Back
2001(7) Supreme 737
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of Chhatisgarh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2000
Decided on 17-10-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Gambhir, Sr. Advocate, Anil K. Sharma and T.N. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prakash Srivastava, Advocate.
Held : It appears that on Seema having committed suicide there was attempt to give it a twist of dowry death and for that purpose some plea as to demand for dowry was introduced. The finding as to demand for dowry by accused has been arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court by placing reliance on stray general allegations occurring here or ther in evidence and by ignoring such facts as were brought on record through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses which demolished the theory of there being any demand for dowry by the accused-appellant. The reading of the entire evidence shows that the present one is a case of marital mal-adjustment between the deceased and the accused. The accused is a Professor. The deceased did not come up to the expectations of the accused. She was forgetful and the manner in which she dealt ith the visitors, guests and relations was not to the linking of the accused-appellant. This is also borne out from a few writings such as Exbts. D/4 and D/5 which are in the form of essays written by the deceased which are full of appreciation of the respondent acknowledging the love and affection which the accused-appellant had for her but, which also go to state that there was `some deficiency in her, she did not have a compromising temperament and therefore accused used to get annoyed and get angry on minor mistakes committed by the deceased. In such writings, written an different times, she has recalled the sweet memories of her marriage with the appellant, several ceremonies and functions related with the marriage which made her feel joyous and how well she was received by the accused-appellant and his relations in the matrimonial home after the marriage. (Para 7)
Held, however : From an independent evaluation of evidence and having gone through oral evidence adduced and the several documents available on record mostly the writings of the deceased we are satisfied that the present one is not a case of dowry death or the deceased having been instigated into committing suicide for her failure to satisfy the dowry demands of the accused-appellant. However, teasing by the accused-appellant of the deceased, ill-treating her for her mistakes which could have been pardonable and turning her out of the house, also once beating her inside the house at the odd hours of night did amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC and therefore we agree with the trial Court as also with the High Court though to some extent at variance with the cause for cruel treatment that the accused-appellant subjected deceased Seema to cruetly and therefore conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 498-A deserves to be maintained. (Para 8)
But held : So far as the offence under Seciton 306 of IPC is concerned, in our opinion, the trial Court and the High Court have committed gross error of law in holding the accused-appellant guilty and therefore conviction under Section 306 IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside. (Para 9)
Held finally : The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available is this. Presumably because of disinclination on the part of the accused to drop the deceased at her sister s residence the deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was overtaken by a feeling of shortcomings which she attributed t herself. She as overcome by a forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not deserve to be his life-partner. The accused Ramesh may or must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she linked. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister s residence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing - you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had "freed" her she thought impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband s wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the trial Court mis-spelt out the meaning of the expression attributed by the deceased to her as suggesting that the accused had made her free to commit suicide. Making the deceased free - to go whereever she liked and to do whatever she wished, does not and cannot mean even by streching that the accused had made the deceased free "to commit suicide" as held by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though 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. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. - (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. Sections 498-A and 396 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. Evidential value of the two writings containedin diary Article A is that of dying declarations. On the principle underlying admissibility of dying declaration in evidence that truth sits on the lips of a dying person and the Court can convict an accused on the basis of such declaration where it inspires full confidence, there is no reason why the same principle should not be applied when such a dying declaration speaking of the cause of death exonerates the accused unless there is material available to form an opinion that the deceased while making such statement was trying to conceal the truth either having been persuaded to do so or because of sentiments for her husband. The writing on page 11 of diary (Article A) clearly states that the cause for committing suicide was her own feeling ashamed of her own faults. She categorically declares - none to be held responsible or harassed for her committing suicide. The writing on page 12 of diary (Article A) clearly suggests that some time earlier also she had expressed her wish to commit suicide to her husband and the husband had taken a promise from her that she would not do so. On the date of the incident, the husband probably told the deceased that she was free to go wherever she wished and wanted to go and this revived the earlier impulse of the deceased for committing suicide. The dying declaration Exbt. P/10 corroborates the inference flowing from the two writings contained in the diary and as stated hereinabove. The conduct of the accused trying to put off the fire and taking his wife to hospital also improbablises the theory of his having abetted suicide. In our opinion there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted the commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. The totality of the circumstances discussed hereinabove, especially the dying-declaration and the suicide notes left by the deceased herself, which fall for consideration within the expression "all the other circumstances of the case" employed in Section 113-A of Evidence Act, do not permit the presumption thereunder being raised against the accused. The accused-appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentence passed thereon are set aside. His conviction under Section 498-A IPC and sentence passed thereon are maintained. (Paras 20 to 25)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 107-Abetment of a thing-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113A-Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman-Meaning of expression the other circumstances of the case .
Held : The expression - The other circumstances of the case used in Section 113A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase `May presume used in Section 113A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says -`whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it. (Para 12)
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of the accused for charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment under both sections, with the sentences to run concurrently (!) (!) .
