2020 Supreme(SC) 569

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
GURCHARAN SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011
Decided on : 01-10-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) To prove offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 of IPC, state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine culpability.
(2) In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide.
(3) Ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 107 – Abetment – Ingredients – Whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing – As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established – To prove offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 of IPC, state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine culpability – In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that appellant had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted suicide of deceased – Ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. (Paras 14 and 15)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Ingredients – In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide – Act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC – Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, court must scrupulously examine facts and circumstances of case and also assess evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. (Para 17)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide of wife – Conviction and sentence – Post mortem report disclosed that death was due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide – Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home – What might have been level of expectation of deceased from her husband and in-laws and degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record – Wilful negligence by husband could not be shown by prosecution – Both children born to deceased are being brought up by appellant’s family ever since death of mother – Trial Court as well as High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed – Conviction of Appellant by Trial Court as well as High Court on the theory that woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly because of harassment faced by her in matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by evidence in the case – Testimonies of PWs do not show that wife was unhappy because of appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account – No overt act or illegal omission is seen from appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife – Evidence also does not indicate that deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband – Nothing to this effect is testified by parents or any of other prosecution witnesses – Trial Court and High Court speculated on unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures that appellant is guilty of abetting suicide of his wife – Appellant’s conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside and quashed. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Instant Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4.3.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder, the Criminal Appeal No. 408-SB of 1999 of convicted appellant was dismissed and the judgment of conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the consequential sentence of 4 years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, was upheld. Appellant along with his parents was charged under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. Trial Court ordered acquittal of appellant’s parents. However, even while declaring that there is insufficient material to convict anyone under Sections 304B & 498A IPC, the trial Court opined that although no charge of abetment was framed against husband (Appellant), he can be convicted for abetting suicide of his wife, under section 306 IPC.

Findings of Court:

Ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case.

Result : Appeal allowed.