Holding

A demand made by the husband that is not dowry and lacks a direct, immediate nexus to the wife's suicide does not constitute abetment of suicide under s.306, warranting acquittal.

Summary

A married woman, Sumitra, died in a fire that also injured her two‑year‑old son and her father‑in‑law, both of whom later died. The husband, Devender Singh, and his brother‑in‑law were prosecuted under IPC sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498‑A (dowry harassment) based on letters in which the husband allegedly demanded money for construction, allegedly causing the wife’s embarrassment and leading to her suicide. The trial court acquitted the brother‑in‑law but convicted the husband; the High Court affirmed the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the demand did not constitute dowry and, more importantly, had no direct nexus or immediate cause for the wife’s suicide, so it could not amount to abetment. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt doctrine applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the trial and High Court judgments and allowed the appeal, acquitting the husband.

Issues considered

What is the requisite nexus between a husband's demand for money and the commission of a wife's suicide for liability under IPC s.306?
Does a demand for money that does not fall within the definition of dowry constitute an offence under IPC s.498‑A?
Did the prosecution prove the charge of abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306, s. 498-A

Subjects

suicideabetmentdowry harassmentIPCbenefit of doubtcriminal lawevidenceconjectureappeal

Judgment

..
_

A
DEVENDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARY ANA

NOVEMBER 29, 2006
B
[S.B. SINHA ANDMARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:
c ss. 306 and 498-A-Married woman died of burn injuries-Her son and
father-in-law also received burn injuries, the latter while saving her-Cause
of suicide alleged to be demand by her husband of money for raising some
construction-High Court holding that purported demand did not strictly
.. fall within the definition of dowry but convicting the husband-Held, as the
D ,fttrported demand made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate
cause for commission of suicide by the ·wife, it would not amount to abetment
of commission of such suicide-Husband being entitled to benefit of doubt,
acquitted.

A married woman died of burn injuries within seven years of her
E marriage. In the incident her two years old son also received burn injuries,
as also her father-in-law who tried to save her and the child. Both of them
also died subsequently. Her husband and brother-in-law were prosecuted on
the basis of some letters containing demand of money to raise some
construction, which was said to have embarrassed the victim and was a cause
F to commit the suicide. The tria·I court acquitted the brother-in-law but
convicted the husband. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Allowing the appeal of the husband, the Court

HELD: J.1. The High Court is not correct. As the purported demand
G made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate cause for commission
of suicide by his wife, the same would not amount to abetment of commission
of such suicide. The very fact that the High Court has proceeded on the basis
that the demand made by the husband did not amount to dowry negates the
prosecution case. (842-E-F)

H 840
'
... DEVENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 841
1.2.The prosecution should have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt A
It is accepted at the Bar that when the incident took place, the appellant was
not in his house. He was prosecuted together with his brother. The trial Judge
acquitted his brother. This fact also should have been taken into consideration
by the High Court. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case
where the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned B
judgment of the High Court and the judgment.and order of the trial court are
set aside. (842-G-H; 843-A-B)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 277/
2000.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated l -6-1999 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh _in Cr!. A. No. 604-SB/l 987.

Sanjay Sharawat for the Appellant.

Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the Respondent. D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. The appellant before us is the husband of the deceased
Sumitra. They were married on 7.2.1984. A child was born to them in 1985. The E
incident occurred on l l .3. l 987 at about l l .00 a.m. Indisputably, the two-year
old child of the appellant was also injured in that incident. It has also not been
disputed that the father of the appellant received bum injuries when he tried
to save the lady and the child. Whereas the deceased Sumitra died on the
spot, her son and father-in-law died subsequently.
F
Three witnesses, namely, both the parents and the brother of the
deceased were examined to prove the purported demand of dowry and
harassment allegedly meted out to the deceased by the appellant. The entire
prosecution case is based on some letters which were said to have been
. written by the deceased and her husband in the years 1984-85. The learned G
Trial Judge as also the High Court based their entire judgments of conviction
and sentence on the basis of said letters and the conduct of the appellant
and other family members.

From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court it appears that the
appellant is said to have demanded some money from his in-laws to raise H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A some construction. The High Court opined that the said demand does not
strictly come within the purview of the definition of dowry. But despite the
same, it proceeded to hold that such demands spoil the atmosphere of the
matrimonial home; the wife was embarrassed and as a result of such
embarrassment committed suicide. As regards the fact that the appellant's
B father had tried to save ·the lady and the child., who ultimately _died, was
although considered by'the High Court, but it proceeded to hold that he also ·
must have known the contents of the letters (Exts PU and PU/I) and the
behaviour of his sor. to be totally untoward a married life and he did not resort
to anything which could have solved the problem in the family. The High
Court states:
c
"He may not have contributed the deceased to have died but he also
did not help her the live. In such a situation even if he tried to save
the infant and the daughter-in-law, it could not absolve the appellant
of his misdeeds which are proved and as referred to above are in
writing. The husband was supposed to bring cordiality, cooperation
D and peach in the home even if he needed some monetary help from
the others instead of maltreating his wife which led to such a grave
situation which he did not contemplate that his son could be lost."

Having considered the judgment of the High Court, we are of the
E opinion that the approach of the High Court is not correct. As the purported
demand made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate cause for
commission of suicide by his wife, the same would not amount to abetment
of commission of such suicide.

The very fact that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the
F demand made by the husband did not amount to dowry, in our opinion,
negates the prosecution case. It should not have jumped to the conclusion
that the same must have caused embarrassment to the deceased which led to
her commission of suicide. The observations were in the realm of conjectures
and surmises. In a criminal case, no conviction can be based on conje<'.tures
G and surmises.

The prosecution should )lave proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is accepted a the Bar that when the incident took place, the appellant was
not in his house.

H He was prosecuted together with his brother. The learned Trial Judge
DEVENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINHA, J.] 843
acquitted the brother of the appellant. This fact also should have been taken A
into consideration by the High Court.

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case
where the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court and the judgment and order of the Trial
Court are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail, the B
his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

R.P. Appeal <lllowed.