2019 Supreme(SC) 1300

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Gurjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492-1493 of 2010
Decided on : 26-11-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) To satisfy requirement of instigation, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
(2) Unless prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by accused has driven the deceased to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 of IPC would not be tenable.
(3) Merely because accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and death has occurred within a period of seven years of marriage, accused cannot be automatically held guilty for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by employing presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 107 – Cruelty, dowry death and abetment of suicide – To satisfy requirement of instigation, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence – However, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out – Merely because accused had been held liable to be punished under Section 498A of IPC, it does not follow that on same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted commission of suicide by woman concerned – Requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after introduction of Section 498A of IPC and Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act. (Paras 15, 16, 17 and 22)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 107 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-A – Cruelty, dowry death and abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – Alleged demand of more dowry – Though presumption could be drawn, burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by accused is on prosecution – Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had instigated, conspired or intentionally aided so as to drive wife to commit suicide – Merely because accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and death has occurred within a period of seven years of marriage, accused cannot be automatically held guilty for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by employing presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act – Unless prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by accused has driven the deceased to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 would not be tenable – Though prosecution is successful in proving case under Section 498A of IPC, prosecution has failed to prove that cruelty was of such a nature which left no choice to deceased than to commit suicide – Prosecution has not been in a position to place on record any evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any act or omission of the accused instigated deceased to commit suicide – There is no material on record to show that immediately prior to deceased committing suicide there was cruelty meted out to deceased by accused due to which deceased had no other option than to commit suicide – There is no material placed on record to reach a cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the purpose of raising presumption – Besides, time gap between last visit of deceased to her parents with regard to illegal demand and date of commission of suicide is about two months – As such, there is nothing on record to show that there was proximate nexus between commission of suicide and illegal demand made by appellant – Charge does not state that deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of harassment meted out to deceased – It also does not mention that accused had abetted in commission of suicide by deceased – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A of IPC is maintained and conviction under Section 306 of IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 306 of IPC. (Paras 24, 27, 33, 34, 36 and 37)

Facts of the case:

High Court upheld conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. It also upheld acquittal of accused No. 4 and further held that, though prosecution could not bring the case under Section 304B of IPC, appellant was liable to be punished for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. High court maintained order of the sentence and fine as recorded by the trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. For the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, High Court sentenced appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are preferred by appellant. Question is as to whether conviction as confirmed by High Court under Section 498A of IPC and as recorded by it for first time under Section 306 of IPC would be sustainable or not.

Findings of Court:

Charge does not state that deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of harassment meted out to the deceased. It also does not mention that accused had abetted in commission of suicide by deceased. In that view of the matter, cases wherein conversion is held to be permissible are clearly distinguishable.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.