Devinder Singh and Ors Vs State of Himachal PradesHP2023061023171027162COM194474

MANU/HP/1702/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 507 of 2010 and 11 of 2011
Decided On: 25.09.2023
Devinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Ranjan Sharma, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Kanta Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Anup Rattan, Advocate General, I.N. Mehta, Senior
Additional Advocate General, Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General and J.S.
Guleria, Deputy Advocate General
Case Note:
Criminal - Suicide - Sections 34, 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) - Appeal filed against conviction under Sections 34 and 498A of IPC and
State filed against acquittal of accused persons from charge under Section
306 of IPC - Whether prosecution failed to prove charges against accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt - Held, no evidence led by prosecution
regarding any torture or maltreatment being meted out to deceased -
Evidence led by prosecution did not inspire any confidence to hold that
accused persons were guilty for commission of offence under Sections 34 and
498A of IPC - Prosecution has failed to prove allegations of Section 306 of IPC
- Appeal of accused persons allowed and appeal of State dismissed. [47], [68]
DECISION
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1 . Appellants, namely, Devinder Singh and Kanta Devi, in Criminal Appeal No.507 of
2010 were tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and
306 read with Section 34 IPC. They were convicted under Section 498A read with
Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine
amount, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period six months each.
However, they were acquitted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid sentence the appellants have filed Criminal Appeal
No.507 of 2010.
3 . The State on the other hand, is aggrieved by their acquittal of the offence under
Section 306 IPC and has filed Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011.
4 . Since both these appeals arise out of a single judgment rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, therefore, they were taken up together for
arguments and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
5. The parties shall be referred to as the accused and prosecution, respectively.
18-04-2024 (Page 1 of 21) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
6 . The brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that deceased Smt.
Sunita Devi was married to accused Devinder Singh, son of co-accused Kanta Devi on
04.12.2007 and after two months of her marriage, both the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention subjected deceased Smt. Sunita Devi to cruelty in
her matrimonial house at Village Sapdu-Gadiyarda and used to torture and maltreat her
in order to fulfill their illegal demand of dowry. It was further alleged by the
prosecution that in the morning of 24.11.2008, the deceased committed suicide by way
of hanging at her matrimonial home and both the accused persons in furtherance of
their common intention abetted the commission of suicide. Charges were framed against
the accused persons to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7 . The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses in all.
Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
8. It is not in dispute that the statements as referred to in the judgment of the learned
Trial Court have been correctly reproduced and it is the contention of the accused
persons as also the prosecution that such statements have not been appreciated in the
right perspective.
9 . It is vehemently argued by Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the
accused persons that the evidence recorded by the learned Court below is totally
perverse inasmuch there is no evidence, whatsoever, available on record which could go
to indicate that the accused persons had ever harassed much less treated the deceased
with cruelty and it was rather unfortunate that a young girl committed suicide and that
the appellants had no role in such a suicide.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General would
argue that not only the accused persons have been rightly convicted for the commission
of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, but have been wrongly
acquitted for the offence under Section 306 IPC, as it was they alone who had driven
the deceased to commit suicide.
1 1 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
record of the case carefully.
12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the
evidence that has come on record.
13. PW-1, Saroop Singh, stated that deceased Sunita alias Monu was his daughter who
was married to accused Devinder Kumar alias Rinku about one year prior to her death
and that co-accused Kanta Devi was the mother in law of Sunita. He further stated that
deceased was treated nicely by accused persons for two months of her marriage and
thereafter both the accused persons started taunting and maltreating her without any
rhyme or reason and that the accused persons did not provide money and other things
to deceased. He further stated that deceased underwent an abortion for which she was
not medically treated by accused persons, as a result of which she remained sick for
about six months prior to her death. He also stated that deceased had visited his house
once or twice and made complaint against the accused persons that they did not look-
after her properly and also did not get her medically treated and that his daughter
stayed in his house for a month and during that period he got her medically treated. He
also stated that accused Davinder alias Rinku quarrelled with him when he visited his
house for second time and he had brought that incident into the notice of Ward Panch
as well as to the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapru. He stated that he also moved an
application before the Pradhan who told him that she would discuss the incident with
the accused persons. He further stated that complaint Ex.PW-1/A bore his signatures in
red circle at point A.
14. PW-1, Saroop Singh, further stated that on 24.11.2008 at about 7:00 a.m., his wife
Soma Devi made a telephonic call in the house of accused persons and enquired about
the well-being of Sunita upon which accused Devinder Singh told that Sunita had gone
out to answer the call of nature. He further stated that on the same day about 9:00
a.m., Shri Ranjeet Singh, Up Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapru told him telephonically
that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging.
