Supreme Court Upholds Abetment to Suicide Conviction: Kanailal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4th October 2018
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee. This was a two-judge bench and the judgment was authored by Justice R. Banumathi.
Can harassment by a father-in-law lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Kanailal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal. The court examined the evidence and upheld the conviction of the father-in-law for abetting the suicide of his daughter-in-law, emphasizing the impact of sustained harassment on the victim.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Laxmi Rani, who was married to Dilip Kumar Sarkar, son of the appellant, Kanailal Sarkar. The prosecution’s case was that Laxmi Rani was subjected to harassment by her father-in-law, Kanailal Sarkar, and her mother-in-law. It was alleged that her husband was not working, and she was pressured to bring money from her parents. On October 10, 1986, an incident occurred where Laxmi Rani was allegedly assaulted by her in-laws after a quarrel. The appellant, Kanailal Sarkar, allegedly forcibly took her inside the house, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. Laxmi Rani was admitted to the hospital but later succumbed to her injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence and the dying declaration of Laxmi Rani, convicted both the appellant and his wife (mother-in-law of the deceased) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). However, they were acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the mother-in-law due to lack of evidence. The High Court, however, convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the I.P.C. for abetment of suicide, based on the finding that the deceased was subjected to torture by the appellant.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.): This section deals with punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.): This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states, “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 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.): This section deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. It states, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in convicting him under Section 306 of the I.P.C. as the evidence did not establish abetment of suicide.
• The appellant contended that the High Court wrongly concluded that the deceased committed suicide due to the alleged torture by the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of West Bengal):

• The State argued that the evidence on record, particularly the dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of her father, clearly established that the appellant had harassed and tortured the deceased.
• The State contended that the High Court correctly found that such harassment amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for abetment of suicide.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Evidence of PW-1: The father of the deceased, whose testimony supported the prosecution’s case of harassment.
• Dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9): The dying declaration of the deceased, which clearly stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9) was considered to be crucial evidence of the appellant pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire.
• The evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased, corroborated the prosecution’s case that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The dying declaration of the deceased clearly stating that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.
• The testimony of the deceased’s father (PW-1) which supported the prosecution’s case of sustained harassment.
• The fact that the High Court had already considered the evidence and found that the appellant’s actions amounted to abetment of suicide.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful review of the evidence and the findings of the High Court. The Court emphasized that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant, which led to the conclusion that the appellant had abetted the suicide. The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision.

“In the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9), the deceased-Laxmi Rani has clearly submitted about the overt act of the appellant pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.”

“Having regard to the evidence of PW-1, father of the deceased-Laxmi Rani and the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9), the offence would fall under Section 302 I.P.C.”

“Since, it is brought in evidence that the deceased-Laxmi Rani was subjected to harassment at the hands of the appellant, we do not find any reason warranting interference with the conviction of the appellant and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.”

Key Takeaways

• Harassment by a family member can be considered as abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
• Dying declarations are crucial pieces of evidence in criminal cases.
• Courts will consider the totality of the evidence to determine if the accused abetted the suicide.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to surrender to custody within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that sustained harassment by a family member can amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. This case reinforces the legal principle that actions that drive a person to suicide can lead to criminal liability for the abettor.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Kanailal Sarkar, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide. The Court found that the harassment inflicted on the deceased by the appellant led to her taking her own life. The judgment underscores the importance of protecting individuals from domestic abuse and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions.