofthe cases. [296C-F] The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent .

man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts of lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. [296F] (Per B. C. Ray, J): Circumstantial avidence as well as the prosecu· tion witnesses in the instant case clearly prove beyond doubt that the ac- . ·cused instigated and abetted Ravinder Kaur, deceased in the commission of the offence by committing suicide by burning herself. [306G] The fmdiugs arrived at by the Trial Court after considering and weighing the entire evidences are unexceptional. The findings arrived at by the High Court without considering properly the circumstantial evidence as well as the evidences of the prosecution witnesses cannot be sustained.

As such the findings of the High Court are liable to be reversed and set aside. [306H; 307AJ The suicide having been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage in accordance with the provisions of Section l l3A the Court may presume having regard to all . the other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by the husband and his relations. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Additioruil Sessions Judge are quite in accordance with the provisions of this section and the findings of the High Court that the accused persons could not be ·held to have instigated or abetted· the commission of offence, is not sustainable in law. ·1[308C-D] Section ll3A of th~ Indian Evidence Act was inserted in the Statute Book by Act 46 of:1983 whereas the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. wa. Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Pinky Anand and D. N. Goburdhah for the Appellant. R. L. Kohli and R. C. Kohli for the Respondents.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered R SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Ravinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Amritsar, was married to Satpal Singh in November, 1982. She died on 25th June, 1983 at about 2. 30 p. m. She, it was alleged, committed suicide because of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws soon after her marriage. She used to visit her parents· at Amritsar occasionally and during those visits she used to tell them that there was demand for dowry and also taunting of her by the members of the family of her in-laws and also insinuation that she was carrying on illegitimate child. There are sufficient, relevant and acceptable evidence to that effect. It is alleged that provoked by the aforesaid conduct and behayiour. , she committed suicide. The father-in-law, o mother-in-law and the husband of the accused have been the abettors to the crime.

The evidence further established that she died of second to third degree bums on the body, and there was sprawling of kerosene oil on her body and the body was burnt by fire. Accused no. 3-Smt. Kamal Dip Kaur, the mother-in-law of the deceased and the mother of the accused Satpal Singh, stated in her statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. H' that she was lying in her house at that time and the deceased was • GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH [MUiffiAR. JI, J. j 295 cooking food on a kerosene stove, and as such the deceased caught fire accidentally. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge held that there was absence of bum injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law and other members of the family. As mentioned before, the deceased was married in November,. 1982. After marriage, she used to stay in the house of her-in-laws ai ·Raja Sansi.. The deceased used to visit the house of her parents at Amritsar. occasionally, as noted. before.

During these visits she used to tell them that het-fn-laws _were not happy with the dowry given to the latter. It is further on evidenc~ that she c0mplained _that her in-laws used to taunt her and insisted her·tii bring more dowry. It is stated that she. complained·fu'at the in-laws taunted her that at the time of the marriage, her parents did not serve proper meals to the in-laws and their guests. It is further stated that the accused used to tell her that· they had been offered by fridge etc. by other parties for the marriage of the accused while she had not brought dowry expected from her parents. It is also on evidence that she was often openly threatened ihat she would be turned out of the house in case she did not bring more articles. These were all established by the evidence of Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased and his two daughters. It was insinuated of her by the accused that she was carrying an illegitimate child.

On the totality of these evidence on record, it was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused were guilty of abetment to suicide and as such punishable under s. 306 of the l. P. C. The High Court on appeal was of the view that the guilt of the accused had not been proved, and as such acquitted them. The first thing that is necessary for proving the offence is the fact of suicide. Abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided the thing abetted is an offence. Abetment does not involve the actual commission of the crime abetted; it is a crime apart. See the observations of Barendra Kumar Ghosh,52 ILR Cal. 197. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no direct evidence of the act of suicide by Ravinder Kaur. There, indeed, could not be in the circumslances in which she "died. She was in the house of her in-laws.

There is ample and sufficient evidence that she had complained that she was taunted for bringing meagre dowry and that even insinuated that she was carrying 'an illegitimate child'. The aforesaid facts stand established by cogent and reliable evidence. These are grave and serious P! Ovocation enougji for an ordinary woman in the Indian set u_p, to do . • 1" what the deceased is alleged to have done. There is also evidence that the persons in the house of her in-laws including the mother-in-lawmother of the accused Satpal Singh, made no attempt to save her from the burn injuries. The absence of any burn injury in the hands of the people around, indicates and establishes that there was no attempt to save the deceased though she was seen being burnt.

The evidence of attitude and conduct of the in-laws-the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband after Ravinder Kaur, the deceased, got burns in not informing the parents and not taking prompt steps to take her to hospital for giving medical assistance corroborate the inference that these accused connived and abetted the crime. Criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. While civil case may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasoonable doubt. See Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1942] AC 1, Woolmington v. The Director ofPublic Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462. It is true even today, as much as. it was before. There must not be any 'reasonable doubt' about the guilt of the accused in respect of the particular offence charged. The courts must strictly be satisfied that no innocent perso.

n, innocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he is charged, is convicted, even at the risk of letting of Isome guilty persons. Even after the introduction of s. 498A of the I. P. C. and s. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof must be beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There is a higher standard of IE proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute standard in either of the cases. See the observations of Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, [1950) 2 AER 458 at 459 but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fancilful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.

Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. The conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule . but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH [RAY, J. I 297 Baving regard _to the circumstances of the case, there is no direct evidence indicating tile c;ircumstances in which the death took place, the conduct of the accused and the nature of the crime with which the accused was charged, there cannot be any scope of doubt that the learned Sessions Judge was right and the conviction was properly made. This is not a case where there could be two views possible on the facts found and on theJacts which_ could not_possibly be found because of\the nature of the offence.

The fact the two view are reasonably possible, is not established by the fact that two different conclusions are reached by two adjudicatory authorities. The factum of that may be only a piece of evidence, but whether two views at all are possible or not, has to be judged in all circumstances l? y the Judge, by the logic of the facts found in the background of law. For the reasons aforesaid, J respectfully agree with the judgment and order proposed by my learned brother. RAY,J. Specialleavegranted. These appeals are at the instance of Gurbachan Singh, the complainant against the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 434 SB of 1984 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh acquitting the accused-respondents of the charge under s. 306 of the Indian Penal Code on setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge on August 9, 1984 convicting and sentencing a! Lthe accused.

The appeal was allowed on holding that there was no evidence on record that the accused at the time of commission of suicide by Ravinder Kaur, in any way instigated or abetted her to commit suicide and as such the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the accused and their conviction consequently can not be sustained. The prosecution case is that the deceased, Ravinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh, the complainant was married to Satpal 1 Singh in November, 1982. After marriage, Ravinder Kaur started living in the house of _her in-laws at Raja Sansi. She used to visit the house of her parents at Amritsar occasionally and during these visits, she used to tell them that her ·in-laws were not happy with the dowry given to her and they used to taunt her and insisted her to bring more dowry and that they even used to taunt he-i that her parents at the time •of the marriage did not serve them with proper meals.

The accused also used to tell her that they were being offered Fridge etc. by the other parties in the marriage of Accused Satpal Singh and that she has not broug_ht the dowry expected from her parents. She was often told 298 SUPREME-COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. 1 S, ur considered opinion no other reasonable view follows from a proper consideration and appraisement of the evidences on record. As such the decision cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant ·Case. 0 For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and affirm the conviction of the accused of the offence under Section 3061. P. C. and sentence imposed upon them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The respondents will immediately surrender in the Court of Sessions Judge, 1$ Amritsar to serve out the remaining period of their sentence. R. N. J. Appeals allowed.