15. Thereafter, PW-1, Saroop Singh, alongwith 20-25 other persons of his village went
to the house of accused persons and found his daughter dead. He stated that dead body
of his daughter was lying in the house. He further stated that police also came there and
recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/B which bore his signatures. He further stated that his
daughter committed suicide due to the maltreatment and harassment given to her by
accused persons. He denied the suggestions that deceased was disturbed due to her
abortion and that the deceased had tried to hang herself with scarf on the earlier
occasion also. He also denied that he had not filed application Ex.PW-I/A before the
Pradhan and that the application Ex.PW-1/A was subsequently written to implicate the
accused persons and to create false evidence. He also denied that deceased was not
taunted and maltreated by accused persons. He denied that all medical expenses were
borne by accused persons and that the deceased was properly looked-after by accused
persons during her life-time. He denied the suggestion that deceased did not disclose
anything about maltreatment. He denied the suggestion that deceased could not recoup
from her illness till the time of her death and due to this reason she had committed
suicide. He denied the suggestion that he had enmity with the accused persons.
16. PW-2, Uttam Chand, stated that he was working in the Territorial Army in Shimla
District. He stated that Saroop Singh is his cousin. He stated that both the accused
present in the Court were known to him. He further stated that he also knew deceased
Sunita. He stated that on 24.11.2008 he was on leave and was present at his house at
about 9:30/10:00 a.m., when he heard cries from the house of Saroop Singh and went
there to enquire upon which he was informed that Sunita had committed suicide by
hanging herself in her in-laws house. He stated that he also associated Saroop Singh
and his family members to the house of accused persons and found the dead body of
Sunita lying in the house of accused persons. He further stated that simultaneously
police also reached there and photos of the dead body were also clicked. He further
stated that injury marks were found on the dead body and inquest of the dead body was
prepared by the Police. He stated that he associated with the police to the scene of
occurrence, which was about 200-250 meters from the house of accused persons. He
stated that rope was found tied to a tree and at that time the villagers and members of
Panchayat were also present there. He stated that rope was cut, sealed and took into
possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A which bore his signatures as well as Ranjeet Singh
Up-Pradhan. He stated that parcel Ex.P-1 bore his signatures and rope Ex P-2 was the
same. He further stated that Saroop Singh had informed him that accused persons had
maltreated the deceased and did not keep her properly. He stated that he did not talk
with Sunita Devi. He denied the suggestion that PW-1 Saroop Singh did not disclose
him that deceased was ever maltreated or harassed by accused persons. He stated that
he did not know that after sickness, Sunita could not recoup herself till the time of her
death.
17. PW-3, Soma Devi, stated that deceased Sunita was her daughter and was married
to accused Devinder Singh in the month of December 2007 and other co-accused Kanta
Devi was mother-in-law of her daughter. She stated that after marriage, the accused
persons kept her daughter properly for two months and thereafter started to maltreat
her and also used to taunt her daughter that was given by her father in the marriage
and that her father was a man of lower status, being labourer. She further stated that
after three months of marriage her daughter became pregnant and came to her house
and complained that she constantly remained sick, but the accused persons did not care
for her and did not get her medically examined properly. She further stated that on
24.11.2008, she made a telephonic call to her daughter upon which some lady
responded and told her that Sunita had gone to answer the call of nature. She further
stated that on the same day at 9:30 a.m., Pradhan of their Panchayat informed them
telephonically that their daughter had died due to hanging. She denied the suggestion
that proper medical treatment was given to the deceased by her in-laws. She also
denied the suggestion that deceased did not inform about cruelty committed upon her in
her in-laws house. She has denied the suggestion that she had falsely deposed against
the accused persons due to inimical relations.
18. PW-4, HHC Balbir Singh, stated that he was posted at Police Station Haripur since
2008. He has stated that on 24.11.2008 he was associated with SI Som Nath and other
Police officials in-connection with investigation of this case and on that day he took the
dead body of Sunita to SDH Dehra for post-mortem examination. He stated that he
handed over the sealed parcel alleged to contain rope alongwith inquest papers to the
Medical Officer. He has stated that on that day post-mortem could not be conducted and
next day on 25.11.2008 post-mortem was conducted by concerned doctor and sealed
parcel was opened and examined by them and thereafter it was re-sealed. He further
stated that viscera was also preserved and sealed in separate parcel and documents and
sample seal impression were also scaled in an envelope. He stated that clothes of the
deceased were handed over by the doctor to him in sealed condition. He further stated
that another sealed parcel alleged to contain ornaments of the deceased was also
handed over to him by Medical Officer alongwith post-mortem examination report which
were further handed over by him to MHC Sultan Singh Police Station Haripur. He stated
that parcels were not tampered with till the same remained with him.
