IMPORTANT POINT
Court should be extremely careful in assessing facts and circumstances of each case for a finding whether cruelty meted out to victim had in fact induced her to commit suicide.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 306/34-Abetment to suicide-Wife of appellant No.1 committed suicide by burning in her matrimonial house- Evidence of parents of deceased that appellants were harassing deceased for their demand of more money and dowry-Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court-Appeal-Merely because deceased had not told close friends about demand of dowry or harassment that did not positively prove the absence of demand of dowry and said circumstance was to be weighed with evidence regarding demand of dowry-Evidence of parents of deceased proved demand of dowry-Death occurred within 7 years of marriage-Abetment involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing-Court should be extremely careful in assessing facts and circumstances of each case for arriving a finding whether cruelty meted out to victim had in fact induced her to commit suicide-Elaborate analysis of evidence by trial Court and High Court suffered no infirmity and no interference was warranted.
Held : Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418) this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive 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 should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (Paras 11 and 12)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-By the impugned judgment the conviction of the appellant who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) was upheld though sentence in respect of appellant No.2 was reduced. While the trial court had imposed sentence of imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each with default stipulation, the High Court by the impugned judgment maintained sentence so far as appellant No.1 but reduced the sentence so far as appellant No.2 is concerned.

2. It is to be noted that the two cases were disposed of by the common judgment. Criminal appeal No. 819 SB/86 was filed by the accused-appellants while Criminal revision No. 441/87 was filed by the informant questioning correctness of acquittal of co-accused Gurdev Singh.

3. Background facts as unfolded during trial are as follows:

Pirthipal Singh (PW-9) father of Smt. Devinderjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) alleged in the complaint filed before the police that he is resident of village Burail. He had one son, namely, Kulquant Singh and one daughter i.e. the deceased. Deceased was married with Randhir Singh (Accused-appellant No.1). From this wedlock two sons, namely, Balraj Singh and Ranpreet Singh were born. The complainant alleged that at the time of engagement of his daughter one bangle (Kara) weighing 3 Tolas, one ring weighing one Tola and Rs. 501/- in cash were given to Shri Randhir Singh appellant. Gold Jewellery weighing 20 Tolas, T.V., Bajaj Chetak Scooter costing Rs. 13,000/-, one Godrej Almirah, furniture and utensils etc. were given to his daughter, the deceased and son-in-law accused Randhir Singh on the day of marriage. Gurdev Singh, father of Randhir Singh, Smt. Narhbai Kaur (appellant No.2), mother of Randhir Singh, and Randhir Singh appellant had started abusing his daughter from the very beginning after the marriage on the pretext that she should bring more money from the house of her parents. The complainant used to assure his daughter that he would meet the demand of the accused subject to the availability of the funds. The complainant received a sum of Rs. 16,000/- by way of compensation as the share of his land in the year 1982. Randhir Singh (appellant No.1) compelled the deceased to bring the money, threatening that either she should bring the money from her parents, otherwise he would arrange a second marriage. Deceased came to village Burail and narrated this story to her father Prithipal Singh, her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur (PW-12) and her uncle Shri Bhopal Singh. She further told her parents that her husband only used to pay her bus fare from salary. Appellants had sent her in order to bring Rs. 15,000/- and have also warned her that if she did not bring the money dire consequences would follow. Upon this the complainant made a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to his daughter and assured her that the remaining amount would be paid thereafter. After sometime, the complainant and his wife came to the house of Randhir Singh in order to see their daughter, the deceased at Kharar. When they entered the house, they saw accused-appellant Randhir Singh and Smt. Nirbhai Kaur giving taunts to the deceased to bring more money. The complainant and his wife made them understand that they were poor persons and assured them that they would pay more money on receipt of second instalment of compensation. Then the complainant received Rs. 22,000/- as cost of the acquired land and he and his wife came to Kharar along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and gave it to the deceased. The accused told the complainant to pay at least Rs. 20,000/- so that their daughter may live comfortably. Upon this the complainant told them that they were poor persons and they were not in a position to pay the huge money. On 3.2.1985 the deceased again went to the house of her parents in village Burail and told them that accused-appellant Randhir Singh and Smt. Narbhai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1296

IMPORTANT POINTCourt should be extremely careful in assessing facts and circumstances of each case for a finding whether cruelty meted out to victim had in fact induced her to commit suicide.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Court should be extremely careful in assessing facts and circumstances of each case for a finding whether cruelty meted out to victim had in fact induced her to commit suicide.