Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – When cannot be raised – Conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC – Correctness:
Held: In order to convict a person u/s.306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence – Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide – It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide – The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous – Presumption u/s.113A is discretionary – Before the said presumption is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard – The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption u/s.113A, Evidence Act would not automatically apply – PW-4 and PW-5 (brother and father of the deceased) only stated that after the marriage, there was a demand of some money by the appellant, as he wanted to start a ration shop and on account of such demand, the deceased used to remain tense – However, what ultimately led the deceased to take such a drastic step of committing suicide is not clear – Their evidence does not disclose any form of incessant cruelty or harassment on his part which would in ordinary circumstances drag the wife to commit suicide as if she was left with no other alternative – Mere demand of money from the wife or her parents for running a business without anything more would not constitute cruelty or harassment – Prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Order of conviction passed by Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court, set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 22, 29, 28, 10, 11 and 35-37] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Requirements under – Discussed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Assessment of evidence – Duty of Courts:
Held: Court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence u/s.113A for finding out if cruelty was meted out – If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty. [Para 30]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.113A, 113-B– Presumptions under both the sections – Fine distinction between: Held: In s.113A the legislature has used the word ‘may’, whereas in s.113B the word used is ‘shall’ – The term ‘the Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband’ would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption u/s.113B, which is mandatory – From the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved – Court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words ‘may presume’ – It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard. [Paras 27, 29 and 32]
Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Appreciation of evidence – Guilt of the accused to be determined in accordance with law – Correct application of principles of law – Duty of Courts – In 1993, appellant’s wife committed suicide by consuming poison allegedly on account of incessant harassment by him – Appellant held guilty u/s.306 IPC, his parents were acquitted by Trial Court – Appellant’s conviction upheld by High Court – Acquitted by Supreme Court in 2024:
Held: Ordeal of the appellant which started in 1993 has come to an end in 2024, i.e. almost after a period of 30 years of suffering – Although, a young woman died leaving behind her 6 months old infant and no crime should go unpunished – But at the same time, the guilt of the accused has to be determined in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence on record – Courts below faltered as they failed to apply the correct principles of law to the evidence on record on the subject of abetment of suicide and got enamoured by just three aspects, that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of marriage, the accused was demanding money from the parents of the deceased for starting some business, and the deceased used to remain tense – Though, these are not irrelevant considerations and are in fact relevant but, in the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence – In the present case, on the basis of evidence on record, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 306 of the IPC was not sustainable – Appreciation of evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating the evidence in cases of abetment of suicide punishable u/s.306 of the IPC, it is more arduous – Court must remain very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of abetment of suicide while appreciating the evidence on record – Otherwise it may give an impression that the conviction is not legal but rather moral. [Para 34]
Words and expressions – ‘may presume’ in s.113A, Evidence Act, 1872 – Discussed.
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.