Mens rea must be clearly established for abetment of suicide; the accused's intoxication and actions did not demonstrate intent to drive the victim to suicide, necessitating evaluation of multiple contributory factors.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C”) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.276 of 2007 dated 08.04.2009. The trial against the accused was conducted under Sections 498A, 323 and 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). The sole accused as the husband came to be convicted for all the offences. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in failure of payment of fine, to undergo further one month of simple imprisonment.

1.1. For the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in failure of payment of fine, to undergo further one month of simple imprisonment. It was observed in the order that since the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC gets included in the offence under Section 498A IPC, no separate order was passed for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

1.2. The order further observed that all the sentences would run concurrently with the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt has produced the jail remarks. It transpires that the accused had undergone imprisonment and has served a sentence of 3 years, 1 month and 3 days. The accused was released on 29.08.2010, where the set-off of 28 days was granted to the accused.

3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt contended that the penal provision for Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. For Section 498A IPC, it is submitted that the punishment is of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, learned APP submitted that the sentence ordered is not proportionate to the penal provision in accordance to the gravity of the offence where, it is a case that wife sustained 98% to 99% burn injuries over her body because of the cruelty of the accused. It is further submitted that the marriage span is only of four years, hence, the provision under Section 113A of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 for the presumption of offence would also get attracted, adding to the fact that the accused-husband had left the place of offence leaving the wife unattended, inspite of the fact that the suicide was committed in his presence. It is also submitted that the conduct itself would prove the provision of Section 107 IPC where mens rea of the husband gets proved with the proximate cause immediately to the date of suicide being the mental and physical cruelty of the husband. It is alleged that the husband would quarrel and beat his wife after consuming liquor and that the cruelty stayed and continued till the date of suicide.

4. Learned APP submitted that the learned trial Court Judge was too lenient in awarding the sentence where the learned Judge was required to consider the conduct of the accused at the time of the incident. The case of continuous harassment physical as well as mental has been believed by the learned trial Court Judge of the husband against the wife by consuming liquor, then to cause a deterrent effect, the punishment ought to have commensurate in accordance with the provisions of the Act, more specially when the mens rea has been proved during the trial.

5. The facts of the case as could be noted is that the complainant-Hans