Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 306 and 107 – Marriage of Appellant No.1 (husband) & deceased was solemnized in 2005 – A male child was born out of wedlock in 2007 – Prosecution case that Appellant No.1 caused immense mental torture to deceased by compelling her to have another child despite her miscarriage with second pregnancy and that deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty which drove her to commit suicide – Trial court convicted appellant No.1 & mother-in-law of deceased u/s 498A & 306 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction of appellants – Held: To convict a person u/s.306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence – It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that she commits suicide – The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and appellant No.1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased – In the present case, both the elements were absent – So far as conviction u/s.498A IPC is concerned, except the statement of PW-1 to PW-3 recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the deceased during her marriage – PW-1 to PW-3 were interested witnesses & there were material contradictions in their testimonies –There was no marital discord between Appellant No.1 & deceased during nine years of their married life – The fact that deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder was concealed from the family of appellant family during their marriage – Also, the evidence of PW-9 i.e., the psychiatrist was not considered by the Courts below – Conviction of appellants u/ss.306 and 498A IPC, accordingly, not sustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. Before convicting an accused under s.306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of s.306 IPC is not sustainable.[Para 38][906H; 907-A-B]
1.2. In the present case, not only the positive action in close proximity to the time of suicide is absent but also there is no evidence for any continuous physical or mental torture meted out to the deceased by the appellants. On the contrary, appellant no. 1 himself took the deceased to consult a psychiatrist just a day prior to this incident obviously with the intention to make her feel better. The said act can by no stretch of imagination be said to be any such act which may lead the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the allegations made by PW-1 to PW-3 in their statement with respect to continuous harassment and torture of the deceased by the appellants just after the marriage is not worthy of being relied upon and has to be taken with a pinch of salt on account of fact that throughout their 9 years of marriage, there has never been any complaint or a whisper in this regard either by the deceased or her family members who appeared as prosecution witnesses. Even the deceased herself who was a qualified doctor never made any complaint in this regard. It is really hard to believe that a well-educated and self-reliant lady would take such things lying down for a substantially long period of 9 years. [Para 35][906-A-D]
1.3. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent. [Para 36][906-E]
2.1. So far as conviction under Section 498A IPC is concerned, except the statement of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the deceased during her marriage. The fact that there were cordial relations between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased is not disputed. The deceased committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the complaint against the appellants were filed on 24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks after the death of the deceased. [Para 37][906-F-G]
2.2. PW-1 to PW-3 are interested witnesses, still, PW-3 categorically stated that “the marriage between my sister Dr. Amali Victoria and Dr. Bruno was a happy marriage”. Thus there exists material contradictions not only in his own statements and also the statement of other two witnesses. [Para 40][907-H; 908A]
3.1. The facts and evidence in the present case which have not been squarely analysed by both the Trial Court as well as the High Court can be summarised as follows:- a.) The complaint against the appellants was filed after 3 weeks of the death of the deceased; b.) There is not a shred of evidence with respect to offence alleged under Section 498A of the IPC meted out to the deceased by the Appellants; c.) There has been no marital discord between Appellant No. 1 and the deceased during their 9 years of married life; d.) There have been several emails exchanged between Appellant No. 1 and sisters of the deceased whereby the Appellant No. 1 was showered with praises for taking care of the deceased in the best possible manner and credit was also given to his parents for supporting the deceased in her career. Further, it was the sister of the deceased, who herself sent a mail to Appellant No. 1 saying “amali is fighting a disorder”; e.) The deceased was suffering from bipolar order and also had suicidal ideas from few days before suicide. Further, the deceased was also undergoing treatment for depression as she was showing major symptoms of depression like tiredness, poor sleep pattern, demoralised feeling to name a few. The fact that deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder was concealed from the Appellant family during their marriage; f.) The Trial Court as well as the High Court did not take the evidence of PW-9, Psychiatrist into consideration while convicting the Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC; g.) The conviction of the appellants is solely based on the oral evidence of mother and sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses; h.) The post mortem report does not give the cause of the death but on 15.12.14, the cause of the death is shown as Ashpyxia due to external compression. [Para 43][909-E-H; 910-A-E]
3.2. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the case in juxtaposition with the judgments and upon appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses and other material adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the trial court wrongly convicted the Appellants and the High Court was also not justified in upholding the conviction of Appellants under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. [Para 44][910-F]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 – relied on.
Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873; M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; and Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 – referred to.
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.