No conviction be imposed basing on wrong inference without any materials
The appellant along with his parents was charged under sections 304B and 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court ordered acquittal of the appellant’s parents Dulla Singh and Karnail Kaur. However, even while declaring that there is insufficient material to convict anyone under section 304B & 498A IPC, the trial Court opined that although no charge of abetment was framed against the husband Gurcharan Singh, he can be convicted for abetting suicide of his wife, under section 306 IPC.
The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as to why a young lady with two small children would commit suicide unless she has been pushed to do so, by the circumstances in the matrimonial home. It was then observed that the expectation of a married woman will be love and affection and financial security at the hands of her husband and if her hopes are frustrated by the act or by wilful negligence of the husband, it would constitute abetment within the meaning of section 107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC.
Apex court held that
no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC.
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011
Gurcharan Singh Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab Respondent
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
4.3.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
whereunder, the Criminal Appeal No. 408-SB of 1999 of
the convicted appellant was dismissed and the judgment
of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and the consequential
sentence of 4 years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/-
imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Barnala, was upheld.
Page 1 of 17
2. The appellant along with his parents was charged
under sections 304B and 498A read with section 34 of
the IPC. The learned Trial Court ordered acquittal of
the appellant’s parents Dulla Singh and Karnail Kaur.
However, even while declaring that there is
insufficient material to convict anyone under section
304B & 498A IPC, the trial Court opined that although
no charge of abetment was framed against the husband
Gurcharan Singh, he can be convicted for abetting
suicide of his wife, under section 306 IPC.
3. The criminal process was set in motion with
registration of FIR No. 177 dated 13.8.1997 at P.S.
Kotwali, Barnala, under section 304B/34 IPC and under
section 498A IPC. The case was registered on the basis
of statement made by Jail Singh, father of Shinder
Kaur(deceased). The appellant was married to Shinder
Kaur and they had a son (21/4 years) and a daughter (8/9
months), when the mother committed suicide on
12.8.1997. According to the prosecution case, Shinder
Kaur was harassed after marriage, for insufficient
Page 2 of 17
dowry. A few days prior to the occurrence, Shinder
Kaur was beaten and was turned out from her matrimonial
home by the accused to bring Rs.20,000/- from her
parents for purchase of a plot. Then the Complainant
had escorted back his daughter to her matrimonial home
by pleading with the accused that he was unable to meet
their cash demand. On 13.8.1997, the father received a
message that Shinder Kaur had died in her matrimonial
house. On hearing this, the Complainant Jail Singh
along with his wife Surjit Kaur and Chand Singh
(brother of Surjit Kaur), rushed to Barnala and saw the
dead body of Shinder Kaur in the matrimonial home who
had died at about 5 P.M. on 12.8.1997. Since, it was an
unnatural death, the Complainant alleged that either
the accused had caused the death of his daughter by
giving her some poisonous substance or she had ingested
such substance, due to harassment by the accused.
4. The post mortem report disclosed that death was due
to consumption of aluminium phosphide. The husband and
the parents-in-law of the deceased were charged and
Page 3 of 17
after the case was committed on 28.10.1997, the trial
commenced before the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Barnala.
5. Adverting to the evidence of Jail Singh(PW2), Chand
Singh(PW3) and Surjit Kaur(PW4), who were the father,
maternal uncle and mother of the deceased respectively,
the Court proceeded to determine whether the unnatural
death was the result of Dowry demand. The witnesses
testified that Rs. 20,000/- was demanded by the accused
from the deceased’s family as they wanted to purchase a
plot and since this demand could not be met, Shinder
Kaur committed suicide. The evidence of PW2, the father
of the deceased shows that “cash loan” of 20,000/- was
asked. It is also seen from the evidence that the
appellant Gurcharan Singh is the only son of his
parents and they are the owner of a big house with a
vegetable garden. The appellant and his father were
drivers with Punjab police. What is also of relevance
is that during delivery time, the deceased was admitted
in the hospital for 10/12 days in November 1996 and her
Page 4 of 17
medical treatment was arranged by the husband and the
father-in-law. No evidence of any dispute relating to
dowry demand or maltreatment of the deceased, during
three years of marriage was seen. On this basis, the
Trial Court concluded even if Rs. 20,000/- was asked
for purchase of plot three years after marriage and few
days later the unnatural death takes place, the death
cannot be related to demand of dowry.
