Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – A young married lady with two minor children committed suicide – The Trial Court convicted lady’s husband-appellant u/s. 306 IPC and sentenced him to 4 years rigorous imprisonment – The conviction u/s. 306 IPC was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or the in-laws – There is nothing on record to show which particular hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband – Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant, which led to the suicidal death – To prove the offence of abetment, as specified u/s. 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability – The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous – Both the Trial Court and the High Court never examined whether appellant-husband had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed – The conviction by both the Courts on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case – Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account – The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife – Therefore, the decisions under challenge cannot be legally sustained – Consequently, the appellant’s conviction u/s. 306 IPC is set aside and quashed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution. [Para 11][747E-F]
2. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account. [Para 15][748-C-F]
3. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife. [Para 19][750-C-D]
SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 ; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707: [2009] 15 SCR 836 ; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014)
12 SCC 595 : [2014] 4 SCR 988 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.