abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating
existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the
propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision
are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment,
the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the
commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of
any of this constituents would militate against this indictment.
Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention
of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the
offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of
Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of
the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of
abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2016
GURCHARAN SINGH
V
STATE OF PUNJAB
Dated:DECEMBER 2, 2016.
Citation: (2017) 1 SCC 433
1. In assailment is the judgement and order dated 17.12.2014
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No. S-566-SB of 2004, affirming the conviction of
the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as “IPC”), as
entered by the Trial Court. While by the decision impugned, the
conviction has been endorsed, the substantive sentence of six years
of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to each of the
accused persons has been scaled down to one of five years of the
same description. The instant appeal seeks to overturn the
concurrent determinations on the charge by the courts below.
2. We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The fascicule of facts, indispensable to comprehend the
backdrop of the prosecution, has its origin in the inexplicable
abandonment of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her two daughters
namely; Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr. Jaspal Singh, their
husband and father respectively, about two years prior to the tragic
end of his three family members as above. The prosecution version is
that Dr. Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the Government service,
had relinquished the same and started a coal factory at Muktsar. He
suffered loss in the business and consequently failed to repay the
loan availed by him in this regard from the bank. As he and his
brother Gurcharan Singh (appellant herein) and others succeeded to
the property left by their predecessors, he started medical practice in
private.
4. Be that as it may, before leaving his family, he addressed a
communication to the concerned bank expressing his inability to
repay the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed of
any property in his name. Dr. Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be
traced. Following this turn of events, according to the prosecution,
his wife Surjit Kaur and his daughters shifted from Jalalabad where
they used to stay to Abohar and started residing in a rented house of
one Hansraj (PW3). According to them, they had no source of
income and further, they were also deprived of their share in the
property and other entitlements, otherwise supposed to devolve on
Dr. Jaspal Singh. They were also not provided with any maintenance
by the family members of her husband – Jaspal Singh and instead
were ill-treated, harassed and intimidated.
5. While the matter rested at that, on 3.10.2000 at about 10.30
p.m., Hansraj, the landlord of the deceased Surjit Kaur, being
suspicious about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his
tenants, though the television in their room was on, informed the
brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur. Thereafter they broke open the
door of the room and found all three lying dead. The police was
informed and FIR was lodged.
6. In course of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer collected a
suicide note in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to
by her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note implicated the
appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the convicted co-accused
Sukhvinder Singh @ Goldy as being responsible for their wretched
condition, driving them in the ultimate to take the extreme step. A
note book containing some letters, written by deceased Geet Pahul
was also recovered. On the completion of the investigation, which
included, amongst others the collection of the post-mortem report
which confirmed death due to consumption of aluminium
phosphide, a pesticide, charge-sheet was submitted against the three
persons named hereinabove along with Satnam Kaur under Section
306/34 IPC.
7. Whereas Satnam Kaur died during the committal proceedings,
charge was framed against the remaining accused persons namely;
Gurcharan Singh (appellant), Ajit Kaur and Sukhvinder Singh @
Goldy under the aforementioned provisions of the Code. As the
accused persons claimed to be innocent, they were made to face trial.
8. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including
the doctor, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body. The
accused persons stood by the denial of the charge in their statements
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also examined five witnesses in
defence.
9. The Trial Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, held the
appellant herein and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh to be guilty of
the charge levelled against them and awarded them the sentence as
hereto before mentioned. It, however, acquitted the co-accused Ajit
Kaur. To reiterate, by the impugned verdict, the conviction of the
appellant and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh has been upheld
with the marginal modification in the substantive sentence as
aforementioned.
10. Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant has
emphatically urged that the evidence on record does not furnish the
ingredients of abetment as visualised in Section 306 of the Code and
thus, the conviction is manifestly illegal and is liable to be set-aside.
It being patent from the materials on record that the deceased Surjit
Kaur and her daughters, had been duly accorded their share in the
family property and that they had sufficient means to independently
maintain themselves with reasonable comfort, the accusation to the
contrary, as levelled by the prosecution, is wholly unfounded, she
insisted. According to the learned counsel, the in-laws of the
deceased Surjit Kaur had throughout been considerate,
compassionate and supportive towards her and two daughters and
that the suicide committed by them had been on their own volition
and not as a result of any torture, harassment and oppression by
them, as alleged. The learned counsel has maintained that the
suicide note has not been proved in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur as
well and thus, there being no evidence whatsoever in corroboration of
the charge of abetment, the conviction and sentence is liable to be
set-aside in the interest of justice.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, has urged
in confutation, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more
particularly of (Gurjeet Singh) PW5 and Gaganjit Singh (PW6), the
brothers of Surjit Kaur as well as the medical testimony, has proved
the imputation against the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder
Singh beyond all reasonable doubt and in the face of concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below, on an in-depth appraisal of
the materials on record, no interference with the impugned
judgement and order is warranted.