6. The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as
to why a young lady with two small children would
commit suicide unless she has been pushed to do so, by
the circumstances in the matrimonial home. It was then
observed that the expectation of a married woman will
be love and affection and financial security at the
hands of her husband and if her hopes are frustrated by
the act or by wilful negligence of the husband, it
would constitute abetment within the meaning of section
107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC.
With such reasoning, the Trial Court concluded that
Shinder Kaur committed suicide when her hopes were
Page 5 of 17
frustrated by the act of her husband or alternatively,
by his wilful neglect. Thus, the Court itself was
uncertain on the nature of the act to be attributed to
the appellant. Moreover, even while noting that no
direct evidence of cruelty against the husband and the
in-laws is available, the learned Court assumed that
section 306 IPC can be applied against the appellant.
With such conjecture, while acquitting all three
accused of the charged crime under section 304B and
498A of IPC, the husband was convicted under section
306 IPC.
7. In the resultant Criminal Appeal, the appellant
contended that the conviction cannot be justified
unless evidence disclosed some positive act or conduct
of the accused, which might have compelled the deceased
to commit suicide. On the plea of cordial relationship
of the deceased with her husband, the appellate Judge
conjectured that if such be the situation, the family
members (PW2,PW3,PW4) of the deceased, would not have
deposed against the husband. The suggestion that the
Page 6 of 17
deceased accidentally consumed pesticide kept for the
vegetable garden was brushed aside by the learned
Judge. Accordingly, the High Court endorsed the Trial
Court’s view that deceased was pushed to commit suicide
by the circumstances and the atmosphere in the
matrimonial home. The appeal was accordingly dismissed
by the impugned judgment leading to the present appeal.
8. For the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr R K
Kapoor focused on the findings of the Trial Court that
there is no direct evidence of cruelty towards the
deceased, by the husband or parents-in-law. It is then
submitted that there is nothing to conclude that the
husband had wilfully neglected his wife or had
frustrated her, to bring the case within the ambit of
abetment. The Counsel argues that the court’s
conclusion is entirely based on conjectures and not
upon any substantial evidence. Since no evidence of
dowry harassment was found and the demand of Rs.
20,000/- was ruled out as the cause for suicide, the
learned Counsel submits that both Courts erred in
Page 7 of 17
concluding that the deceased was pushed to commit
suicide, on account of the circumstances or atmosphere
created by the appellant. The contrary evidence of
care and attention of the deceased by her husband and
in-laws is highlighted by the appellant’s lawyer to
argue that in the matrimonial home, the deceased was
treated well. In any case, the degree of love and
affection expected of a husband, cannot be measured to
base the conviction of abetment. Accordingly, it is
contended that the inference without any evidence of
vitiating circumstances in the matrimonial home
purportedly created by the appellant, is nothing but an
inference and conviction cannot be sustained on that
basis alone. The Counsel then points out that both
children born to the deceased are residing with the
appellant and this would also indicate that appellant
is a caring and responsible person. The Counsel further
submits that the appellant has already undergone
sentence for about two years.
Page 8 of 17
9. On the other hand, Ms Jaspreet Gogia, learned
counsel for the State of Punjab refers to the evidence
of Jail Singh(PW2) and Surjit Kaur (PW4), the parents
of deceased, who stated that a week before the
incident, the deceased was beaten and was sent to her
parental home to bring cash for purchase of a plot. As
the parents were unable to pay the demanded sum, the
deceased was driven to commit suicide in her
matrimonial home on the very day, when her father
dropped her back. The Counsel then argues that if not
for the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial
home, why should a young mother of two children commit
suicide, by consuming pesticide.
