GURCHARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2016] 8 S.C.R. 741


                      GURCHARAN SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of2016)
                       DECEMBER 02, 2016
                                                                        B
          [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860: ss.306134 - Abetment to suicide - Suicide
by consuming pesticide by mother and two daughters - Suicide note
attributing harassment to the appellant and other in-laws family
members - Prosecution case was that the deceased-mother was
deprived of share in the in-laws property and was ill treated,          c
harassed and intimidated by them after disappearance of her
husband - Trial court held the appellant and one of the co-accused
guilty - High Court affirmed the same - On appeal, Held: The
basic ingredients of s.306 are suicidal death and the abetment
thereof - To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of      D
accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative -
In the instant case, there was neither any proximate nor remote act
of omission or commission on the part of the appellant and his family
members to be a direct or indirect cause compelling the deceased-
mot her and her daughters to take the extreme step of self-
elimination - In the suicide note, there was no reference of any        E
specific incident in support of the allegation - The materials on
record 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 - The ingredients of the offence of s.306 having not        F
been proved, appellant is entitled to acquittal.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The evidence on record, does not substantiate
the imputation that deceased-S and her daughters had been
deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property of her
                                                                        G
husband/father. Admittedly, there was no proof of any threat being
extended by the appellant or anyone of the in-laws of deceased-S
so as to reduce them to destitutes in a petrified state. The
disappearance of husband of deceased-S had occurred about two
years prior to the incident. Neither the appellant nor her in-laws
have any role in this regard. The absence of any complaint or           H
                                 741
742          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A civil litigation also permits an inference against the denial of the
  share in the family property to deceased-S and her daughters or
  of any ill-treatment, torture, oppression meted out to them. [Para
  18) (748-F-H)
         2. A plain perusal of the suicide note also revealed that
8 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 divulged her
  ownership of lands and house which per se belied the charge that
  she had been denied the share of her husband in the family
C 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 deceased-S who identified the
  contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation. The basic
0 ingredients    of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and the
  abetment thereof. 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
E omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306
  IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. [Paras
  20, 22) [749-H; 750-A-B, D, E-F]
         3. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a
  presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman
F 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 exphlnation to this Section exposits
  "cruelty" to have the same meaning as attributed to this
  expression in Section 498A IPC. Though for the purposes of the
G case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise
  germane, proof of the willful cond net actuating the woman to
  commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
  health, whether mental or physical, is the sine qua non for
  entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged. The
H intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person
         GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                         743


under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit ·A
an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act
leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option.
The assessment of the evidence on record does not demonstrate
any role of the appellant or the other implicated in-laws of the
deceased-S so as to return an unassailable finding of their
                                                                       8
culpability under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record 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 C
provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible
to even infer that the deceased-S 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. The ingredients of the D
offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus
the appellant deserves to be acquitted. [Paras 24, 27, 30, 32, 33)
[751-D; 752-F-G; 753-G-H; 754-C-F]
       Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR
       351 : (2004)13 SCC 129; W.B. v. Ori/al Jaiswal (1994)
       1 SCC 73; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West                E
       Bengal 2009 (15) SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707; S.S.
       Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010 (9) SCR 1111 :
       (2010) 12 SCC 190; Pinakin Mahipatray Rau'Gl v. State
       of Gujarat 2013 (10) SCR 306 : (2013) 10 SCC 48 -
       relied on.                                                      F
                       Case Law Reference
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 351         relied on              Para28
(1994) 1 sec 73                 relied on              Para29
2909 (15) SCR 836               relied on              Para29
2010 (9) SCR 1111               relied on              Para30          G
2013 (10) SCR -306              relied on              Para 31
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1135 of2016
      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2014 of the High Co1,111
 of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-S-566-SB of 2004.          H
744           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A        Ms. K.. waljit Kachar, Ms. Vasundhra Singh, Shryas Mehrotra,
  Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advs. for the Appellant.
         V. Madhukar, AAG., Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Adv. for the
  Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B        AMITAVAROY, J. 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,
c 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.
D        2. We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the
  appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the respondent.
         3. The fascicule offacts, 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
E 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
F
  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
G the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed of any property
  in his name. Dr. JaspatSingh-was thereafter not to be traced. Following
  this tum 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
H to them, they had no source of income and further, they were also
            GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                     745
                    [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

  deprived of their share in the property and other entitlements, otherwise        A
  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        B
  about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his tenants, though the
  television in their room was on, informed the brother of the deceased
  Surj it 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 Surj it Kaur and also subscribed to by         C
  her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note implicated the appellant, his
  wife Aj it 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             D
· 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.
                                                                                    E
          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       F
  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          G
  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 Sukhvindei Singh has been upheld with the marginal
  modification in the substantive sentence as aforementioned.
                                                                                    H
746            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A            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 Surj it Kaur
 B    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
 C    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 ofSurjit Kaur as
      w_ell and thus, there being no evidence whatsoever in corroboration of
 D    the charge of abetment, the conviction and sentence is liable to be set-
      aside in the interest ofjustice.
             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 ofSurjit Kaur as well as the medical testimony, has proved the
 E    imputation against the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh beyond
      all reasonable doubt and in the face of concurrent findings recorded by
      the courts lie low, 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
 F    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 her daughters of their share
      in the family property, as laid by the prosecution, evidence has surfaced
 G    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
      S:urjit Kaur llIJd 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
 H    to him that though the lights of that floor were off, the television was on.
          GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                  747
                  rAMITAVA ROY, J.l

