Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Abetment of Suicide in Dowry Harassment Case: Gumansinh vs. State (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 3rd September, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 572

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a husband and his family be held responsible for a wife’s suicide if she was subjected to cruelty and harassment shortly after marriage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving alleged dowry harassment. The court examined whether the legal presumption of abetment of suicide applies when a woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage, and there is evidence of cruelty by her husband or his relatives. This judgment delves into the intersection of dowry harassment, domestic violence, and the legal framework designed to protect women in India. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, with Justice Krishna Murari authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Tahera, who married Appellant No. 1 on April 27, 1997. After the marriage, Tahera lived with both appellants, her husband and mother-in-law. The husband, Appellant No. 1, repeatedly demanded Rs. 25,000 from Tahera’s father (PW-1) to start a milk business. Due to the father’s poor financial condition, he could not fulfill this demand. Consequently, Appellant No. 1 allegedly began physically assaulting Tahera, while Appellant No. 2, her mother-in-law, would quarrel with her, criticizing her cooking and household skills. Unable to bear the continuous mental and physical cruelty, Tahera died by suicide on December 14, 1997, by consuming poison at her matrimonial home.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The father of the deceased (PW-1) filed a complaint at the Padra Police Station, which was registered as ICR No. 34 of 1997, for offences under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 92 of 1998. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by this, the appellants appealed to the High Court of Gujarat, which upheld the conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman. It states that if a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, and there is evidence that her husband or his relatives subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by them. The explanation to this section clarifies that ‘cruelty’ has the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“113A. Presumption as to 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. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines cruelty against a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Cruelty includes any willful conduct that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health, as well as harassment to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- 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. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section provides punishment for abetment of suicide. It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

“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: This section defines abetment, which includes instigating a person to do something, engaging in a conspiracy to do something, or intentionally aiding the doing of that thing.

“107. Abetment of a thing.—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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there was no demand for money, but rather a request for a loan to purchase buffaloes for a milk business.
• They contended that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness and was undergoing medical treatment, which may have led to the suicide.
• The appellants pointed out that only relatives were examined as witnesses, and no independent witnesses were presented, making the prosecution case doubtful.
• The appellants claimed they were not present in the house when the deceased committed suicide.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that there were concurrent findings by the Trial Court and the High Court, and therefore, no interference was warranted.
• The State submitted that all the necessary ingredients for conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were proved with the aid of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The core of the arguments revolved around whether the prosecution had adequately proven the charge of cruelty and whether the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 could be invoked to establish abetment of suicide.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key questions:

• Whether the prosecution had successfully established the charge of cruelty as laid down in Explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Whether the accused could be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the aid of Section 113 A of the Evidence Act, 1872, given that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide within seven years of marriage.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Maranadu and Anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to hold that the evidence of relatives cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased.
• Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to reinforce that a witness is normally considered independent unless they have a reason to falsely implicate the accused.
• Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to explain the conditions for the applicability of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, and to clarify that the presumption is not mandatory but permissive.
• Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to emphasize that when a suicide occurs within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted.
• Satish Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to support the view that once cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is established, the presumption of abetment under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 should be invoked.
• K.Prema S.Rao & Anr. Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors. [CITATION]: The court followed this authority to show that the same facts constituting cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can also make out a case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Gurjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case, noting that in Gurjit Singh, the prosecution failed to prove that the cruelty was of such a nature that it left no choice to the deceased other than to commit suicide. The court distinguished the case on the basis of the charge framed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The consistent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the relatives of the deceased, who testified about the cruelty inflicted upon her.
• The fact that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, which triggered the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The failure of the appellants to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of abetment, despite the existence of cruelty.
• The court’s reliance on the legal framework, particularly Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which were found to be directly applicable to the facts of the case.
• The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which indicated that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge of cruelty and abetment of suicide.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the deceased might have committed suicide due to mental illness, but rejected it due to lack of evidence. The Court also considered that the witnesses were relatives, but held that they were natural witnesses and their testimony was consistent and reliable. The court also considered the argument that the appellants were not present in the house when the deceased committed suicide, but held that the deceased died within the four walls of her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances.

The Court’s final decision was that the appellants were guilty of both cruelty under Section 498A and abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witness we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has proved that the deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25,000, and such harassment was on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The ingredients of explanation (b) of Section 498A of I.P.C. are clearly established. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 is consistent and trustworthy. In view of the above, we are of the view that prosecution has successfully established the charge of cruelty as laid down in explanation (b) of Section 498A of the I.P.C.”

“Having regard to the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the firm opinion that all the three conditions for the application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 are fully met in the present case. The woman committed suicide, the suicide was within seven years of her marriage and the accused had subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 is clearly attracted in the present case. The appellants have not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption.”

“In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities to serve out the sentence.”

Conclusion

In the case of Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan & Anr. vs. The State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for cruelty under Section 498A of the same code. The court emphasized the importance of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, which creates a presumption of abetment of suicide when a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and there is evidence of cruelty. The court found that all the conditions for the application of this provision were met in this case. The judgment underscores the legal protection available to married women in cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence. It serves as a reminder that the judiciary takes such cases seriously and will hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal framework designed to protect women from cruelty and abetment of suicide in the context of dowry harassment. The court’s reliance on the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice for victims of dowry harassment and domestic violence.