Supreme Court of India
GURCHARAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 570
- Decided
- 1 October 2020
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Holding
A conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide requires proof of a positive act or illegal omission together with a clear, visible mens rea, which cannot be inferred from mere conjecture or lack of direct evidence.
Summary
The appellant Gurcharan Singh was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of his wife, Shinder Kaur, who died after ingesting aluminium phosphide. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction despite the absence of direct evidence of cruelty, dowry harassment, or wilful neglect by the husband. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established the essential elements of abetment – a positive act or illegal omission and a clear mens rea. The Court found no overt act, omission, or demonstrable guilty mind on the part of the husband and held that the lower courts relied on conjecture. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that conviction under Section 306 requires proof of a positive act or omission coupled with visible mens rea. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the element of abetment under Section 306 IPC, i.e., a positive act or illegal omission by the accused.
- Whether the husband's alleged failure to meet a dowry demand constitutes wilful neglect sufficient for abetment.
- Whether circumstantial evidence and conjecture can be used to infer mens rea and abetment of suicide.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 304B, s. 306, s. 34, s. 498A
Subjects
Abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCMens reaConjectureDowry harassmentCriminal lawEvidence
Judgment
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 741 741
GURCHARAN SINGH A
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011)
OCTOBER 01, 2020 B
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – A young married lady
with two minor children committed suicide – The Trial Court C
convicted lady’s husband-appellant u/s. 306 IPC and sentenced him
to 4 years rigorous imprisonment – The conviction u/s. 306 IPC
was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the instant
case, there is no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or
the in-laws – There is nothing on record to show which particular
hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband D
– Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant, which
led to the suicidal death – To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified u/s. 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular
crime must be visible, to determine the culpability – The ingredient
of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to E
be visible and conspicuous – Both the Trial Court and the High
Court never examined whether appellant-husband had the mens rea
for the crime, he is held to have committed – The conviction by both
the Courts on the theory that the woman with two young kids might
have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced
F
by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the
evidence in the case – Testimonies of the PWs do not show that
the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced
to take such a step on his account – The Trial Court and the High
Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence
concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of G
abetting the suicide of his wife – Therefore, the decisions under
challenge cannot be legally sustained – Consequently, the
appellant’s conviction u/s. 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.
H
741
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Insofar as the possible reason for a young
married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the
absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was
pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere
B in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of
expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and
the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any
evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the
husband could not be shown by the prosecution. [Para 11][747-
E-F]
C
2. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To
prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the
IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be
visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or show that
D the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that
state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The
ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly
present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as
E well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had
the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The
conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High
Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might
have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment
faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by
F the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show
that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was
forced to take such a step on his account. [Para 15][748-C-F]
3. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and
applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is
G apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the
appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The
evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced
persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect
is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution
H witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on
GURCHARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 743
the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only A
through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the
suicide of his wife. [Para 19][750-C-D]
SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 ; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu
v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707: [2009] 15 B
SCR 836 ; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014)
12 SCC 595 : [2014] 4 SCR 988 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 1111 relied on Para 16
C
[2009] 15 SCR 836 relied on Para 17
[2014] 4 SCR 988 relied on Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 40 of 2011.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2010 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
408-SB of 1999.
R. K. Kapoor, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Anis Ahmed Khan,
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4.3.2010
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder, the Criminal
Appeal No. 408-SB of 1999 of the convicted appellant was dismissed F
and the judgment of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and the consequential sentence of 4
years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Barnala, was upheld.
2. The appellant along with his parents was charged under G
sections 304B and 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. The learned
Trial Court ordered acquittal of the appellant’s parents Dulla Singh and
Karnail Kaur. However, even while declaring that there is insufficient
material to convict anyone under section 304B & 498A IPC, the trial
Court opined that although no charge of abetment was framed against
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R.
A the husband Gurcharan Singh, he can be convicted for abetting suicide
of his wife, under section 306 IPC.
