(This article is written by Shreya Gupta, a fourth-year BBA-LLB Student from Gitarattan International Business School, Rohini, Delhi.)
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
Based on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Introduction
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is based on the crime of abetment. Basically, abetment is the instigation or support which facilitates the commission of an offence. The person committing such offence is punishable under Section 109 IPC which says that where no express provisions are made under the code for abetment of an offence, then the wrongdoer is liable for the same punishment as that of the principal perpetrator of the crime as if he himself has committed it.
When a person instigates another person to commit suicide, he is liable for abetment of suicide and is punishable under Section 306 IPC. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omission creates such circumstances that leave the other person with no alternative other than committing suicide. Whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Also, if such abetment is done to a child or insane person, the person shall be punished with death or imprisonment not exceeding ten years or fine or both (Section 305 IPC). Abetment to suicide is an offence tried in session court and is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable in nature.
Facts in brief
The criminal process was set in motion with the registration of the FIR No. 177 dated 13.08.1997 at Kotwali Police Station, Barnala under sections 304B, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by respondent Jail Singh when he heard about the suicide committed by his daughter Shinder Kaur on 12.08.1997. The appellant was married to Shinder Kaur and they had a son of 2 ½ years and a daughter of 9 months when the mother committed suicide. A few days prior to the occurrence, it was seen that Shinder Kaur was beaten and turned out from the matrimonial home by the accused to bring some money (Rs. 20,000) for buying some plot. The father of the deceased i.e. the complainant went to the matrimonial home of the deceased pleading to the accused that he could not fulfil his demand and soon it was heard that Shinder Kaur committed suicide. The father (complainant) alleged that the cause of death is the accused who may have given some poisonous substance or she has ingested such substance after ruthless harassment by the accused. The case was committed on 28.10.1997, the trial commenced before the Hon’ble Session Court, Barnala.
Facts in Issue
The court proceeded to determine whether the unnatural death was the result of dowry death.
Trial under Session Court
The question in issue was whether such death is a result of demanding dowry from the deceased. The witness testified that the accused demanded a sum of money from the deceased’s family in order to buy a plot. The evidence of the father of the deceased shows that a “cash loan” of 20,000 was asked. It was also seen from the evidence that during the time of delivery, the medical treatment of the deceased was arranged by the appellants i.e. Gurcharan Singh and his father. There was a lack of evidence to prove any dispute relating to dowry death or mal-treatment during the three years of marriage. On this basis, the court concluded that even if some amount of money was asked from the deceased after three years of marriage and soon after the unnatural death took place, it cannot be related to dowry death.
But later, this conclusion was set aside by the court on some assumptions. The court assumed that why will a woman with small kids, commit suicide. This may be due to her hopes being shattered by her husband and frustrated by this life, she committed such an act. Though no direct evidence against the accused came into the picture yet on the basis of the assumptions, the trial court concluded that the accused is not liable to be punished under the above-mentioned sections but is liable to be punished for the abetment to suicide. On the order of the session court, all the accused were acquitted by the charges under section 304B, section 498A and section 34 IPC. The accused was punished under section 306 IPC by the Hon’ble Court of Barnala.
Aggrieved by this judgement, the accused appealed to High Court.
Trial under High Court
The appellant contended that the order passed by the session court cannot be justified as there was no factual basis or direct evidence to disclose any action against the accused. The Hon’ble High Court also discarded the facts and evidences and assumed that if the relationship of the deceased and accused would have been harmonical then the parents of the deceased would not have taken such a step against the accused. The suggestion that the deceased accidentally consumed such poisonous substance (pesticide) which was kept for the vegetable garden was immediately set aside by the court. The trial court’s order was endorsed by the High Court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trial under Supreme Court of India
The counsel for the appellant Mr R K Kapoor focused on the findings of the trial court and prove that there was no direct evidence against the accused to prove any wrongful act on his part. There was no evidence to prove any act of cruelty neither by the husband nor by the in-laws. The counsel argued that both the trial court and High Court judgements were totally based upon the assumptions and there was no evidence against the accused to bring the case even within the ambit of abetment to suicide. There was no evidence of harassment and the only basis of the judgement of both the courts was the demand of Rs 20,000. The Courts considered this as a cause of suicide and concluded that the deceased was pushed to commit suicide. Some other facts were also added to this such as taking care of the children for three years highlights that he is a caring and responsible person.
The learned counsel for the state, Ms Jaspreet Gogia presented his evidence by showing that the deceased was beaten by the accused, a week prior to the happening of the event in order to bring money to buy the plot and when the demands remain unmet, she was driven to commit suicide. He also added that if the matrimonial frustration is not the reason, then why will a mother of two young children commit suicide.
Judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
The court after hearing to both the counsels found that there was no direct evidence to prove the instigation by the accused to his wife to commit suicide. Instead, there was evidence to prove that the accused took utmost care of his wife and children ever since marriage and the children were brought up well in their parental home. Even though the allegations were put by the maternal parents on the treatment of their daughter yet they never complained about the well-being of their grandchildren in the home where their daughter died an unnatural death. Moreover, no evidence indicates that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband and it is not testified either by the parents or by any of the prosecution witnesses.
It was also stated that according to Section 107 IPC, the abetment of a thing includes any instigation or intentional aid to commit an act. When there is an absence of an intention or men’s rea in a crime, it cannot be stated as a crime.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy, the Hon’ble Judge declared that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was forced to commit suicide as per the circumstances in the marital home. This is a mere interference without any material facts and no person can be convicted on mere assumptions without any direct evidence to prove the same. The court concluded that the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.
Conclusion
The above-mentioned case was related to abetment to suicide. The facts of the case were as such that prima-facie, looked like a case of dowry death. The judgements of Trial Court and High Court which removed the charges of Section 498 IPC and charged the accused of Section 306 IPC was completely irrelevant as there was no direct evidence to conclude the instigation on the part of the accused. Yet this is also dissatisfying that the apex court acquitted the accused of no charge. The accused beat his wife to bring money from her home is not an act that could be left with no punishment. No matter it is once or thrice, harassing a woman to bring money from her house is completely not accepted and therefore the as per my opinion, the decision of the apex court was dissatisfying.
Reference
