LexGURBACHAN SINGH versus SATPAL SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A GURBACHAN SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH & ORS. SEPTE~BER 26, 1989 B [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 harass- ment, constant taunts and cruel behaviour of her in-laws towards her and persistent demand for dowry and insinnuations that she was carry- ing an illegitimate child. It is alleged, provoked by th.e aforesaid con- D duct 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 E · 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 f 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 , G 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 292 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 A charged. The courts musf strictly .be satisfied that no innocent person- 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 some _guilty per- sons. 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 B shadow of reasonable doubt. There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute stan- dard In either of the 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 C 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 commis- sion 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; 307 AJ D E The suicide having been committed within a period of seven years F 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 G could not be ·held to have instigated or abetted·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.