SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 720

2007(3) Supreme 1073
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Bhagwan Das — Appellant
versus
Kartar Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 424 of 2007)
Decided on 14-5-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Suresh Chand and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Mohan, ASG., O.P. Saxena, Ms. Usha Saxena, M.A. Chinnasamy, Ms. Ranjana Narayana and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se would not attract Section 306 r/w 107 IPC if wife commits suicide.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 — Abetment to suicide — Trial Court framed charge u/s 498A/306/34 IPC against four accused i.e. father and mother in law and two brothers of husband of deceased — Husband of deceased had died — High Court in revision set aside the charge u/s 306/34 IPC and directed trial to proceed for offence u/s 498A/34 IPC — Appeal by father of victim — Deceased was got married on 23-1-1992 and a girl child was born to her in 1999 — Soon thereafter her husband met with accident and became paralysed and subsequently died — Deceased committed suicide by hanging in matrimonial home on 1st March 2000 night — Prosecution case that deceased was being harassed on account of dowry demand and that she gave birth to girl child who brought bad luck to petitioners — View taken by High Court did not call for interference — Mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se would not attract Section 306 r/w 107 IPC if wife committed suicide.

       Held : The only allegation against the appellant was that they harassed the deceased Shobha because she did not bring adequate dowry. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this amounted to abetment to suicide and hence was covered under Section 306 IPC, read with S. 107. (Para 8)

       In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. (Paras 15 and 16)

       

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 18.7.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2005. The said judgment was delivered on a Criminal Revision filed by the accused appellant against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court dated 28.2.2005 framing charges under Section 306/498/34 IPC against the accused persons.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case is that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at about 2.00 a.m. by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that she married Mangal Singh (since deceased) on 23.1.1992 and a girl child was born to them in the year 1999. Soon thereafter, in an accident, the said Mangal Singh became paralysed. It appears that the deceased (Shobha) did not leave any suicide note. It is the case of the prosecution that after her marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing less dowry and was being harassed on account therefore. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been given by her father a few days after her marriage to Mangal Singh for his business as he was allegedly unemployed. It is further the case of the prosecution that Mangal Singh squandered the said sum of Rs.50,000/- in gambling and drinking and thereafter he raised a further demand of Rs.2 lakhs which could not be fulfilled. The prosecution also alleges that Shobha was ill-treated and harassed by the present petitioners as she was not able to give birth to a child and this harassment continued till 1999 when she gave birth to a girl child as mentioned above. Till 1999, Shobha was being subjected to mental cruelty by being told that her husband would be married elsewhere. It is further alleged by the prosecution that since Mangal Singh, shortly after the birth of the girl child, was paralysed on account of an accident, the deceased (Shobha) was being taunted that she gave birth to a girl child which brought bad luck to the petitioners. It is these circumstances which, according to the prosecution, drove the said Shobha to commit suicide. On the basis of these allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the following conclusion:

“I am of the prima facie opinion that the cumulative effect of the prolonged ill-treatment and harassment of Shobha compelled her to commit suicide.”

5. As already stated above, the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 28.2.2005 framed charges under Section 306/498/34 IPC against the four accused persons namely Kartar Singh, Smt. Panno Devi, Subhash and Arvind. Kartar Singh is the father-in-law of the deceased Shobha, Panno Devi is her mother-in-law, Subhash and Arvind are her devars (brothers of her husband Mangal Singh). Admittedly the husband of the deceased Shobha, Mangal Singh, has died.

6. The High Court has held that no charge under Section 306/34 IPC was made out and it has set aside the charge. However, it remitted the matter regarding framing of charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and we are informed that said charge has seen been framed.

7. This appeal has been filed by the Bhagwan Das, who is the father of the deceased Shobha. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the charge under Section 306 was made out and hence the same should have been quashed. We do not agree.

8. The only allegation against the appellant was that they harassed the deceased Shobha because she did not bring adequate dowry. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this amounted to abetment to suicide and hence was covered under Section 306 IPC, read with S. 107.

9. The word “abetment” has been defined in Section 107 IPC as follows:

“Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who

First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or,

Secondly
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top