12. Though, in the teeth of the sequential findings of guilt of the
courts below, normally, reappraisal of the evidence is otherwise
uncalled for, we are impelled to embark upon that exercise, having
regard to the rival assertions in the unique facts and circumstances
of the case. This is more so, as in controversion of the allegation of
wilful and deliberate deprivation of the deceased Surjit Kaur and herPage 7
7
daughters of their share in the family property, as laid by the
prosecution, evidence has surfaced to the contrary, being conceded
by her brothers in the course of their testimony at the trial.
13. PW3 Hans Raj, the landlord stated on oath that the deceased
Surjit Kaur and her daughters used to reside in the first floor of his
house. On the date of the incident, at about 10.00 p.m. his wife
reported to him that though the lights of that floor were off, the
television was on. The witness thereafter along with his wife knocked
the door of the apartment of the deceased, but there was no
response. After waiting for some time, the witness informed Gurjit
Singh and Gaganjit Singh, the brothers of Surjit Kaur, and on their
arrival, as the same state of affairs continued, they broke open the
door and found all the three lying dead. The police was thereafter
informed. According to this witness, even after this incident, none of
the accused persons or the in-laws of Surjit did come to inquire
about the same.
14. In cross-examination, the witness mentioned that all the three
deceased used to remain dejected and depressed. They however,
often visited the parents and the brothers of Surjit. He disclosed that
Surjit had a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time,Page 8
8
Surjit and her daughters did complain to him about any threat
extended by the accused persons. The witness disclosed that though
Surjit had expended substantial amount on the coaching of her
daughter, she failed in the examination, for which she was morose
and anguished. The witness opined that Surjit and her daughters
had committed suicide out of grief for their missing husband/father.
According to him, the accused persons were not in any manner
responsible for their death.
15. PW4 Dr. Kalra, who had performed the post-mortem
examination of Preet Bahul, testified on the basis of the report of the
chemical analysis of her viscera that death was due to consumption
of aluminum phosphide which was sufficient to cause death in due
course of time. To the same effect, is the evidence of PW11 Dr.
Thakral vis-a-vis Surjit and her daughter Geet.
16. PW5 and PW6 Gurjit and Gaganjit, the brothers of Surjit Kaur
did depose in similar lines. They stated that at the time of their
death, Geet and Preet were aged 22 years and 18 years respectively.
They reiterated the version narrated in the FIR pertaining to the
sudden disappearance of their brother-in-law Dr. Jaspal Singh,
husband of Surjit, he having suffered losses in business. They alsoPage 9
9
mentioned that, at that time, Dr. Jaspal Singh had heavy
outstanding dues qua the bank. They disclosed as well that after the
death of Jaktar Singh, the father of Dr. Jaspal, their brother-in-law
along with his brothers inherited the joint property. They also
reiterated the narration of the facts preceding the discovery of the
dead bodies as recited by PW3. They confirmed the recovery and
seizure of, amongst others the diary containing the suicide note.
They identified the text of the suicide note in the hand of their sister
Surjit. They identified the signature of Preet also thereon. These
witnesses in their examination-in-chief, though alleged that their
sister and nieces had committed suicide because they were deprived
of their share in the joint properties, and for which they suffered from
sustained depression, in cross-examination, they acknowledged a
sale deed executed by the appellant Gurucharan in favour of Surjit
regarding half share in the house at Abohar, which was also a
segment of the family property. They conceded as well that Satnam
Kaur, the mother-in-law of Surjit might have issued a cheque of
Rs.68,650/- in her name and that she had opened an account
therewith in the name of her brother Gagandeep. They admitted
that there was a parcel of land in the name of deceased Surjit atPage 10
10
Muktsar. When confronted with the statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C., they admitted of not having disclosed to the Investigating
Officer, that the share in land of Dr. Jaspal Singh had not been given
to Surjit Kaur. They accepted that the main reason for the
depression of the deceased was the absence of near and close
relatives. They conceded that neither Surjit nor they had ever lodged
any complaint with the police against the accused person for the
ill-treatment meted out to her or for denying her entitlements in the
joint property. They admitted as well that no civil suit had been filed
in that regard.
17. PW6, in addition admitted his signature on the sale deed
executed by appellant Gurucharan in favour of Surjit. According to
PW6, the sale deed was executed in a family settlement after Jaspal
Singh had gone missing. This witness disclosed as well that the
appellant and the other family members were ready to transfer the
share of his brother-in-law to his sister.
