Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI,
Kashibai & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022)
Decided on : 28-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 306 read with Sections 34 and 107 – Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for Court to raise presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, and to hold accused guilty of Section 306 IPC – For the purpose proving charge under Section 306 IPC, there has to be evidence with regard to positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide – Whether death was suicidal and whether there was abetment on part of accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC, have to be established – Even if it is presumed that deceased had committed suicide, no evidence adduced by prosecution that there was abetment on part of any of accused which had driven her to commit suicide – Prosecution had failed to adduce any clinching evidence to enable Court to conclude that appellants-accused had abetted deceased to commit suicide – While upholding conviction of appellants under Section 498A, appellants acquitted from charges under Section 306 of IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. (Paras 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Judgment and order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.200027/2014 is under challenge before this Court, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellants-accused against judgment and order dated 11.02.2014 passed by Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.5/2011. Sessions Court vide the said judgment and order had convicted and sentenced the present appellants i.e., the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted the accused no.4.
Findings of Court:
In absence of any satisfactory evidence having been brought on record, Courts below had committed grave error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The judgment and order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.200027/2014 is under challenged before this Court, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellants-accused against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as “the Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No.5/2011. The Sessions Court vide the said judgment and order had convicted and sentenced the present appellant i.e., the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 498A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted the accused no.4 Santosh Jangamshetti, son of Kallappa Jangamshetti, who happened to be the brother-in-law of the deceased Jayashree, from the said charges.
3. The deceased Jayashree had married the appellant no. 3, Chandrashekhar about three years prior to the alleged incident. The appellant nos.1 and 2 happened to be the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the said deceased respectively. Smt. Annapurna, wife of Sadashiv Limbikai, mother of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Bableshwar Police Station alleging inter alia that her daughter Jayashree was given in marriage to accused no.3, Chandrashekhar. After the marriage, her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband ill-treated Jayashree both physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry. Her daughter Jayashree because of such harassment committed suicide on 07.02.2010 at about 11:00 am by jumping into an open well situated in a land bearing Survey Number 53/4 at the Tigani Bidari village. The said complaint came to be registered against the accused for the offences under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 304 of IPC. The Sessions Court conducted the trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the appellants for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each for the offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The High Court confirmed the said conviction and sentence as per the impugned order.
4. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and thoroughly gone through the record of the case, it appears that the prosecution to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants-accused had examined 21 witnesses and also adduced the documentary evidence. However out of the 21 witnesses, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-14 had turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution as such mainly depended upon the PW-1 and PW-4 who happened to be the parents of the deceased and PW-6 who happened to be the uncle of the deceased. They all had deposed inter alia about the demand of the dowry in the form of cash and gold, and about the harassment meted out by them to the deceased mentally and physically. PW-5 who happened to be the person known to both the sides and who was instrumental in arranging the marriage between the deceased and the appellant no. 3 also had deposed that there was a demand for additional gold and cash made by the appellants-accused and that there was harassment caused by the appellants to the deceased Jayashree. The neighbours, PW-7 and PW-9 also had supported the case of the prosecution by deposing inter alia that the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the appellants-accused.
5. Having regard to the said evidence, which has been also appreciated by the Sessions Court and High Court, there remains no shadow of doubt that the deceased was subjected to the harassment at the instance of the appellants-accused and that the prosecution had successfully brought home the charges levelled against them so far as
Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for Court to raise presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, and to hold accused guilty of....
Conviction under sections 498A and 306 requires concrete evidence of cruelty and direct acts of abetment; mere allegations and delays in FIR are insufficient for a successful prosecution.
Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires evidence of direct instigation and established mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
Section 306 in Indian Penal Code reads as abetment of suicide.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
Conviction under IPC Sections 498A and 306 requires clear evidence of cruelty and instigation, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of mens rea or guilty motive to instigate or abet the victim is crucial in cases of abetment of suicide.
The judgment emphasizes the stringent requirement of proving clear mens rea and direct act leading to suicide to establish the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, highlighting the n....
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
