Suicide by Bride 306 IPC - Allegation of harassment against Husband - Every quarrel between a husband and wife which results in a Suicide cannot be taken as an Abetement.

Head Note

It must be noted that every quarrel between a husband and wife which results in a suicide cannot be taken as an abetment by the husband and the standard of a reasonable and practical woman as compared to a headstrong and over sensitive one, has to be applied.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2008

ASSOO                                                       ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                    .... RESPONDENT

O R D E R :

1.    This appeal, by way of special leave, arises out of the following facts:

1.1.       Jummi Bai deceased had been married with the appellant Assoo, about five years prior to the incident. At the time of the marriage, her parents had promised to give her a radio- set and watch in the dowry. It appears, however, that due to their poor financial condition, they were not able to fulfill the demand. The appellant was, accordingly, upset with this refusal and started harassing the deceased to bring the aforesaid articles. Frustrated thereby, on 21st April, 1990 at about 6.30 p.m.,Jummi Bai committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The fact that she had committed suicide was reported to the police by the appellant himself. A daily diary entry was, accordingly, made. The dead body was also sent for its post mortem examination and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was complications arising out of 100% burn injuries. On investigation, however, the police found that a case under Section 304-B IPC was made out against the appellant as he had made repeated demands for the aforesaid articles and on the inability of her parents to meet the demand he had harassed her and driven her to suicide.

1.2.       The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 Rajjab Khan and PW2 Peer Khan, the father and brother of the deceased respectively. The trial court, on a consideration of the aforesaid evidence, found that a case under Section 304- B IPC was proved against the appellant and, accordingly, convicted him under that provision and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment dated 13th December, 2006, partly allowed the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC instead and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.

2.    The learned counsel for the appellant has at the very outset, pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 could not be believed as they were relatives of the deceased and that PW3 None Lal, another prosecution witness, had completely disowned the prosecution story and had given a different version all together, which, if accepted, would absolve the appellant of any misconduct. He has further argued that even assuming that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and his wife, it was not of such a nature which would have led her to commit suicide as envisaged under Section 306 IPC.

3.    Mr. Vibha Dutta Makhija, the learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, has supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted that the evidence clearly showed that appellant had harassed his wife on account of her inability to bring the radio and the watch as demanded and that the ill-treatment had driven her to suicide.

4.    We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. At the very outset we must note that the appellant has been acquitted by the High Court of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. The question now arises as to his culpability under Section 306 of the IPC. We have perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the father and brother of the deceased . PW – 1 testified that his daughter had been reprimanded by the appellant as she was not manufacturing enough beedis and that he had also beaten her as she was not able to fulfill his demand for a watch and a radio. PW2 Peer Khan, the brother of the deceased, however, admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant had not made a demand for a radio and watch but they had themselves promised to supply these items although they had not been able to keep their word.

5.    We are of the opinion that besides the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, which itself is extremely shaky, there is no other statement to show any misbehavior or demands for dowry. There is also no indication as to when these demands had been made. It must be noted that every quarrel between a husband and wife which results in a suicide cannot be taken as an abetment by the husband and the standard of a reasonable and practical woman as compared to a headstrong and over sensitive one, has to be applied. Taking the evidence against the appellant, as it is, we find that no abetment of suicide is made out. We have also perused the evidence of PW 3 None Lal, a neighbour, and one of the first to arrive at the spot. He gave a story which completely dislodges the statements of PWs 1 and 2. He deposed in his cross-examination that Shri Bai, a neighbor of the appellant, had made allegations against the deceased in the presence of Ghaffoor and Ishaq that she was involved in illicit activities while her husband was away and that she would reveal all to her husband when he returned home and that immediately after these remarks the appellant had returned home on which the deceased had gone inside and set herself ablaze. We take it, therefore, as if the prosecution had accepted the statement of PW3 as true, as the witness had not been declared hostile.

6.    We, accordingly, set-aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal. The appellant stands acquitted.

.........................J

[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..........................J

[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI.

APRIL 26, 2011.

Abetment -- Necessary Requirements : Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when...

Head Notes:

Abetment- Necessary requirements stated :

Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when

1)      He instigate any person to do that thing or

2)      Engage with one or more other persons in 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 crime.

REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India (Criminal Jurisdiction)

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1464 of 2007

PETITIONER: Sohan Raj Sharma     Vs           RESPONDENT: State of Haryana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/2008

BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.       Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding appellant’s conviction for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ’IPC’) and sentence of 7 years RI.

2.       Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

First Information Report lodged by Shri Rajiv Lochan Jain (PW4) was to the effect that Jyoti (hereinafter referred to as the ’deceased’) had written in her letter that her husband Sohan Raj Sharma the accused-appellant was torturing him for sex in many different ways, mostly pervert and tired of the same, she had poisoned her children, and had consumed poison herself. The FIR is further to the effect that appellant- Sohan Raj Sharma, because of the circumstances, had compelled Jyoti to consume poison. The first endorsement of the Investigating Officer ASI Rohtash Singh (PW10) on the statement Ex.PL of Shri Rajiv Lochan Jain (PW4) is Ex.PL/1 and it is to the effect that on his reaching B.K. Hospital Faridabad alongwith other police officials, Shri Rajiv Lochan Jain had handed him over one letter (Ex.PX ) of eight pages which was taken into possession of the police vide memo Ex.PM and from the statement of Shri Rajiv Lochan Jain and the letter produced by him, the allegations of commission of offences punishable under Section 306 IPC on the part of the Sohan Raj Sharma were made out. Statement Ex. PL/1, the statement Ex. PL alongwith endorsement Ex.PL/1 was sent to the police station for registration of the case on which formal FIR was recorded. During investigation, the incriminating evidence in the form of medical evidence regarding death of Jyoti, Pinki and Gudiya having been caused due to consumption of poison surfaced. Further the report regarding letter (Ex.PX) and other oral evidence of the witnesses regarding circumstances connected with the occurrence were collected. Accused Sohan Raj Sharma was put on trial for offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, he was challaned by the police and was committed to the court of Sessions for trial by

the Illaqa Magistrate.

3.       Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Most vital one is purported suicide note Ex.PX. Appellant took the stand during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in for ’Code’) that she was never married to the deceased officially. It also alleged that she was a lesbian and in proof of this stand, one Anita Parmar was examined as DW1. The Trial Court found the contents of Ex.PX satisfied ingredients of Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

4.       In appeal before the High Court, the stand taken before the Trial Court that ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been fulfilled was reiterated. Stand of the prosecution was that the ingredients have been established.

5.       The High Court found that Ex.PX was sufficient to show as to what was the reason for deceased committing suicide.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that letter Ex.PX in no way establishes that the appellant had abeted the suicide. As a matter of fact, the fact that the deceased took the lives of two innocent children and then committed suicide without any doubt establishes that she was mentally unsound. The letter at the most describes the accused as a sexual pervert, but his behaviour, if any, cannot be taken to be an act of abeting the suicide. It is pointed out that in Ex Px she has clearly stated that she wanted to take appellants’ life.

7.       Learned counsel for the respondents-State on the other hand supported the judgment of the courts below. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows:

"306 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."

8.     Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally 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 person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

9.      In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (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 her 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.

10.   Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. 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.

11.    In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570)].

12.   When the factual scenario is examined, it is clear that the accused has been described as a sexual pervert and that he had behaved like an animal and the deceased had tolerated the insulting manner in which he behaved. They were married in court. It was stated that the accused was impotent and he was trying to defame the deceased for having relationship with ladies.

13.   The most significant part of the letter the deceased had written is as follows:

"I desired to kill you along with us but no, if you have any sense of shame you will die as a result of the sequence of events. But it do not make any difference for shameless person because these abuses will sound as correct if you realize your capacity. You have not spent even eight days in a period of eight years in peace with me. You yourself are responsible for death of these children. Flowers had been prayed for from the deities of your family regarding whom you disclosed "they are not mine they are with me from my friend. (girl friend) on, you, the condemned the day children will be born as a result of cohabitation of a woman with woman, a woman will stop giving birth to man like you."

(Underlined for emphasis)

14.   Above being the factual scenario, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been established. Therefore, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant be released forthwith unless required in connection with other case.

Section 306—Abetment of suicide—Suicide—Section 107—- Meaning of Abetment of a thing

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—Abetment of suicide—Suicide—Meaning of The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.  (Para7)

 B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 309—While suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence (Para-10)

 C. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—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 (Paras 20 and 21)

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dalveer Bhandari & A. K. Patnaik, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2002 Decided on : 05.01.2010

Gangula Mohan Reddy ….Appellants         Vs.      State of Andhra Pradesh ……Respondent

Case-laws relied on

1. Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731

2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618

3. State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73

4. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24

 JUDGMENT: Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

 1.      This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 1996 dated 30.3.2002. The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the Code’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2.       The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, but while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Code, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years was reduced to 5 years. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, approached this Court. This Court granted leave and released the appellant on bail.

3.       The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

 According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant, who is an agriculturist had harassed his agriculture labour (servant) deceased Ramulu by levelling the allegation that he had committed theft of some gold ornaments two days prior to his death. It was also alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs. 7,000/- from the deceased which was given in advance to him at the time when he was kept in employment.

4.       The prosecution further alleged that the deceased Ramulu could not bear the harassment meted out to him and he committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The prosecution in support of its case examined the father of the deceased as P.W.1 Urikonda Jammanna in which he had stated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and used to work at the house of the appellant. He also stated that the appellant gave Rs. 7,000/- in advance to his son. PW1 also stated that about two years ago, the appellant had asked his son (Ramulu) that his wrist watch was missing from his house and harassed him on which his son had returned the watch to the appellant. PW1 in his statement stated that the appellant also levelled the allegation that the gold ear-rings were also missing from his house and the same were stolen by Ramulu. PW1 also stated that the appellant also demanded the advance of Rs. 7,000/- paid to Ramulu at the time of his employment. He further stated that Ramulu committed suicide because the appellant had levelled the allegation of theft of ornaments.

5.       The prosecution also examined Balamma, the mother of the deceased as P.W.2. She also corroborated the statement of PW1 and gave same version of the incident in her testimony. On the basis of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Code and his conviction on appeal was confirmed by the High Court.

6.      Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out Section 306 of the Code:

“306. 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

7.      The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

8.      Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types:

 • Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.

• Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.

9.      This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide has been abrogated.

10.   In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC.

11.   ‘Abetment’ has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under:

 107. 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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly – Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

 12.   Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under:

 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.

 13.  Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh and Anr. v.State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled are as under:

 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.

14.  The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.

15.   Learned Counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court inRamesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-Judge bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation’. Para 20 reads as under:

“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.”

 16.   In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail 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 appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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.

17.  The Court in the instant case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.

18.  In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive 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.

19.   This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

20.  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.

21.  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.

22.   In the light of the provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by a series of judgments of this Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed of.

23.  During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was released on bail. He is not required to surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

24.  Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.