Date of the Judgment: 1 October 2020
Citation: [Not Provided in Source]
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a husband be convicted for abetment of suicide of his wife, when there is no direct evidence of cruelty or harassment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the husband was convicted by the lower courts for abetting his wife’s suicide. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that a conviction for abetment requires a clear mens rea (guilty mind) and a positive act to instigate or aid the suicide. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Hrishikesh Roy authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves Gurcharan Singh, who was married to Shinder Kaur. Shinder Kaur died by suicide on 12th August 1997, at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that Shinder Kaur was harassed for dowry and was driven to suicide because of it. Specifically, a few days before her death, she was allegedly beaten and sent to her parental home to bring Rs. 20,000 for the purchase of a plot of land. When her parents could not meet this demand, they sent her back to her matrimonial home. On the same day, she committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994 (Approximate) | Marriage of Gurcharan Singh and Shinder Kaur. |
| November 1996 | Shinder Kaur was admitted to the hospital for 10-12 days for delivery. |
| Few days before 12th August 1997 | Shinder Kaur was allegedly beaten and sent to her parental home to bring Rs. 20,000. |
| 12th August 1997 | Shinder Kaur committed suicide by consuming poison at her matrimonial home around 5 PM. |
| 13th August 1997 | FIR No. 177 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Barnala, under section 304B/34 IPC and under section 498A IPC. |
| 28th October 1997 | The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. |
| 4th March 2010 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 408-SB of 1999, upholding the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 1st October 2020 | Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and sets aside the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court acquitted Gurcharan Singh’s parents but convicted Gurcharan Singh under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for abetment of suicide, even though he was not charged under this section. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld this conviction. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The relevant legal provision in this case is Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines “abetment.” The section states:
“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or ******** ************ Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant (Gurcharan Singh):
- There was no direct evidence of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased by the husband or his parents.
- There was no evidence to suggest that the husband wilfully neglected his wife or frustrated her, which would constitute abetment.
- The lower courts’ conclusions were based on conjecture, not on substantial evidence.
- The demand for Rs. 20,000 was a request for a “cash loan” and not a dowry demand.
- The appellant had taken care of his wife during her pregnancy, and there was no evidence of maltreatment during the three years of marriage.
- The appellant is a caring and responsible person as evidenced by the fact that his two children are residing with him.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Punjab):
- The deceased was beaten and sent to her parental home to bring cash for the purchase of a plot a week before the incident.
- The deceased was driven to commit suicide in her matrimonial home on the very day her father dropped her back.
- A young mother of two children would not commit suicide unless she was driven to it by the circumstances in her matrimonial home.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Evidence for Abetment |
✓ No direct evidence of cruelty or harassment. ✓ No wilful neglect or frustration by the husband. ✓ Lower courts relied on conjecture, not evidence. ✓ Demand for money was a loan, not dowry. |
✓ Deceased was beaten and sent to her parental home to bring cash. ✓ Suicide occurred on the day she returned to her matrimonial home. ✓ Young mother would not commit suicide without reason. |
| Positive Acts |
✓ Husband took care of his wife during pregnancy. ✓ No evidence of maltreatment during marriage. ✓ Children are residing with the appellant, showing he is caring. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for abetment of suicide was justified based on the evidence presented.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with the Issue |
|---|---|
| Whether the husband abetted the suicide of his wife | The Court held that there was no evidence of a positive act or wilful neglect by the husband that could be considered as abetment. The Court noted that the lower courts had based their conclusions on conjecture and not on concrete evidence. The court also held that the necessary mens rea was missing. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that abetment requires a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding, and a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide. It also requires a clear mens rea to commit the offence. |
| Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough for conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). |
| Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 595] | Supreme Court of India | Stated that suicide can be due to various reasons and not necessarily due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning. |
The following legal provisions were also considered:
| Legal Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Defines abetment. |
| Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| No direct evidence of cruelty or harassment | The Court agreed that there was no direct evidence to support the charge of abetment. |
| No wilful neglect or frustration by the husband | The Court found no evidence of wilful neglect or frustration that would constitute abetment. |
| Lower courts relied on conjecture | The Court held that the lower courts’ conclusions were based on conjecture and not on substantial evidence. |
| Demand for money was a loan | The Court noted that the money was asked for as a loan and not as a dowry demand. |
| Husband took care of his wife during pregnancy | The Court acknowledged the evidence of care and treatment provided by the husband. |
| Children are residing with the appellant | The Court noted that the children were residing with the appellant, indicating he was a caring parent. |
| Deceased was beaten and sent to her parental home to bring cash | The Court found no evidence to support that this incident led to the suicide. |
| Suicide occurred on the day she returned to her matrimonial home | The Court held that this did not establish abetment by the husband. |
| Young mother would not commit suicide without reason | The Court stated that suicide can be due to various reasons and not necessarily due to abetment. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190] | The Court followed this authority to emphasize the need for a positive act and mens rea for abetment. |
| Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] | The Court relied on this case to highlight that mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). |
| Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 595] | The Court cited this case to underscore that suicide can be due to various reasons and not necessarily due to abetment. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence to prove that the husband had the intention to instigate or aid his wife’s suicide. The Court emphasized that mere conjecture about the circumstances in the matrimonial home is insufficient to establish abetment. The Court also noted the absence of any overt act or illegal omission on the part of the husband that could be linked to the wife’s suicide. The fact that the children were being raised by the appellant’s family was also a factor considered by the Court.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of evidence of mens rea | 40% |
| Absence of positive act of instigation | 30% |
| Conjectures by lower courts | 20% |
| Husband’s care for children | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was that:
- There was no evidence to show that the husband instigated or intentionally aided the suicide.
- The lower courts’ conclusions were based on conjectures and not on evidence.
- The necessary ingredient of mens rea was missing.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“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.”
“In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 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.”
“A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), requires a clear mens rea and a positive act to instigate or aid the suicide.
- Mere conjecture or speculation about the circumstances in the matrimonial home is insufficient to establish abetment.
- The prosecution must prove that the accused had a guilty mind and actively contributed to the suicide.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for abetment of suicide requires a clear mens rea and a positive act to instigate or aid the suicide. This case reinforces the existing legal position that mere harassment or difficult circumstances are not enough to establish abetment, and the prosecution must prove a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the court has clarified the application of the law in cases of abetment of suicide.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Gurcharan Singh for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), requires concrete evidence of a guilty mind and a positive act to instigate or aid the suicide. The court held that the lower courts had relied on conjecture rather than substantial evidence, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary elements of abetment.