19. PW-5, HC Sultan Singh, stated that during the year 2008 he remained posted at
Police Station Haripur and on 25.11.2008. HHC Balbir Singh deposited five sealed
parcels alongwith post-mortem report and viscera which were entered by him in
Malkhana register No.19 at serial No.563, the copy of which is Ex.PW-5/A and was
correct as per the original record. He further stated that on 04.12.2008 he sent the
viscera alongwith envelope to FSL Junga through HHC Rajinder Singh vide RC No.89/08.
He further stated that case property was not tampered with so long the same remained
with him. He further stated that he also recorded FIR Ex.PW-5/B on receipt of statement
Ex.PW-1/B which also bore his endorsement Ex.PW-5/C.
20. PW-6, HHC Rajinder Singh, stated that he was posted at Police Station Haripur since
2008 and on 04.12.2008 HC Sultan Singh MHC Police Station Haripur handed over one
sealed parcel of viscera, one sealed envelope, docket, FIR, other forms and post
mortem report in order to deposit the same at FSL Junga vide RC No.89/08 and on
05.12.2008 he deposited the said articles at FSL Junga. He further stated that on return
he handed over the receipt Ex.PW-6/A to MHC. He further stated that case property was
not tampered with till the same remained with him.
21. PW-7, Ichhiya Devi, stated that she was President of Gram Panchayat Dhar and
accused persons present in Court were known to her, as they were residents of her
Panchayat. She stated that marriage of deceased and accused Sonu was solemnized
about eleven months prior to suicide by the deceased. She further stated that she was
in the house of her parents in village Jawali on the day when deceased committed
suicide and she was telephonically informed by Ward Panch, Usha Devi, about the
incident.
22. PW-7, Ichhiya Devi, further stated that next day i.e. on 25.11.2008 she visited the
house of accused persons. She further stated that father of the deceased was not known
to her, but once he had come to her house about two months prior to the suicide by the
deceased. She further stated that father of the deceased did not move any application
before her and also did not make any complaint with her against any one.
2 3 . PW-7, Ichhiya Devi, was declared hostile by prosecution. She admitted in her
cross-examination that father of deceased had informed her that deceased was harassed
in her matrimonial house and further informed him that in-laws of the deceased did not
allow her to visit her parents' house. She admitted that complaint Ex.PW-1/A was
presented before her by father of deceased. She admitted that when the dead body was
about to be taken for cremation, the mother of deceased raised objection that firstly
dowry articles should be returned whereupon the dowry articles were handed over to
the mother of deceased and only thereafter she allowed the dead body to be taken for
cremation.
24. PW-8, Surinder Kumar, stated that deceased was his sister. He stated that accused
present in Court are husband and mother-in-law of his deceased sister. He further
stated that deceased was married in the month of December 2007 and for two months
she was kept properly by accused persons. He further stated that thereafter she felt sick
and after six months of her marriage she got aborted. He stated that accused persons
did not get her medically treated and did not keep her properly. He further stated that
accused persons also did not allow the deceased to visit parents' house and even did
not allow her to talk on telephone due to which his deceased sister used to remain
under pressure.
2 5 . PW-8, Surinder Kumar, further stated that on 24.11.2008 after receipt of
information about commission of suicide by his sister, he alongwith family members
and villagers went to the house of accused persons. He stated that police prepared
inquest reports Ex.PW-8/A and B which bore his signatures. He further stated that his
sister committed suicide due to sorrowful life. He denied the suggestion that accused
persons had got the deceased medically treated in Mission Hospital as well as in Civil
Hospital Kangra. He has denied the suggestion that deceased had tried to commit
suicide in their house.
2 6 . PW-9, Ranjna Devi, stated that deceased was her younger sister and accused
persons were husband and mother-in-law of her sister. She stated that her sister was
married in December 2007. She further stated that she visited her sister twice in her
matrimonial house and her sister also met her once or twice in their parental house.
She stated that condition of her deceased sister in her matrimonial house was not good.
