2013 Supreme(Guj) 381

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal
Versus
State of Gujarat
Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2004—Decided on 09/09/2013

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case conviction of appellant for cruelty and abatement of his wife to commit suicide maintainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 498-A, 306 — [Indian] Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) — Section 113-A — Cruelty and abetment of suicide — Conviction — Appreciation of evidence and facts — Finding of — Sustainability — The allegation against appellant accused is that he had developed extra marital relationship with second accused in the case and which caused cruelty to deceased and drive her to commit suicide — Court analysing the evidence on record and facts of the case came to the finding that there is no evidence that accused ill treated the deceased either physically or mentally demanding dowry and deceased was living with accused in matrimonial home till the date she committed suicide — Court also found on facts that at best the relationship of accused appellant and accused No. 2 was one sided love affair — Accused might have developed same likings towards accused No. 2 his colleague all the same the facts disclose that accused had discharged his marital obligation towards deceased and had not caused any physical and mental torture to deceased — Court held that it is not proved that the relationship accused appellant had with accused No. 2 was of such a nature which under normal circumstances would drive one to commit suicide or that accused appellant by his conduct or otherwise ever abetted or intended to abet the wife to commit suicide — Court therefore set aside the conviction of accused appellant and set him free from the charges levelled against him.

       Held :

       Court is of the view that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one’s life. Court, on facts, found that the alleged extra marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide. [Para 22]

       Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide. [Para 26]

       Court has on facts found that at best the relationship of A-1 and A-2 was a one-sided love affair, the accused might have developed some likings towards A-2, his colleague, all the same, the facts disclose that A-1 had discharged his marital obligations towards the deceased. There is no evidence of physical or mental torture demanding dowry. Deceased might have been under serious “emotional stress” in the sense that she had undergone an abortion in the year 1992, and the year following that, though a daughter was born to her, the daughter also died few days of its birth. After one or two years, she committed suicide. Evidence, in any way, is lacking in this case to hold, that due to the alleged relationship between A-1 and A-2, A-1 had intended or intentionally inflicted any emotional stress on the deceased wife, so as to drive her to the extreme step of ending her life. In the suicide note she had not made any accusations as such against A-1 or A-2, on the other hand she stated that it was she who was selfish and egoist. [Para 27]

       Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the relationship A-1 had with A-2 was not of such a nature which under normal circumstances would drive one to commit suicide or that A-1 by his conduct or otherwise ever abetted or intended to abet the wife to commit suicide. Courts below, in our view, have committed serious error in holding that it was due to the extra marital relationship A-1 had with A-2 that led the deceased to take the extreme step to commit suicide, and A-1 was instrumental for the said act. [Para 29]

       Law Laid Down :

       There must be clear evidence to show active participation, initiation or encouragement on the part of a there party that he/she must have played a substantial part in inducing or causing one spouse’s loss of other spouse affectionate prove action of alienation of affection for a successful prosecution.