Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jangir Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Supreme Court28 September 1993

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an accused person, knowing that another person intends to commit an offence, takes steps to facilitate that offence by introducing the offender to a third party and accompanying the victim to the offender's premises, such conduct constitutes abetment under Section 107 IPC even if the accused does not directly participate in the commission of the offence itself.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:JANGIR KAUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1993
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER

1.The appellant, Jangir Kaur, has been found guilty under Section 314 read with Section 107 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years' RI and to pay a fine 398 of Rs 500, in default, to undergo six months' RI. She along with one Phulan Devi were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and both were convicted. They preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed. The SLP filed by Phulan Devi was rejected and only leave was granted to the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

2.The prosecution case is as follows. One lady, Hamir Kaur wife of PW 4 Teja Singh had 2 1/2 or 3 months' old pregnancy. She wanted to get it terminated as she had already three issues. At that time, she consulted the appellant and on her advice on 12-7-1981 Hamir Kaur went to the house of the appellant and both came to the house of Phulan Devi, the other accused. Phulan Devi tried to cause the miscarriage for about an hour. Hamir Kaur felt acute pain and the operation remained incomplete. Ultimately, Hamir Kaur was taken to the hospital and the doctor found that a loop of small intestine was coming out from vagina. Hamir Kaur ultimately died. Phulan Devi was charged under Section 314 IPC and was accordingly convicted and the appellant was convicted under Section 314 read with Section 107 IPC.

3.There is sufficient evidence against both the accused and also the dying declaration given by Hamir Kaur (Ex. PE).

4.So far as the appellant is concerned, it can be seen that she only tried to help Hamir Kaur and took her to the other accused, Phulan Devi whose efforts ultimately failed and resulted in the death of Hamir Kaur. In that sense, the appellant has abetted the offence. Taking the circumstances into consideration, while confirming the conviction, we reduce the sentence to two years.

5. Subject to this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free