She has stated that accused persons had barred the deceased to visit her parents'
house. She stated that after conception of child, the deceased used to remain sick. She
further stated that deceased told her that accused persons did not take care to get her
medically examined. She also stated that mother-in-law of deceased taunted the
deceased that she had not brought anything from her parents and also told that parents
of deceased were below the status of the accused persons. She stated that when she
had resided in the house of her sister, she noticed that her mother-in-law complained to
the villagers that deceased had not brought sufficient dowry. She further stated that her
deceased sister committed suicide due to maltreatment given to her by accused
persons. She denied the suggestion that after conception the deceased was regularly
got medically examined by accused persons. She denied the suggestion that deceased
was not maltreated or harassed by accused persons.
27. PW-10, Dr. Kulbhushan Sood, stated that he was posted as Medical Officer in Civil
Hospital Dehra since 1994 and on 25.11.2008 Police moved application Ex.PW-10/A for
post-mortem of the dead body of Sunita Devi alias Monu wife of Devinder alias Rinku
resident of Sapru. He stated that police had also submitted inquest papers Ex.PW-8/A
and B alongwith the application. He stated that he alongwith Dr. Suman Dhiman
conducted the post-mortem and observed that whole body was in rigor mortis with
post-mortem staining more marked on the lower limbs on posterior aspects and a mark
of ligature around the neck was present in the form of bruise extending from left
mastoid across the larynx to the right side of neck up to the middle line approximately.
He further stated that on dissection of the bruise blood clot and seepage was evident.
He stated that no other injuries were found on the body, however, the brain was found
scattered and hemorrhages in the tissues. He further stated that thorax, abdomen,
muscles, bones and joints were found normal.
28. PW-10, Dr. Kulbhushan Sood, further stated that in their opinion the deceased died
of asphyxia caused by ante-mortem hanging. He has stated that viscera was sealed and
handed over to the Police alongwith belongings of the deceased. He further stated that
probable duration between injury and death was instantaneous and in between death
and post-mortem, it was 24 to 72 hours. He stated that they issued post-mortem report
Ex.PW1-10/B which bore his signatures as well as Dr. Suman Dhiman. He further stated
that later-on he examined the chemical test report Ex.PA on 21.01.2009 and as per his
final opinion Ex.PW-10/C, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem
hanging. He further stated that later-on application Ex.PW-10/D for further opinion was
moved upon which he gave opinion Ex.PW-10/E which bore his signatures as well as
Dr. Suman Dhiman.
29. PW-11, Mitesh Kumar photographer, stated that on 24.11.2008, at the instance of
Police, he took photographs of dead body as well as of the scene of crime in village
Sapru and after developing the same photographs Ex.PW-11/A to H, he handed over the
same to the Police which were correct as per the spot.
30. PW-12, SI Som Nath, stated that he was posted as SHO Police station Haripur from
November 2007 and on 24.11.2008 at 10:05 a.m., Arman Singh from village Sapru
informed telephonically that Sunita Devi wife of Rinku had committed suicide by
hanging upon which he informed the higher officer and proceeded to the spot alongwith
police party vide rapat No.5, copy of which was Ex.PW-12/A. He stated that he reached
village Sapru and went to the house of accused persons and found dead body of Sunita
Devi in the room of the house of accused persons.
3 1 . PW-12, SI Som Nath, further stated that father and many other relatives of
deceased Sunita were present there and after some time the father of Sunita Devi
namely Saroop Singh made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW-1/B
which was signed by Saroop Singh and attested by him. He further stated that he sent
the said statement to Police Station Haripur through constable Narender Pal for
registration of case. He further stated that he inspected the place where the dead body
was laid. He has further stated that photographs Ex.PW-11/D to Ex.PW-11/H of the dead
body were got snapped and inquest forms Ex.PW-8/A and B were filled. He further
stated that form Ex.PW-12/B was also filled-in during inquest. He further stated that he
also inspected the place where the deceased Sunita hanged herself from a tree and rope
with which deceased had committed suicide was hanging with the tree. He stated that
photographs Ex.PW-11/A to C of the tree and spot were taken and he also prepared the
site plan Ex.PW-12/C. He further stated that rope was sealed and took into possession
vide memo Ex.PW-2/A.
3 2 . PW-12, SI Som Nath, also stated that dead body of Sunita was sent for post-
mortem examination and later-on post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/C was procured. He
stated that dead body of deceased was handed over to her father vide memo Ex.PW-
12/D. He further stated that ExPW-12/E is the specimen of seal. He further stated that
father of deceased, namely, Saroop Singh had also submitted one application Ex.PW-
1/A to Pradhan Gram Panchayat Sapru, which was took into possession vide memo
Ex.PW-12/F.
