Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Ude Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010
Decided On : 25-07-2019
(a) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A r/w Section 20 - Appellant under 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence - Held, remains entitled to the benefit of juvenility. (Para 11)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 r/w section 107 - Abetment - A person abets the doing of a thing when he: (i) instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing - For invoking section 306 there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. (Para 15, 16)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment - Appellants continuously making imputed utterances and taunting deceased girl, committing suicide next day after last incident - Held such acts in unison driven deceased girl to suicide - Rightly convicted and sentenced. (Para 18, 19, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were tried u/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC for abetting suicide of the deceased by taunting her whereby her engagement was broken. The trial court convicted them and sentenced them to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/-with default stipulation.
The High Court while upholding the conviction modified the sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.
Finding of the Court:
Continuous utterances of the appellants were not merely eave teasing but humiliating for her broken engagement.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Key Holdings: - For conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide. (!) [1000637280015] - Accused can claim juvenility even at the appeal stage under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A r/w 20). (!) [1000637280009] (!) (!)
Facts: - Appellants (Ude Singh, Manoj Kumar, Daulat Ram; accused No.1 Hem Karan deceased) were related to complainant Pohap Singh (PW-1, father of deceased girl, aged ~18) but had strained relations due to ongoing litigations, including a hurt case by deceased's mother (PW-11 Krishna) against accused. [1000637280001][1000637280026] (!) (!) - Accused repeatedly taunted deceased girl with humiliating terms like "wife" (by Hem Karan), "Bohoria" (younger brother's wife, by Ude Singh), and "Chachi" (aunt, by Manoj/Daulat), referencing her broken engagement; this was ongoing, not isolated. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - On 15.04.1996, Hem Karan dragged and abused her post-court evidence in hurt case. (!) (!) - On 05.05.1996 (~5:30 pm), while returning from throwing garbage, accused taunted her again (witnessed by PW-2 Jai Narain); she cried, expressed intent to die, wept all night. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Deceased hanged herself next morning (06.05.1996, ~9 am); PW-11 found her. FIR registered u/s 306/34 IPC. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Trial & High Court: - Trial Court (Sessions Case No. 23/1997): Convicted all u/s 306/34 IPC, sentenced to 4 years RI + Rs.300 fine. [1000637280001][1000637280004] - High Court (05.05.2008): Upheld conviction, reduced sentence to 2.5 years RI, noting continuous eve-teasing/humiliation post-15.04.1996 incident maligned the girl in village society. [1000637280001][1000637280005] (!) (!)
Supreme Court Analysis & Decision: - Juvenility (Appellant No.2 Manoj Kumar, b.20.04.1980): ~16 years old at offence (05-06.05.1996); entitled to JJ Act benefits despite late plea. Proceedings terminated; appeal allowed qua him. [1000637280009][1000637280010] (!) (!) - Abetment u/s 306/34 IPC (Others): Acts met abetment test u/s 107 IPC (instigation via continuous taunts/utterances creating intolerable humiliation, destroying self-esteem, leaving no option but suicide). Not mere eve-teasing/insult (cf. s.509 IPC) but proactive, proximate incitement; girl rebuked them on 05.05.1996, suicided hours later. Prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-11) credible; defence (prior enmity, broken engagement, depression, alibi) rejected. [1000637280011][1000637280012] (!) [1000637280017][1000637280018][1000637280020][1000637280021] - Appeal partly allowed (only for juvenile); dismissed for others—upheld conviction/sentence. Accused to serve remaining term. [1000637280024]
Result: Appeal partly allowed. (!) [1000637280025]
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 1997 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has modified the sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/-with default stipulation, as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1997, to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.
2. The relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed, in brief, as follows:
2.1 The appellants Ude Singh, Manoj Kumar and Daulat Ram (accused Nos. 2 to 4) and one Hem Karan alias Hemla (accused No. 1-since deceased) were tried for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC on the allegations that they had abetted commission of suicide by the daughter of the complainant Pohap Singh (PW-1). The parties involved in this matter are closely related to each other. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been brothers and the complainant is their cousin. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 Manoj and Daulat Ram are the sons of accused No. 2 Ude Singh. The witness Smt. Krishna (PW-11) is the mother of deceased girl whereas another witness Jai Narain (PW-2) is also the cousin of the complainant and the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The parties lived in the same village Shahadatnagar (Haryana) and in the neighbourhood. However, the relations of parties were too strained and they were engaged in several litigations against each other, including the complaint relating to a hurt case, as lodged by PW-11 Smt. Krishna(wife of the present complainant) against Hem Karan alias Hemla and Ude Singh that was pending trial at the relevant time.
2.2 The case of prosecution in the present matter has been that the accused persons, Hem Karan alias Hemla, Ude Singh, Manoj and Daulat Ram, were taunting the unmarried daughter (the deceased girl) of the complainant by addressing her as "wife", "Chachi" (aunt) and "Bohoria" (younger brother's wife); and the deceased girl had been complaining to her family about the indecent behaviour of the accused. It was alleged that on 15.04.1996, when the wife of complainant and other witnesses returned to the village after completing their evidence in the criminal case against Hem Karan and Ude Singh, Hem Karan caught hold of the daughter of the complainant; dragged her into his house; pushed her; and verbally abused her and her family members. On returning home, daughter of the complainant narrated this incident to her mother and stated that she was unable to tolerate such continuous insults. It was also alleged that on the advice of village elders, no report of this incident was made, as it concerned the future and honour of an unmarried girl; however, the accused persons continued to taunt the girl on daily basis and, at all the times, the girl was only advised by her family to keep quiet.
2.3. It was further alleged that on 05.05.1996, on sighting the daughter of the complainant, who was returning after throwing garbage, Ude Singh said, "see my Bohoria is coming"; Daulat Ram and Manoj said, "she is our Chachi"; and Hem Karan alias Hemla exclaimed, "she is my wife". Having heard all these taunts, daughter of the complainant became very upset and entered into altercation with the men. This incident was allegedly witnessed by Jai Narain (PW-2). The victim girl once again complained to her mother and the complainant's elder brother Raj Kumar about the incident and while crying, stated that she had no right to live and would end her life as and when she would get the opportunity to do so. Upon hearing this, the wife and the elder brother of the complainant tried to pacify the girl and also told her that they would inform the complainant (who was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Beri, District Rohtak). They also advised her not to be
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