The witness thereafter along with his wife knocked the door of the            A
apartment of the deceased, but there was no response. After waiting
for some time, the witness informed Gurj it Singh and Gaganjit Singh, the
brothers ofSurjit 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
                                                                              8
after this incident, none of the accused persons or the in-laws ofSurjit
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 ofSurjit. He disclosed that Surjit had
a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time, Surjit and her       C
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 Surj it
and her daughters had committed suicide out of grief for their missing        D
husband/father. According to him, the accused persons were not in any
manner responsible for their death.
       15. PW 4 Dr. Ka Ira, 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           E
of time. To the same effect, is the evidence of PW-11 Dr. Thakral vis-
a-vis Surj it and her daughter Geet.
       16. PWS and PW6 Gmjit and Gaganjit, the brothers ofSurjit 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              F
reiterated the version narrated in the FIR pertaining to the sudden
disappearance of their brother-in-law Dr. Jaspal Singh, husband of Su1jit,
he having suffered losses in business. They also 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.      G
Jaspal, their brother-in-law along with his brothers inherited the joint
property. hey 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 Surj it. They identified the signature of Preet also thereon. These     H
748             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     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.
B
      They conceded as well that Satnam Kaur, the mother-in-law of Surjit
      might have issued a cheque ofRs.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 at Muktsar. When confronted with the statements under Section
 c     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
D     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 sigt¥1ture on the sale deed executed
      by appellant Gurucharan in favourofSurjit. According to PW6, the sale
      deed was executed in a family settlement after Jaspal Singh had gone
 E    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 Surj it and her daughters had been
 F    deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property as the heirs of
      Dr. Jaspal Singh. Admittedly, there is no proof of any threat 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.
 0    Neither the appellant nor the in-laws ofSurjit did have any role in this
      regard. The absence of any complaint or civil litigation also perniits 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
 H    or commission on the part of the appellant and his family members that
          GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                749
                  fAMITAVA ROY, J.l

can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor A
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 B
      National Defence Fund. The family of my in-laws especially
       my mother-in-Jaw, Jeth Master Gurcharan Singh, 'bis 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 can we live               C
      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. !
      struggled continuously for 1 Yz years but now no more. My
      daughters are so intelligent that one is doing pre-medical            D
      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-Jaws should be
      punished after our death and every common man should
                                                                            E
      get justice.
      My two biggas land of Diwan Khera, 4 Yz 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,
      Abobar. All the sale deeds of the land are lying by my side.           F
      Suicide note of my husband is also lying here which I was forced
      not to hand over to 'the police on 22 March I 999 and assurance
      that I and my children would be looked after in a very good manner.
                                                        Sd/ Surj it Kaur"
This is however the translated version of the original which is in Hindi    G
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 ofany specific incident in support thereof. The     H
750             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     suicide note divulges her ownership of lands and house which 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 ofSurjit, who identified the contents to be that
B
      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
 c           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 thatthe offence punishable is one ofabetment
      of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a
      live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling
D     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
 E
      omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide
      would fall short as well of the offence
                                           I ,    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.
 F            Section I07 !PC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:
                 "I 07. 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
 G
                  in any conspiracy forthe 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.
 H
          GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                 751
                  [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

         Explanation l -A person, who by wilful misrepresentation, or A
         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 B
         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      C
conduct of the offender relatable thereto.
      24. Section l 13A 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          D
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.
                                                                              E
      "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 husbmid 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        F
      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           G
       (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          H
752               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A            relative of the husband ofa woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
             shall be punished with imprisonment for a te1m 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
B            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
c            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,
D     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)
E
                    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
F               meet such demand.
         27. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of
  the explanation is otherwise germane, proof ofthe 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
G 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 Rmulliir Singfl vs. State ofPunjab (2004) 13
  sec 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
         "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
H        or intentionally aiding that person in doing ofa thing. In cases of
          GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                    753
                  fAMITAVA ROY, J.l

      conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering A
      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 ofW.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this B
      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 C
      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 D
      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 Oril<tl Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each               E
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 1ife 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           F
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~ Jliantu vs. State Qf
West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
                                                                                 G
      30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 !PC, 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. Cltlteena vs. Vijay Kumar
                                                                                 H
754             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2016] 8 S.C.R.



A     Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
          31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rmval vs. State of Gujarat (2013)
      10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section l 13A of the Indian
      Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment
      bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge
B     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
C     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 Surj it Kaur, as contemplated by the above provisions so as
D     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
E     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
      ~arthly miseries.
 F          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
G     C_ourt 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.
      Devika Gujral                                                Appeal allowed.