3 3 . PW-12, SI Som Nath, stated that both the accused persons were arrested, vide
memos Ex.PW-12/G and Ex.PW-12/H. He stated that he recorded the statement Ex.PW-
12/J of witness Soma Devi as per her deposition. He further stated that he also
recorded the statement Ex.PW-12/K of Ranjana Devi as per her version and nothing was
added of his own. He further stated that after conclusion of investigation he prepared
the Challan and after receipt of chemical report, he prepared supplementary Challan of
this case.
3 4 . PW-12, SI Som Nath, admitted that document Ex.PW-1/A was not taken on the
record from Panchayat. He denied the suggestion that statement Ex.PW-12/J and Ex.
PW-12/K were not recorded by him as per depositions of the witnesses and the same
were recorded at his own instance. He admitted that during total period of eleven
months of her marriage, the deceased remained well for two months and thereafter
became ill. He denied the suggestion that he did not fairly investigated the case. He
denied the suggestion that false case had been foisted against the accused persons in
connivance with the complainant party.
35. Having referred to the evidence led by the prosecution, one would be required to
refer to the charge that was framed against the accused and the same reads as under:-
"Charge
1, P.S.Rana, Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala do hereby charge accused
Devinder Singh son of Sh. Swaroop Singh, aged 29 years, resident of village
Sepdu-Gadiyarda. Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (HP) as under:-
That you were married to Sunita Devi on 04.12.2007 and after two months of
your marriage with Smt. Sunita Devi, you, being the husband of said Smt.
Sunita Devi, in furtherance of a common intention with your co-accused,
subjected her to cruelty, namely, used to torture and maltreat her in order to
fulfill your illegal demand of dowry and that you thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 498-A read with Sec. 34 IPC and within the
cognizance of this Court.
Lastly - That on or about 24.11.2008 in the morning time at village Sepdu-
Gadiyarda, Smt. Sunita Devi committed suicide by hanging and you in
furtherance of a common intention with your co- accused, abetted the
commission of suicide by torturing and maltreating the deceased Smt. Sunita
Devi in order to fulfill your illegal demand of dowry and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sec.306 read with Sec. 34 IPC and within the
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge.
08.05.2009
Sd/-
Sessions Judge, Kangra
at Dharmshala
Certified that the contents of aforesaid charge have been read over and
explained to the accused in Hindi vernacular language.
08.05.2009
Sd/-
at Dharmshala"
"Charge
1. P.S.Rana, Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala do hereby charge accused
Kanta Devi wife of Shri Swaroop Singh, aged 47 years, resident of village
Sepdu-Gadiyarda, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (HP) as under:-
That your son Devinder Singh was married to Sunita Devi on 04.12.2007 and
after two months of his marriage with Smt. Sunita Devi, you, being the mother
in law of said Sat. Sunita Devi, in furtherance of a common intention with your
co-accused, subjected her to cruelty. namely, used to torture and maltreat her
in order to fulfill your illegal demand of dowry and that you thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Sec. 34 IPC and within
the cognizance of this Court.
Lastly - That on or about 24.11.2008 in the morning time at village Sepdu-
Gadiyarda, Smt. Sunita Devi committed suicide by hanging and you in
furtherance of a common intention with your co- accused, abetted the
commission of suicide by torturing and maltreating the deceased Smit, Sunita
Devi in order to fulfill your illegal demand of dowry and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sec. 306read with Sec. 34 IPC and within the
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge.
08.05.2009
Sd/-
at Dharmshala
Certified that the contents of aforesaid charge have been read over and
explained to the accused in Hindi vernacular language.
08.05.2009
Sd/-
at Dharmshala"
36. From a perusal of the charge, it would be clear that the accused persons were made
to face the charge under Section 498-A IPC that they in furtherance of their common
intention had subjected the deceased to cruelty and such maltreatment has been
specified as "use of torture and maltreatment her in order to fulfil the illegal demand of
dowry", meaning thereby that no other form of cruelty has been attributed/levelled for
which any separate or distinct charge has been framed against the accused persons. It
would be noticed that the learned Court below has convicted the accused persons
simply on the ground of so-called maltreatment and harassment meted out to the
deceased, but this was not the charge framed against the accused persons.
37. It needs to be noticed here that PW-1, Saroop Singh, father of the deceased has
stated that the deceased committed a suicide due to maltreatment and harassment given
by the accused persons. He further stated that the accused persons used to taunt the
deceased, but has failed to specify the so-called taunts and further specify the exact
words that were used by the accused persons.
38. Now adverting to the testimony of PW-3, Soma Devi, mother of the deceased, she
too stated that the accused persons used to taunt the deceased and further stated that
in her marriage nothing was given by the parents of the deceased. She further stated
that the accused persons used to taunt the deceased that her father was a mason and
was of lower status.
3 9 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal Versus State of Andhra Pradesh,
MANU/SC/0253/2013 : (2013) 3 SCC 684, held that the prosecution is required to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by
the accused. It was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in
particular PW-1 and PW-4 therein that they had made general allegations of harassment
by the accused towards the deceased and had not brought any evidence and specific
acts of cruelty or harassment by the accused on the deceased. It was held that onus was
on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 498-A
IPC. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"7. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections
304-B and 498-A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused.
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW 1 and PW
4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the
appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific
acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased.
16. In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW 1 (the appellant) and Ext.D-
19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was
subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our
view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
ingredient of Section 498-A IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under
Section 498-A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has
subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC.
Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section
304-B IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry,
harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her
death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC has been made out by the prosecution."
4 0 . As per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal's case
(supra), in absence of any specific allegation, like, date, time of incident much credence
to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 cannot be given, as the prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was treated with cruelty and
harassment by the accused persons in-connection with demand of dowry.
41. The prosecution story regarding insufficient dowry or father of the deceased, being
a mason or of a lower status, being labourer, does not inspire any confidence for the
simple reason that it has come on record that marriage was arranged one and obviously
then both the families knew each other and were fully aware of each other's financial,
social and other conditions.
42. The learned Court below has completely erred in mis-appreciating and has rather
mis-construed the statement of PW-8, Surinder Kumar, who is brother of the deceased
and had specifically stated that the deceased had committed a suicide due to sorrowful
condition which was not the charge required to be answered or was framed against the
accused persons.
4 3 . Further reliance placed on the testimony of PW-9, Ranjna Devi, by the learned
Court below, was also totally misplaced as her testimony to the effect that the accused
persons did not allow the deceased to visit her parents' house. The further testimony
that mother-in-law of the deceased used to taunt the deceased and used to tell that she
had not brought anything from her parents' house is clearly an after- thought because
ever as per PW-3 the accused persons committed cruelty as they did not allow the
deceased to visit her parents' house, which otherwise is contrary to the records, as
there is sufficient evidence on record in the statements of all these witnesses, i.e., PW-1
(Saroop Singh), PW-3 (Soma Devi), PW-8 (Surinder Kumar) and PW-9 (Ranjna Devi),
which goes to indicate that there was no restraint on the movement of the deceased.
The other allegation of the prosecution was that the deceased was not given proper
treatment and this has been stated by all these witnesses, but this was not the charge
framed.
44. Even otherwise, there is sufficient material available on record in the depositions of
the aforesaid PWs, which go to indicate that the deceased was not only taken to the
Civil Hospital, but was also taken to Private Hospital, i.e., Mission Hospital. Moreover,
there is nothing brought on record by the prosecution that treatment as was being made
available and given to the deceased was in any way inadequate or not proper or any
other better treatment within the financial reach of the accused persons could have been
made available to the deceased.
45. It has specifically come on record that the deceased had suffered an abortion and
after two months of her marriage, she had become sick. However, in such
circumstances, it is not difficult to comprehend that on account of abortion, the
deceased was undergoing a lot of psychological trauma and could have been
undergoing depression or having similar other psychological issues, as is otherwise
stated by her brother PW-8 (Surinder Kumar), who, in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that the period of marriage of his sister was only for eleven months and out of
that, she remained there for two months and thereafter she remained sick and due to
her illness, she mostly remained alone and did not talk with anybody.
46. It also needs to be noticed that the deceased had spent the entire Kala Mahina in
her parents' house as admitted by PW-1 (Saroop Singh), but even this fact was disputed
by the other witnesses, i.e., PW-3, PW-8 and PW-9, who were out and out to state that
the accused persons would not permit the deceased to leave her house. As already
observed above, it was only out of the overzealousness of the mother of the deceased
who felt that proper treatment was not given to her daughter that the instant case came
to be filed. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the suggestions have come on
record which too are an indicator that the mother of the deceased had been
administering the Tantric treatment and some laceration marks were also found on the
neck of the deceased at an earlier occasion when she was in her parents' house.