18. The evidence on record, to start with, in our estimate, does not
substantiate the imputation that Surjit and her daughters had been
deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property as the
heirs of Dr. Jaspal Singh. Admittedly, there is no proof of any threatPage 11
11
being extended by the appellant or anyone of the in-laws of Surjit so
as to reduce them to destitutes in a petrified state. The
disappearance of Dr. Jaspal Singh, the husband of Surjit, father of
Preet and Geet though unfortunate, the event had occurred about
two years prior to the incident. Neither the appellant nor the in-laws
of Surjit did have any role in this regard. The absence of any
complaint or civil litigation also permits an inference against the
denial of the share in the family property to Surjit and her daughters
or of any ill-treatment, torture, oppression meted out to them. There
is thus neither any proximate nor remote acts of omission or
commission on the part of the appellant and his family members that
can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor
compelling Surjit and her daughters to take the extreme step of
self-elimination.
19. The suicide note which transpires to be the sheet anchor of the
prosecution case needs extraction for reference as hereunder.
“The whole of my land and property should be given
to National Defence Fund. The family of my in-laws
especially my mother-in-law, Jeth Master
Gurcharan Singh, his wife Ajit Kaur and his son
Goldy are responsible for our death. My younger
daughter is still minor.
My husband was also to die by them. Now how canPage 12
12
we live when our living is more than a hell. I
pleaded before the Prime Minister, President and Chief
Minister but there is no one for me in this society. I
also filed a case before the Human Rights Commission.
This is our cultured and democratic society. I
struggled continuously for 1 ½ years but now no
more. My daughters are so intelligent that one is
doing pre-medical test and the second is doing
Master of Computer Applications. This is the reason
that I bore all such pains but still remain alive. If
there is any justice in this cultured and democratic
society then at least my in-laws should be punished
after our death and every common man should get
justice.
My two biggas land of Diwan Khera, 4 ½ biggas land
of Sajrana and 4/5 kanals land at Muktsar should go
to Mission Hospital, Muktsar. No body is entitled
for my two plots in Bharat Colony Bathinda and my
house in Anand Nagri, Abohar. All the sale deeds of
the land are lying by my side. Suicide note of my
husband is also lying here which I was forced not to
hand over to the police on 22 March 1999 and
assurance that I and my children would be looked after
in a very good manner.
Sd/ Surjit Kaur”
This is however the translated version of the original which is in
Hindi script.
20. A plain perusal of the above quote also reveals that apart from
an omnibus grievance against her in-laws to be responsible for their
death, for which according to her, they ought to be punished, there is
no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof.
The suicide note divulges her ownership of lands and house whichPage 13
13
per se belies the charge that she had been denied the share of her
husband in the family property. Noticeably, no attempt was made by
the prosecution to prove the author of the text through an expert and
both the courts below solely based their conclusion, in this regard on
the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the brothers of Surjit, who identified the
contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation.
21. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for
abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
“Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
22. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of
abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating
existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the
propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision
are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment,
the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the
commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of
any of this constituents would militate against this indictment.
Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention
of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the
offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of
Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of
the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of
abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained
incitement for suicide.
Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:
“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the
doing of a thing, who –
First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 – A person, who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that doing.
Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
23. Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of
abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the
explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the
culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.
24. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a
presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by
her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had
committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected
her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” to
have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section
498A IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as well.
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by
a married woman—When the question is whether
the commission of suicide by a woman had been
abetted by her husband or any relative of her
husband and it is shown that she had committed
suicide within a period of seven years from the date
of her marriage and that her husband or such
relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty,
the Court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relative
of her husband.
Explanation—For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section
498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
25. In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A
of the Code also demand extraction.
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand.”
26. This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the
husband of a woman or the relative of his, punishable thereby with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also
fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The
explanation thereto defining “cruelty” enfolds:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman, where it is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her, to meet such
demand.
27. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of
the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct
actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine
qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.
28. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been
enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab
(2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out
hereunder.
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before
a person can be said to be abetting the commission of
offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73,
this Court has observed that the courts 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.”
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier
pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the
victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life
by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing
suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to
which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step,
the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty.
The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State
of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act
leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option,
had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10
SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law
amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet
the social challenge of saving the married woman from being
ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his
relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of
proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained
therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the
prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person
charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.
32. The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our
considered opinion, does not demonstrate with unqualified clarity
and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other implicated
in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above
provisions so as to return an unassailable finding of their culpability
under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record, to reiterate, do not
suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or
inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to
resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such
continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family
members with the required provocative culpability or lethal
instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased
Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed
state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as
if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly
miseries.
33. In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the
unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306
IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be
acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below
cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by
this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed.
The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is
not required in connection with any other case.
.............................................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
…...........................................J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 2, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment