Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Abetment of Suicide Case: Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana (22 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 22nd February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 149
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and Manoj Misra, J.
Can a husband be convicted for abetment of suicide if his wife commits suicide within seven years of marriage, merely on the basis of dowry demands? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the husband was accused of abetting his wife’s suicide. The Court, in this case, examined the evidence and legal principles related to abetment of suicide, particularly under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, delivered the judgment, acquitting the husband.

Case Background

The deceased, Rani, married the appellant, Naresh Kumar, on May 10, 1992. This was Rani’s second marriage, and she had a daughter with Naresh. The prosecution alleged that soon after the marriage, Naresh and his parents began demanding money from Rani’s family to start a ration shop. On November 19, 1993, Rani committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution argued that Rani’s suicide was a result of constant harassment by her husband, leading to Naresh being charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide. The trial court convicted Naresh, which was upheld by the High Court. Naresh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, convicted Naresh under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Naresh’s appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision. Naresh then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for 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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines ‘abetment’. “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.”
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman. “When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” The explanation to this section defines ‘cruelty’ as having the same meaning as in Section 498A of the IPC.

These provisions are crucial in determining whether the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased. The court also discusses the importance of ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind) in establishing abetment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Naresh Kumar):

• The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no evidence to suggest any form of harassment, physical or mental, that would lead the deceased to commit suicide.
• It was contended that mere demand of money for business purposes does not constitute cruelty or harassment.
• The counsel submitted that the lower courts erred in holding the appellant guilty of abetment of suicide as there was no evidence of instigation or active role in pushing the deceased to commit suicide.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Haryana):

• The State argued that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, which allows for a presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The State contended that the oral evidence of PW-4 (brother of the deceased) and PW-5 (father of the deceased) sufficiently proved the harassment and demands for money, justifying the conviction.
• The State emphasized that the deceased was tense due to repeated demands by the accused, which led her to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment, upholding the conviction of the appellant for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144* to understand the scope of Section 306 IPC and abetment under Section 107 IPC.
• The Court used Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618* to define ‘instigation’.
• The Court cited S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190* to emphasize the mental process involved in abetment and the need for a positive act.
• The Court referred to M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315* to highlight that mere insulting language does not constitute abetment.
• The Court used Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301* to reiterate the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement and not just harassment.
• The Court referred to Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387* to emphasize that mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient for conviction.
• The Court cited Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200* to explain that abetment requires a visible state of mind to commit the crime.
• The Court relied on Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 575* to emphasize the need for evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.
• The Court also referred to Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 173, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(3) SCC 309, and Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) SCC 371 to highlight that one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there needs to be clear evidence of abetment, which includes instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of any of these elements. The Court noted that the deceased was tense due to the demands for money, but this did not constitute the kind of cruelty or harassment that would drive a person to commit suicide. The Court also clarified that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is discretionary and not mandatory, and it requires evidence of cruelty. The Court highlighted that the lower courts had erred by focusing on the fact that the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage and that there were demands for money, without establishing the necessary mens rea and direct acts of abetment.

The court also noted that the criminal justice system itself can be a punishment, as the appellant had suffered for almost 30 years. The court also stated that although it is mindful of the fact that a young woman died, the guilt of the accused must be determined in accordance with the law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the suicide was a result of harassment due to dowry demands. However, the court rejected this interpretation because the evidence did not demonstrate the level of cruelty or harassment that would compel a person to commit suicide. The court emphasized that the prosecution needed to prove that the accused had the intention to drive the deceased to suicide, which was not established.

The Court held that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stated that the lower courts failed to apply the correct principles of law to the evidence on record regarding abetment of suicide. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

The court stated, “In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence.”

The court also observed, “Appreciation of evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating the evidence in cases of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is more arduous. The court must remain very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of abetment of suicide while appreciating the evidence on record.”

The Court also noted, “The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. It is exactly what has happened in this case.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere demand for money, without evidence of incessant cruelty or harassment, does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
• The presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is discretionary and not mandatory. It requires proof of cruelty to be invoked.
• To prove abetment of suicide, there must be evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and a clear mens rea (guilty mind) on the part of the accused.
• Courts must be careful in assessing evidence in abetment of suicide cases and should not jump to conclusions based solely on the fact that the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage.
• The criminal justice system should not become a punishment in itself, and the guilt of the accused must be determined based on legal evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be acquitted of the charge framed against him. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant were also discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere demand for money or the fact that a suicide occurred within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to prove abetment of suicide. There must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, along with a clear mens rea. This case clarifies that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is discretionary and not mandatory, requiring proof of cruelty. This judgment reinforces the need for a careful and vigilant approach in abetment of suicide cases, ensuring that convictions are based on legal evidence and not just moral considerations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana is a significant ruling that clarifies the legal standards for abetment of suicide, particularly in cases involving married women. The Court emphasized the importance of direct evidence of instigation and the need for a clear mens rea to establish guilt. The judgment also highlights the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act and the need for concrete proof of cruelty. This case serves as a reminder that the criminal justice system must be grounded in legal principles and not on moral judgments, ensuring that the accused are not punished without sufficient legal evidence.