10. The submissions of the learned Counsel have been
considered. In order to give the finding of abetment
under section 107 IPC, the accused should instigate a
person either by act of omission or commission and only
then, a case of abetment is made out. In the present
case however, there is no direct evidence of cruelty
against the husband or the in-laws. There is nothing
Page 9 of 17
on record to show which particular hope or expectation
of the deceased was frustrated by the husband.
Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the
appellant, which led to the suicidal death. Whereas
contrary evidence is available to suggest that care and
treatment was given to the deceased in the matrimonial
home and in the hospital, and during the three years of
marriage, there was no instance of maltreatment,
attributable to dowry demand. The demand of Rs.
20,000/- for purchase of a plot (in front of the
residence which might have incidentally become
available for sale just at that time), after three
years of marriage, was ruled out by the trial Court as
the possible cause for the suicidal death. In any case,
PW2 stated that this sum was a “cash loan” asked for
buying the plot. Thus, a loan may have been sought by
the accused which could not be given. But there is
nothing to show that the deceased was harassed on this
count, in the matrimonial home. In the face of such
material, it is difficult to conclude that Shinder Kaur
Page 10 of 17
was pushed to commit suicide by the circumstances or
atmosphere created by the appellant.
11. Insofar as the possible reason for a young married
lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the
absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that
she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances
and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have
been the level of expectation of the deceased from her
husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration,
if any, is not found through any evidence on record.
More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband
could not be shown by the prosecution.
12. It must also be noted that both children born to
deceased are being brought up by the appellant’s family
ever since the death of the mother on 12.8.1997. The
maternal grandparents, even while pointing fingers
against the accused, never raised any issue on their
grandchildren being brought up in the home where their
daughter died an unnatural death.
Page 11 of 17
13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this
case, the following part of the section will bear
consideration: -
“107. Abetment of a thing – A person
abets the doing of a thing, who –
First-Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
**** **** **** **** ****
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.”
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that
whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a
person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.
To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under
Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to
be something on record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance
of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the
Page 12 of 17
deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed
to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and
conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present
matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High
Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea
for the crime, he is held to have committed. The
conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court on the theory that the woman with two
young kids might have committed suicide, possibly
because of the harassment faced by her in the
matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the
evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant
and she was forced to take such a step on his account.
16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under
section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena
Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan1 where explaining the concept
of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
1 (2010) 12 SCC 190
Page 13 of 17
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea
to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased
to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide.”
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal2, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the
Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306
IPC in the following terms:
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an
offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances
of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim
had left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the
2 (2010) 1 SCC 707
Page 14 of 17
time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be
proved and established by the prosecution before
he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana3, which
again was a case of wife’s unnatural death, speaking
for the Division Bench, Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan
rightly observed as under:-
“24. We find it difficult to comprehend the
reasoning of the High Court that “no prudent
man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do
so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due
to various reasons, such as, depression,
financial difficulties, disappointment in love,
tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic
ailments and so on and need not be due to
abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that
no prudent man will commit suicide unless
abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse
reasoning.”
3 (2014) 12 SCC 595
Page 15 of 17
19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law
and applying the ratios to the facts in the present
case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal
omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking
due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does
not indicate that the deceased faced persistent
harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is
testified by the parents or any of the other
prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High
Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any
evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the
appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his
wife.
20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in
declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred
in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit
suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the
matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an
inference, without any material support. Therefore, the
Page 16 of 17
same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of
the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC.
21. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded to
conclude that the decisions under challenge cannot be
legally sustained. Consequently, interfering with the
impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial
Court, the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 IPC
is set aside and quashed. The appeal is accordingly,
allowed.
……………………………………………J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
……………………………………………J.
[SURYA KANT]
……………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 1, 2020
Page 17 of 17