3. The criminal process was set in motion with registration of
FIR No. 177 dated 13.8.1997 at P.S. Kotwali, Barnala, under section
304B/34 IPC and under section 498A IPC. The case was registered
B on the basis of statement made by Jail Singh, father of Shinder
Kaur(deceased). The appellant was married to Shinder Kaur and they
had a son (21/4 years) and a daughter (8/9 months), when the mother
committed suicide on 12.8.1997. According to the prosecution case,
Shinder Kaur was harassed after marriage, for insufficient dowry. A
few days prior to the occurrence, Shinder Kaur was beaten and was
C turned out from her matrimonial home by the accused to bring
Rs.20,000/- from her parents for purchase of a plot. Then the
Complainant had escorted back his daughter to her matrimonial home
by pleading with the accused that he was unable to meet their cash
demand. On 13.8.1997, the father received a message that Shinder
D Kaur had died in her matrimonial house. On hearing this, the
Complainant Jail Singh along with his wife Surjit Kaur and Chand Singh
(brother of Surjit Kaur), rushed to Barnala and saw the dead body of
Shinder Kaur in the matrimonial home who had died at about 5 P.M.
on 12.8.1997. Since, it was an unnatural death, the Complainant alleged
that either the accused had caused the death of his daughter by giving
E her some poisonous substance or she had ingested such substance, due
to harassment by the accused.
4. The post mortem report disclosed that death was due to
consumption of aluminium phosphide. The husband and the parents-in-
law of the deceased were charged and after the case was committed
F on 28.10.1997, the trial commenced before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Barnala.
5. Adverting to the evidence of Jail Singh(PW2), Chand Singh
(PW3) and Surjit Kaur(PW4), who were the father, maternal uncle and
mother of the deceased respectively, the Court proceeded to determine
G whether the unnatural death was the result of Dowry demand. The
witnesses testified that Rs. 20,000/- was demanded by the accused from
the deceased’s family as they wanted to purchase a plot and since this
demand could not be met, Shinder Kaur committed suicide. The
evidence of PW2, the father of the deceased shows that “cash loan”
H of 20,000/- was asked. It is also seen from the evidence that the
GURCHARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 745
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
appellant Gurcharan Singh is the only son of his parents and they are A
the owner of a big house with a vegetable garden. The appellant and
his father were drivers with Punjab police. What is also of relevance
is that during delivery time, the deceased was admitted in the hospital
for 10/12 days in November 1996 and her medical treatment was
arranged by the husband and the father-in-law. No evidence of any
B
dispute relating to dowry demand or maltreatment of the deceased,
during three years of marriage was seen. On this basis, the Trial Court
concluded even if Rs. 20,000/- was asked for purchase of plot three
years after marriage and few days later the unnatural death takes place,
the death cannot be related to demand of dowry.
6. The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as to why a C
young lady with two small children would commit suicide unless she
has been pushed to do so, by the circumstances in the matrimonial home.
It was then observed that the expectation of a married woman will be
love and affection and financial security at the hands of her husband
and if her hopes are frustrated by the act or by wilful negligence of D
the husband, it would constitute abetment within the meaning of section
107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC. With such
reasoning, the Trial Court concluded that Shinder Kaur committed
suicide when her hopes were frustrated by the act of her husband or
alternatively, by his wilful neglect. Thus, the Court itself was uncertain
on the nature of the act to be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, E
even while noting that no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband
and the in-laws is available, the learned Court assumed that section 306
IPC can be applied against the appellant. With such conjecture, while
acquitting all three accused of the charged crime under section 304B
and 498A of IPC, the husband was convicted under section 306 IPC. F
7. In the resultant Criminal Appeal, the appellant contended that
the conviction cannot be justified unless evidence disclosed some positive
act or conduct of the accused, which might have compelled the
deceased to commit suicide. On the plea of cordial relationship of the
deceased with her husband, the appellate Judge conjectured that if such G
be the situation, the family members (PW2,PW3,PW4) of the deceased,
would not have deposed against the husband. The suggestion that the
deceased accidentally consumed pesticide kept for the vegetable garden
was brushed aside by the learned Judge. Accordingly, the High Court
endorsed the Trial Court’s view that deceased was pushed to commit
suicide by the circumstances and the atmosphere in the matrimonial H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R.
A home. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the impugned judgment
leading to the present appeal.
8. For the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr R K Kapoor focused
on the findings of the Trial Court that there is no direct evidence of
cruelty towards the deceased, by the husband or parents-in-law. It is
B then submitted that there is nothing to conclude that the husband had
wilfully neglected his wife or had frustrated her, to bring the case within
the ambit of abetment. The Counsel argues that the court’s conclusion
is entirely based on conjectures and not upon any substantial evidence.