47. There is practically no evidence, whatsoever, led by the prosecution regarding any
torture or maltreatment being meted out to the deceased to fulfil an illegal demand of
dowry. The allegations levelled by PW-1, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-9 are general in nature
and the evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire any confidence of the Court to
hold that the accused persons are guilty for commission of the offence under Section
498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
48. One of the things that weighed with the learned Court below to convict the accused
persons, is an application Ext.PW-1/A that was submitted by the father of the deceased
to the Gram Panchayat.
49. Now adverting to the aforesaid application Ex.PW-1/A, we fail to understand that
when this application was handed over to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, then how could
the original thereof have been exhibited on record, that too by father of the deceased
and in ordinary course it should have been coming from the custody of Pradhan Gram
Panchayat, PW-7 (Ichhiya Devi).
50. That apart, a perusal of the contents of aforesaid application would go to indicate
that father of the deceased had made a complaint only regarding proper medical
treatment not having been given to his daughter.
51. There are no allegations, whatsoever, that the deceased was being subjected to
cruelty or being tortured and maltreated by the accused persons in order to make illegal
demand of dowry. Here, we deem it proper to reproduce in verbatim contents of
application Ex.PW-1/A, which read as under:-
5 2 . Thus, we have no hesitation to conclude that the findings as recorded by the
learned Court below connecting the accused persons with the commission of an offence
under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC are perverse and, therefore, findings to
this extent are set aside. Consequently, both the accused persons are acquitted of the
charges accordingly.
53. As regards the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC, even though, it is
vehemently argued by Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General that the
prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, however, as rightly observed
by the learned Court below that there is no positive, cogent and reliable material placed
on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused had abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. There is practically no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the
accused persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
5 4 . That apart, we have already acquitted the accused persons for commission of
offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Moreover, there is no evidence
led by the prosecution to show that the deceased had been harassed and there is some
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence that is the time when the deceased
had committed suicide.
55. It is apt to reproduce Sections 306 as well as 107 IPC, which read as thus:-
Section 306 IPC
"Abetment of suicide-
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 107 IPC
"Abetment of a thing. 'A person abets the doing of a thing, who'
(First) ' Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly) 'Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place
in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly) ' Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 1.'A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes
or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.'Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
56. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that to justify the framing of
charges under Section 306 IPC, the following ingredients must be established:
(i) death due to suicide;
(ii) accused abets the commission of suicide.
57. Word 'suicide' is not defined in IPC. However, meaning and import thereof was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh MANU/SC/0001/2010 : (2010) 1 SCC 750 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that word 'suicide' is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, it's
meaning and import is well known. The word 'sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing'.
In other words, the act must have been so intended to push the deceased in a situation
that the deceased is driven to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17
held as under:
"17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a 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
this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide."
58. What is abetment, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena
vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another MANU/SC/0585/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 190 and
elaborated the meaning of 'abetment' in paras 25 of the judgment as under:
aiding a 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.
2 6 . In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day
life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different
people behave differently in the same situation".
5 9 . What is 'instigation', was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618, and defined
the meaning of instigation in para 20 of its report, which reads thus:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
"an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said
to be instigation."
60. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0392/2002 : (2002)
5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave interpretation to the words 'abetment' and
'instigation' in the following manner:
"6. Section 197 I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of
a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
9 . In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/1987/1995 : 1995 Supp.(3)
SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C
basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as
under: (SCC p.731, para1)
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder
brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with
my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want
to die by burning."
1 0 . This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107
I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence
under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to
the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment
are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9
SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for
an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded
by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had
been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of
occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go
wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on
herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p.620)
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it
transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged
and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty."
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously
accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct
result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is
alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told
the deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi
Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant,
told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy
words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is
annexed as annexure P3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we
find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant
had asked him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to
do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of
mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common
knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and
emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the
deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found
hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive
language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been
used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide.
Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive
language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the
deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out
that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998
when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also
told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts
below."
61. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/1453/2009 :
(2009) 16 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there should be intention
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 and 17 of the
judgment which read thus:-
"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, in Ramesh Kumar case'' R.C. Lahoti,
J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
"instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 capable of
being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an
"instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said
to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to
provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or
"urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that
stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise
Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he
reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition)."
62. In Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another MANU/SC/0812/2012 :
(2012) 9 SCC 734, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that offence of abetment
by instigation depends upon intention of person who abets and not upon the act which
is done by person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. A reasonable certainty to incite the
consequences must be capable of being spelt out. A continued course of conduct which
creates such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option but to commit
suicide would satisfy the ingredients of instigation to commit suicide or abetment of
suicide. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 to 18 of the judgment which read as under:-
"16. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, while dealing with a
similar situation observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to
incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a
continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the
person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has
abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as
provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or
omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of
Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, MANU/SC/0354/1991 : AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v.
