Supreme Court acquits in abetment to suicide case, upholds cruelty conviction: Kashibai vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 157
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide merely because the deceased faced cruelty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman committed suicide after facing alleged harassment from her in-laws. The Court acquitted the accused of abetment to suicide, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of instigation or intentional aid, while upholding their conviction for cruelty. This judgment highlights the crucial distinction between cruelty and abetment to suicide under Indian law. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Jayashree, who had been married to Chandrashekhar (appellant no. 3) for about three years. Her mother-in-law (appellant no. 1) and father-in-law (appellant no. 2) were also accused. Jayashree’s mother, Smt. Annapurna, filed a complaint stating that Jayashree was ill-treated by her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands. It was alleged that this harassment led Jayashree to commit suicide on 07 February 2010, by jumping into a well. The police registered a case against the accused under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants for offences under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court of Karnataka upheld this conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

  “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.”

  This section defines the punishment for abetment of suicide.

• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

  “107. 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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.”

  This section defines what constitutes abetment, including instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid.

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives.
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act: This section allows the court to presume abetment of suicide by a husband or his relative if the woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the deceased, Jayashree, was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the appellants due to dowry demands, which led her to commit suicide. They presented the testimonies of the deceased’s parents, uncle, and a marriage broker, who all spoke of dowry demands and harassment. The prosecution also relied on the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the court to presume abetment of suicide in cases of cruelty within seven years of marriage.

The appellants argued that there was no direct evidence to show that they had abetted Jayashree’s suicide. They contended that the witnesses had not seen the incident and that the cause of death was not conclusively proven to be suicide. The appellants also argued that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was not automatic and required additional evidence of abetment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to abetment of suicide.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]: This case discussed the interpretation of Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, emphasizing the need for a positive act to instigate or aid suicide. The Court stated that “Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”. The Court also discussed the meaning of “instigation” and stated that “A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
• State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73]: This case cautioned that courts should be careful in assessing whether cruelty induced the victim to commit suicide, and not to convict if the victim was hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]: This case dealt with the meaning of “instigation” and “goading,” emphasizing the need for intention to provoke, incite, or encourage suicide.
• Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 595]: This case clarified that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and requires consideration of all circumstances, including the nature of the cruelty. The Court held that “the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply.”
• Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257]: This case examined the scope of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and held that the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subject her to cruelty. Even though those facts are established, the court is not bound to presume that suicide has been abetted by her husband.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]* to emphasize that a positive act of instigation or aid is necessary for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. The court found no such act in the present case.
• The Court referred to State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73]* to underscore the need for caution in assessing whether cruelty induced suicide, and not to convict if the victim was hypersensitive.
• The Supreme Court cited Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]* to define “instigation” and “goading,” emphasizing that there must be an intention to provoke or encourage suicide, which was lacking in the present case.
• The Court also considered Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 595]* to clarify that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and requires consideration of all circumstances, including the nature of the cruelty.
• The Court also considered Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257]* to examine the scope of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and held that the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subject her to cruelty. Even though those facts are established, the court is not bound to presume that suicide has been abetted by her husband.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence demonstrating a direct link between the alleged harassment and the deceased’s suicide. The Court emphasized that while cruelty was established, there was no proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid that drove the deceased to take her own life. The Court highlighted the importance of a “positive act” by the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, as laid down in previous judgments. The Court also noted that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was not automatic and needed to be supported by other circumstances indicating abetment.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the harassment directly led to the suicide. However, it rejected this interpretation due to the lack of direct evidence linking the harassment to the act of suicide. The court emphasized that while the cruelty was established, there was no proof that the accused intended to push the deceased to commit suicide or that their actions directly led to her taking her own life. The final decision was based on the principle that for a conviction under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court stated, “in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused.” It also stated, “there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution that there was an abetment on the part of any of the accused which had driven her to commit suicide.” Further, the Court observed, “mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC.”

The Court delivered a unanimous judgment, with both judges concurring on the acquittal under Section 306 of IPC while upholding the conviction under Section 498A of IPC.

The judgment clarifies that while cruelty is a serious offense, it does not automatically imply abetment of suicide. There must be a direct link between the actions of the accused and the act of suicide for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. This decision has significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of abetment and not just a presumption based on cruelty.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC are distinct offenses.
• ✓ For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused.
• ✓ The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and requires additional evidence of abetment.
• ✓ Courts must be cautious in assessing whether cruelty induced suicide and should not convict if the victim was hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord.
• ✓ A “positive act” by the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide is necessary for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the appellants had already undergone two years of imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC, they were to be set free forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC is a serious offense, it does not automatically imply abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment reinforces the need for clear and direct evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused to establish abetment of suicide. This clarifies the legal position and emphasizes that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and requires additional evidence of abetment. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

In the case of Kashibai & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellants of the charges under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) while upholding their conviction under Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives). The Court emphasized that while there was evidence of cruelty, there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid that drove the deceased to commit suicide. This judgment underscores the importance of having clear evidence of abetment for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, and that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic.