Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AMRENDER SINGH @ HARMENDER @ BUMB SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL Appeal No. 1430 of 2013 & CRL M.B. No. 7 of 2016
Decided On : 7.1.2016
Abetment - Suicide - IPC 306 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the presumption contained in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the definition of abetment as contained in Section 107 of the IPC and emphasized the need for proof of direct or indirect instigation to the commission of suicide. The court also considered the medical evidence and oral testimony of witnesses to establish the continuous course of conduct adopted by the accused, which ultimately led the victim to take her own life.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, who had been continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, ultimately succumbed to her death by hanging in her matrimonial home. The medical evidence and oral testimony of witnesses established the continuous beatings and mental harassment suffered by the victim, leading to her decision to take her own life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's continuous course of conduct, including beatings and mental harassment, instigated and provoked the victim to take her own life. The court emphasized that the appellant's actions were the immediate cause for the victim's decision to commit suicide.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's conviction under Sections 306/498-A of the IPC, with the main argument being the absence of proof of active abetment/instigation on the part of the accused, as required under Section 306 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the continuous course of conduct adopted by the accused, which instigated and provoked the victim to commit suicide. The court emphasized the need for proof of direct or indirect instigation to the commission of suicide, as well as the absence of evidence or defense regarding the victim's hypertensive or overreactive nature.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding it without merit.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 30.08.2013 and 21.09.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stands convicted under Sections 306/498-A of the IPC. The sentence awarded to him is RI 5 years for his conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as also a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI 6 months. For his conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC, he has been awarded RI for a period of 2 years and a fine of Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2013 Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months.
2. Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. It reflects that as on date, the appellant has completed incarceration of 3 years which includes the remissions earned by him.
3. The version of the prosecution is that the victim had succumbed to her death within less than 7 years of her marriage. She had died in her matrimonial home by hanging. The statements of her parents evidenced that cruelty was meted out to her regularly; her husband used to be an alcoholic and used to beat her and complaints to the said effect had been made by the victim to her parents.
4. On the fateful night i.e. 21-22.09.2008, the victim had died by hanging. As per the prosecution, this was pursuant to the incessant beatings having been given to her by her husband which was the instigating factor which had led her to take her own life. Her cause of death was reported to be asphyxia. The medical evidence produced through the concerned doctor has also been highlighted.
5. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 14 witnesses of whom the star witnesses i.e. Uma Devi (PW-2) and Bharat Singh (PW-4) were the parents of the victim. Her mama (maternal uncle) was examined as PW-3. The medical evidence was adduced through Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-8) reflecting ante mortem injuries on the upper parts of her body which was because of the beatings given to her by her husband which was the immediate cause of her taking her own life.
6. In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. PC he had pleaded innocence.
7. No evidence was led in defence.
8. On behalf of the appellant, arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The main thrust of the argument is that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not made out and before a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC could follow, there must be proof of an active abetment/instigation on the part of the accused which had led the victim to take her life. This is completely absent in the present case. Attention has been drawn to the statements made by her family members i.e. her parents and her maternal uncle. Submission being that at best, it could be a case of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. The conviction under Section 306 of the IPC being illegal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has placed reliance upon Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (3) ACT 2286 (SC). Submission being that the factual matrix of the instant case is wholly applicable to the present factual scenario. Reliance has also been placed upon a coordinate Bench of this Court reported as Swapan Kumar Mandal vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2011 (1) AD (Delhi) 575 as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported as Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) ACR 2723 (SC). Submission being that unless and until, the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC are clearly established, conviction under Section 306 of the IPC cannot follow.
9. Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Submission being that the impugned judgment calls for no interference; the Trial Judge had appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective.
10. Record shows that the parties i.e. the victim and her husband i.e. the appellant had been married on 29.
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