The deceased, Seema Devi, committed suicide within one year of her marriage, by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire. Prior to her death, she wrote a suicide note and a letter to her husband in a diary, along with a recorded dying declaration (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the marriage was initially cordial and dowry was reportedly given as per the parents’ wish. There is no substantial evidence to prove that the deceased was subjected to dowry demands or harassment, and the court finds the allegations of dowry demand unbelievable based on the evidence and cross-examinations (!) (!) (!) .
The deceased’s writings and the evidence suggest that her relationship with the accused was marred by marital discord and maladjustment, rather than dowry-related issues. The deceased expressed appreciation for her marriage but also indicated some deficiencies in her temperament, which led to minor conflicts and the accused’s anger (!) (!) (!) .
The court concludes that the case does not establish a dowry death or that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide for dowry reasons. Instead, the evidence points to marital discord and cruelty, which the court recognizes as cruelty under the relevant section. The conviction under Section 498-A IPC is upheld, as acts of teasing, ill-treatment, and turning her out of the house amount to cruelty (!) (!) .
Regarding the charge under Section 306 IPC, the court finds a gross legal error in the lower courts’ conclusion of guilt. The evidence, including the deceased’s writings and the dying declaration, does not support a finding of abetment to suicide by the accused. The deceased’s statement that she was ashamed of her faults and the fact that she left a note indicating she was not harassed by anyone suggest that her suicide was not instigated by the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that mere circumstances such as marital discord or cruelty do not automatically establish abetment to suicide. The evidence must demonstrate a clear instigation or encouragement to commit suicide, which is not present in this case (!) (!) .
The evidence, including the suicide notes and the dying declaration, show that the deceased’s act was based on her own feelings of shame and despair, not on any incitement by the accused. The conduct of the accused trying to save her and taking her to hospital further weakens the case for abetment (!) (!) .
Consequently, the court sets aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC, while maintaining the conviction under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty. The appeal is partly allowed, and the accused’s sentence under Section 306 is quashed (!) .
The case underscores the importance of establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for presuming abetment, and highlights that the presumption is rebuttable based on the totality of evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against conviction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-appellant, on charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. He was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The conviction along with sentences has been maintained by the High Court. His father Shiv Kumar, mother Gargi Devi and brother Mahesh were also tried for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The trial Court found them "not guilty" and "innocent" and hence acquitted the three of them of both the charges. That acquittal has achieved a finality as not challenged by any one.
2. Seema Devi, daughter of Sohan Lal Sharma (PW 16) and Smt. Prabhawati Devi (PW 19) was married with accused-appellant on 23.6.1985. On 17.6.1986, within one year of marriage, Seema died of suicide. On 16.6.1986, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself to fire. Before committing suicide she wrote a suicide note and a letter to her husband in a diary (Article A ) on pages 11 and 12 thereof. Her dying-declaration (Exbt. P/10) was recorded on 16.6.1986 by PW 13, Parmeshwar Dayal, Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate. Sohan Lal Sharma is a resident of Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. Sohan Lal Sharma is a resident of Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. The accused-appellant as residing in Shantinagar locality of Raipur. Seema s elder sister Shalini (PW 5) married with Dr. Ramadhar Sharma (PW 6) is also residing in Raipur. Thus, the three families, i.e. the family of father of Seema, the family of her elder sister Shalini and the family of the accused-appellant are all residents of Raipur though residing in different localities at reasonable distances from each other. Nevertheless the three families were on visiting terms as admitted by almost all the witnesses. The finding of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the High Court rests on the testimony of five witnesses, namely, Atul Kumar (PW 4), brother of the deceased, Shalini and Dr. Ramadhar Sharma (PW 5 and PW 6), respectively the sister and sister s husband of the deceased, Sohan Lal Sharma and Prabhawati Devi (PW 16 and PW 19), parents of the deceased. In addition, there is a very pertinent evidence - a document, Exbt. P/13 which is an undated letter written by the deceased and managed by her to be sent to her father. We will briefly discuss this evidence.
3. According to Sohan Lal (PW 16) marriage of Seema with the accused-appellant was performed in a cordial manner. Dowry, as the parents wished, was given to Seema. Seema and Ramesh were quite often coming to meet with them. However, Sohan Lal did make a general statement that at one point of time when he had gone to see his daughter Seema in the house of the accused-appellant, Seema had told him that the accused was complaining that the items given in dowry were of inferior quality. However, this statement is belied and cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, such a material fact though in his knowledge was not disclosed by him to the police; on the contrary his statement to the police as that Seema never told him of anything about her in-laws house Prabhawati Devi admits that the behaviour of the accused-appellant towards her was good and he always treated her with respect and reciprocal affection. She also admitted that her husband, i.e., Sohan Lal, P 16 never complained about the behaviour of the accused-appellant towards him. She very clearly stated that the accused-appellant had never asked her anything about dowry. If only Seema s father would have been told by Seema that the accused-appellant had ever demanded dowry from her or was harassing her for dowry then such fact in ordinary course of things would have been told by him to his wife, i.e., the mother of Seema and would also have been disclosed by him to the police.
4. Atul Kumar, PW 4 is younger brother of late Seema. According to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