State of Hayana, MANU/SC/8694/2006 : (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v.
State of M.P., MANU/SC/7815/2007 : AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama
Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, MANU/SC/8326/2008 : (2009) 1 SCC 554.)
18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be
gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula
can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been
instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there
may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus
to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such
which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and
committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of
the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that
would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.".
63. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others MANU/SC/0881/2015 : AIR
2015 SC 3351 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 9, 11,
12, 13 and 17 as under:-
"9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1
and 2, per contra, would contend that the High Court has justifiably quashed
the investigation, for Haridath, the deceased, was holding a superior rank and
there is nothing to suggest that the respondents had instigated him or done any
activity that had left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. He has
placed reliance upon Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal,
MANU/SC/0165/2005 : (2005) 2 SCC 659 and M. Mohan vs. State, Represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, MANU/SC/0161/2011 : (2011) 3 SCC
626
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P[4] by
a two- Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-
"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment
is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the
doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke,
incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as
provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that
if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is
no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is
to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
"Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore,
the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the
abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
12. In Analendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/1808/2009
: (2010) 1 SCC 707 dealing with expression of abetment the Court observed:-
"The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 IPC
which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the
commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses
Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if
the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment
provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent
State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where
clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to
him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC."
13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in
the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the
allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it
herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there
has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the
respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in
deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and
it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is
really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him the head
of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him
and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no
warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the
lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial
Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the
allegation against the Advocate.
1 7 . We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we have no
hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different, and the
Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of the tenor
and nature of the suicide note. Thus, the said decision is distinguishable regard
being had to the factual score exposited therein."
6 4 . Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that the abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
65. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Versus State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/1808/2009 :
AIR 2010 Supreme Court 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that harassment must be
coupled with some positive action proximate to the time of occurrence. In absence of
proof of such proximate action on the part of the accused, he or she cannot be
convicted under Section 306 IPC. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and for the commission of such offence, the
person who is said to have abetted the commission of offence of suicide must have
played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of offence of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by a person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he
could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Paragraph-16 of the said report is
reproduced as under:-
"16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of 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."
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh and another Versus State of Punjab,
MANU/SC/0881/2004 : (2004) 13 SCC 129 has reiterated the legal position as regards
Section 306 IPC in paragraphs-12 and 13, which read as thus:-
aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would
involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that
thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the
doing of a thing it required before a parson can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
1 3 . In state of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, MANU/SC/0321/1994 : AIR
(1994) SC 1418 this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to
the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in
a given', society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty."
67. Therefore, what is required is that unless there is a positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused persons, which alone compels the person
to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. The legal
position has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto
Bruno and another Versus Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/1310/2022 : AIR 2022
Supreme Court 4994, wherein, vide paragraphs 25 and 26, it was observed as under:-
"25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M.
Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police7 which are as under: -
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are:
(i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or
abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of
suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/
abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 I.P.C."
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to
commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the
culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana8 observed as under:-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of
direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It
could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains
a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/ reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of
suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time
of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the
accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide,
it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall
within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim,
which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may
be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the
part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to
the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of
the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own
facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on
the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
68. Since the prosecution has failed to prove by leading clear, cogent and convincing
evidence that the deceased was meted out with harassment by the accused persons just
before her death or close proximate of her death, therefore, it can conveniently be held
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations of Section 306 IPC
and, therefore, the accused persons have been rightly acquitted by the learned Court
below.
69. The upshot of the discussion is that we find merit in the appeal filed by the accused
persons, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2010 and the same is accordingly allowed by
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23/27.10.2010 passed in
Sessions Case No.12-G/VII-2009 by the learned Court below.
7 0 . As regards the appeal, i.e, Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011, titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh Versus Devinder Singh and another, filed by the State, the same is
dismissed in view of the observations made hereinabove.
7 1 . In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., both the accused persons,
appellants herein, are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial)
of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with a stipulation that
in an event of an SLP being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the
accused persons, appellants herein, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
72. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
73. Records be sent back.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Devinder Singh and Ors Vs State of Himachal PradesHP2023061023171027162COM194474

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Devinder Singh and Ors Vs State of Himachal PradesHP2023061023171027162COM194474

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANU/HP/1702/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

You might also like