Since no evidence of dowry harassment was found and the demand of
Rs. 20,000/- was ruled out as the cause for suicide, the learned Counsel
C submits that both Courts erred in concluding that the deceased was
pushed to commit suicide, on account of the circumstances or
atmosphere created by the appellant. The contrary evidence of care
and attention of the deceased by her husband and in-laws is highlighted
by the appellant’s lawyer to argue that in the matrimonial home, the
D deceased was treated well. In any case, the degree of love and affection
expected of a husband, cannot be measured to base the conviction of
abetment. Accordingly, it is contended that the inference without any
evidence of vitiating circumstances in the matrimonial home purportedly
created by the appellant, is nothing but an inference and conviction
cannot be sustained on that basis alone. The Counsel then points out
E that both children born to the deceased are residing with the appellant
and this would also indicate that appellant is a caring and responsible
person. The Counsel further submits that the appellant has already
undergone sentence for about two years.
9. On the other hand, Ms Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for
F the State of Punjab refers to the evidence of Jail Singh (PW2) and Surjit
Kaur (PW4), the parents of deceased, who stated that a week before
the incident, the deceased was beaten and was sent to her parental
home to bring cash for purchase of a plot. As the parents were unable
to pay the demanded sum, the deceased was driven to commit suicide
G in her matrimonial home on the very day, when her father dropped her
back. The Counsel then argues that if not for the circumstances or
atmosphere in the matrimonial home, why should a young mother of
two children commit suicide, by consuming pesticide.
10. The submissions of the learned Counsel have been
H considered. In order to give the finding of abetment under section 107
GURCHARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 747
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
IPC, the accused should instigate a person either by act of omission or A
commission and only then, a case of abetment is made out. In the
present case however, there is no direct evidence of cruelty against
the husband or the in-laws. There is nothing on record to show which
particular hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the
husband. Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant,
B
which led to the suicidal death. Whereas contrary evidence is available
to suggest that care and treatment was given to the deceased in the
matrimonial home and in the hospital, and during the three years of
marriage, there was no instance of maltreatment, attributable to dowry
demand. The demand of Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of a plot (in front
of the residence which might have incidentally become available for C
sale just at that time), after three years of marriage, was ruled out by
the trial Court as the possible cause for the suicidal death. In any case,
PW2 stated that this sum was a “cash loan” asked for buying the plot.
Thus, a loan may have been sought by the accused which could not be
given. But there is nothing to show that the deceased was harassed on
D
this count, in the matrimonial home. In the face of such material, it is
difficult to conclude that Shinder Kaur was pushed to commit suicide
by the circumstances or atmosphere created by the appellant.
11. Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with
two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence,
E
conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by
the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might
have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband
and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through
any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the
husband could not be shown by the prosecution. F
12. It must also be noted that both children born to deceased
are being brought up by the appellant’s family ever since the death of
the mother on 12.8.1997. The maternal grandparents, even while pointing
fingers against the accused, never raised any issue on their grandchildren
being brought up in the home where their daughter died an unnatural G
death.
13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this case, the
following part of the section will bear consideration: -
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R.
A “107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing,
who –
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
**** **** **** **** ****
B Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.”
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a
person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that
C thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove
the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the
state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine
the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something
on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty
D
mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of
the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be
ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as
the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea
E for the crime, he is held to have committed. The conviction of Appellant
by the Trial Court as well as the High Court on the theory that the
woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly
because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is
not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the
PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant
F and she was forced to take such a step on his account.
16. The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306
IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan1 where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer
Bhandari wrote as under:-
G
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
H 1
(2010) 12 SCC 190
GURCHARAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 749
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]
of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court A
is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he B
committed suicide.”
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr. Justice
M.K. Sharma writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters
of Section 306 IPC in the following terms:
C
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,
the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances
of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in
order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
D
to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases
of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely
on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the E
accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of
the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the F
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
G
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana3, which again
was a case of wife’s unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench,
Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan rightly observed as under:-
2
(2010) 1 SCC 707
3
(2014) 12 SCC 595 H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R.
A “24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High
Court that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted
to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various
reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment
in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and
so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the
B
High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless
abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.”
19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and
applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is
that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in
C taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not
indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her
husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the
other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court
speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded
D only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the
suicide of his wife.
20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring
that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the
deceased was driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or
E atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an
inference, without any material support. Therefore, the same cannot
be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section
306 of the IPC.
21. In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded to conclude that
F the decisions under challenge cannot be legally sustained. Consequently,
interfering with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial
Court, the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and
quashed. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
G Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Abetment of suicide"Sign in to search