Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction for Cruelty, Overturns Abetment of Suicide: Kashibai & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (28 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 7222

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide if there is no direct evidence of instigation or intentional aid, even if the deceased faced cruelty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman died by suicide after alleged harassment by her in-laws and husband. The court examined the evidence to determine if the accused were guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while also considering the charges of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Jayashree, who was married to Chandrashekhar (appellant no. 3) approximately three years before her death. Kashibai (appellant no. 1) and her husband (appellant no. 2) were Jayashree’s in-laws. Jayashree’s mother, Smt. Annapurna, filed a complaint stating that Jayashree was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands. On 7 February 2010, at around 11:00 am, Jayashree died by suicide by jumping into a well located in Tigani Bidari village. The complaint led to charges under Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants (accused nos. 1, 2, and 3) under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused no. 4, Santosh Jangamshetti, Jayashree’s brother-in-law, was acquitted. The High Court of Karnataka upheld the Sessions Court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  “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.”

• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  “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.”

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Provides for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.

These provisions are part of the Indian legal system to address crimes related to cruelty and suicide, ensuring that those who drive a person to suicide or inflict cruelty are held accountable. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows a court to presume abetment of suicide under specific conditions, although it is not mandatory.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the appellants had subjected Jayashree to both mental and physical harassment due to dowry demands, which led her to commit suicide. The prosecution presented testimonies from the deceased’s parents (PW-1 and PW-4), her uncle (PW-6), and a person who helped arrange the marriage (PW-5), all of whom spoke about the dowry demands and harassment. Neighbors (PW-7 and PW-9) also supported the prosecution’s case by stating that Jayashree was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the appellants-accused. The prosecution contended that this harassment constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The defense argued that there was no direct evidence of abetment. They pointed out that several prosecution witnesses (PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, and PW-14) turned hostile. The defense also highlighted that the mother of the deceased (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that she did not see the dead body in the well, and that the accused no. 3 had informed her that Jayashree had accidentally slipped into the well. The defense also argued that the post-mortem report (Exhibit-14) did not conclude that the death was a suicide and that there was no evidence of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge levelled against the appellant with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully brought home the charges levelled against them so far as the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was concerned.

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 authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for subjecting Jayashree to cruelty. However, the Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for abetment of suicide, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants had instigated or intentionally aided Jayashree to commit suicide.

Authorities and How the Court Viewed Them:

• M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]: The Court relied on this case to define “instigation” and emphasized that there must be a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide.
• State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73]: The Court used this case to highlight the need for caution in assessing abetment of suicide cases and that hypersensitivity should not be equated with abetment.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the requirement of intention to provoke or encourage the act of suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]: The Court used this case to define “instigation” and stated that a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
• Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 12 SCC 595]: The Court cited this case to clarify that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is discretionary and does not automatically apply.
• Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [(2004) 12 SCC 257]: The Court referred to this case to explain the scope of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, stating that the prosecution must first establish cruelty and suicide within seven years of marriage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence proving abetment of suicide. While the Court acknowledged the evidence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid to commit suicide, as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish any direct link between the harassment and the act of suicide, and there was no evidence that the accused had taken any positive act to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The court also highlighted that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is discretionary and does not automatically apply, and the prosecution had not satisfied the necessary conditions for the court to invoke such a presumption.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the harassment had driven the deceased to suicide. However, the Court rejected this interpretation because there was no concrete evidence of instigation or intentional aid. The final decision was based on the principle that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a clear mens rea (guilty mind) and a direct act that led the deceased to commit suicide. The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established.”
• “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.”
• “The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed suicide.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ To convict someone for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is discretionary and does not automatically apply when a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage, even if she was subjected to cruelty.
• ✓ Mere evidence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ Courts must carefully assess the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence to determine if the cruelty was a direct cause of the suicide.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the appellants, as they had already served two years of imprisonment for the offense under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is discretionary and does not automatically apply. This clarifies the legal position that mere cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not automatically lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reiteration of the established principles.

Conclusion

In Kashibai & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the appellants for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but overturned their conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that while there was evidence of harassment, there was no direct evidence of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide, which is necessary for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment highlights the importance of establishing a clear link between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is discretionary and not mandatory.