Case title:
Satpal Garg v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 2230
Date of Order:
04.11.2022
Bench:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Parties:
Petitioner: Satpal Garg
Respondent: State of Punjab
SUBJECT
The honorable Court dismissed the appeal and found that the judgement given by learned session judge, Faridkot was passed after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances and no other view was possible. Therefore, the finding of acquittal by the trial court cannot be set aside.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)
Sections 107 of IPC- Abetment of a thing
Section 108 of IPC- Abettor
Section 201 of IPC- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
Section 306 of IPC - Abetment of suicide
OVERVIEW
The facts of the case are that:
- On May 3, 2006, Police Station City ASI Jagdish Lai Kotkapura received a telephone call from Police Station Cantonment Bathinda informing him that Surinder Pal, who was being treated at Adesh Hospital on Barnala Road, Bathinda after attempting suicide by ingesting poison, had passed away.
- Satpal, the dead's brother, appeared before the police and gave a statement. He claimed to be a resident of Kotkapura, a veterinarian, and the brother of the deceased. Surinder Pal, his younger sibling, worked as a Commission agent at Purani Mandi.
- It is claimed that on the intervening night of 02/05/2006/03.05.2006, he received a call from Surinder Pal's wife, Savita Rani, requesting that he rush because her husband's condition had gotten worse and he was vomiting. The complainant allegedly went to his brother's house where he discovered the smell of celphos coming from the vomits and inquired as to what had happened, to which Surinder Pal allegedly responded that he was being tortured
- The complainant explained that he took his brother Surinder Pal by car to Dr. Paramjit Singh Sandhu's house, where Hem Raj's son Chanan Ram also came and saw Surinder Pal's health condition as advised by Dr. Sandhu, Surinder Pal was taken to Adesh Hospital, Barnala Road, Bathinda, where he was given first aid but could not be saved leading to the death of Surinder Pal at around 04:30 am.
- The complainant alleged that Surinder Pal died due to torture and harassment by Malkiat Singh and was forced to take Celphos tablets.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the accused had abetted the suicide of Surinder Pal, brother of the complainant in the light of the provisions of Sections 107 and 108 of IPC?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court stated that it cannot be inferred from the evidence on record that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was incorrect or contradictory. In fact, this Court believes that the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, correctly issued the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2010 after carefully considering all of the relevant facts and circumstances because no other conclusion was possible. There is no flaw in the reasoning used by the trial court to exonerate the defendant.
- The court stated that there is no evidence that might establish that the accused persons ever encouraged deceased to commit suicide, planned for the deceased to do so, or purposefully assisted the deceased in doing so.
- The prosecution was required to present some solid and convincing evidence in order for the respondent to be found guilty under Section 306 IPC, but it did not, according to the court. Because the defendant did not actively encourage or assist in committing suicide, and in light of the chemical examiner's report, a court cannot find him guilty.
- The court determined that the prosecution's evidence did not demonstrate the elements of the pertinent sections and that there was no evidence to support the accused's guilt of abetment after carefully considering the facts and the language of Section 306 IPC.
CONCLUSION
In a criminal case it is mandatory to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt in the mind of the judges then the accused cannot be made liable. In the given case also, the prosecution story does not appear to inspire confidence or is truthful and the prosecution has, thus, miserably failed to discharge its initial onus of establishing its case against the accused to and, thus, giving benefit of doubt to the accused Malkiat Singh, he was acquitted of the charges so framed against him.
