KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                        [2009) 1 S.C.R. 672

A             KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI                      •
                                 v.
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                (Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 200!:J)
                       JANUARY 28, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANG ULY, JJ.)

       Penal Code, 1860 - ss.306, 498A, 109 - Dowry
c Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.3 - Abetment of suicide, dowry
  demand - Torture for not bringing sufficient dowry - Letters
  on record written by husband demanding money- Trial Court
  convicted accused on the ground that letters established
  demand of dowry and that suicide was abetted by acts and
D conduct   of accused - Held: In view of background facts,
  conviction under s.306 cannot be sustained- However, letters
  demonstrate commission of offence under ss.498A and s.3
  of DP Act - Conviction thereunder sustained - However,
  sentence in respect of s. 3 of DP Act reduced to 3 years -
E Crime against women.
        Words and phrases: 'abtetment' - Meaning of -
    Discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.109.

        Prosecution case was that the accused was married
F to the deceased. Soon after two years of marriage,
  accused started ihflicting mental and physical torture on
  her for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage. He even
  wrote letters to parents of deceased and demanded
  Rs.40,000 for purchasing a house. All this prompted the
G deceased to commit suicide by burning herself. The trial
  court found that the letters written by the accused clearly
  established the demand of dowry and further the suicide
  was clearly abetted by the acts and conduct of the
  appellant. The conviction was recorded under ss.306 and
H                              672
             KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF           673
                             GUJARAT

· --..   498A IPC and s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and             A
         sentences of 3 years, 10 years and 5 years were
         imposed. High Court upheld the conviction and
         sentences.

              In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the      8
         letters whereby the alleged demand of dowry was made
         were not signed by him and even were not addressed to
         anyone; that there was no material to show that the
         appellant subjected the deceased to such cruelty and
         harassment so as to instigate her to commit suicide; and        C
         that the evidence on record showed that the appellant
         maintained good relations with the deceased and
         purchased valuable silver ornaments for her and she was
         shown to be his nominee in his insurance policy.

             Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                       D

              HELD: 1. A person, abets the doing of a thing when
          he instigates any person to do that thing; or engages
         with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the
         doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by act or illegal   E
         omission, the doing of that thing. These things are
         essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word
         "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or
         bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment
         may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as
                                                                         F
         provided in the three clauses of s.107 IPC. S.109 provides
         that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
         abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
         of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
         with the punishment provided for the original offences.
         'Abetted' in s.109 means the specific offence abetted.          G
         Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person
         is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the
         proved offence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide
         there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
         to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the            H
    674         SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not
  enough. [Paras 11 and 12) [678-D-H; 679-A)

         Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) AIR SCW 4570,
    relied on.
B       State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal AIR (1994) SC
    1418, referred, to.

       2. The conviction so far as it relates to s.306 IPC,
  cannot be sustained in view of the background facts and
c is set aside. But the materials on record particularly the
  letters on which specific emphasis has been led by the
  trial Court and the High Court amply demonstrate the
  commission of offences punishable under s.498-A IPC
  and s.3 of DP Act. The convictions are sustained. But the
0 sentence in respect of s.3 of DP Act is reduced to three
  years. [Para 14) [679-C-D]

       Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797; Randhir
  Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 and
  Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008(5) SCR 1200,
E relied on.

                        Case Law Reference:
          AIR (1994) SC 1418      referred to         Para 10
                                                                  •
F         (1995) AIR sew 4570     relied on           Para 12
          (2001) 1o sec 797       relied on           Para 13
          (2004) 13 sec 129       relied on           Para 13

          2008(5) SCR 1200        relied on           Para 13
G
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 169 of 2009.

      From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.10.2007 of
H the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal
        KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF               675
                        GUJARAT

~    No. 1103 of 2003.                                                A
                                                                           /
         H. Ahmadi, Ejaz Maqbool, Vikas Singh, Taruna Singh and
     P. Gohil for the Appellant.

         Hemantika Wahi, Pinky, K. Enotoli Serna and Somonath
     Pradhan for the Respondent.                              B

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
+-
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division c
                                                               of
     Bench of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction the
     appellant for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-
     A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short tl:\e' 'IPC') and
     Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'DP Act').
.    Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad D
     City imposed sentences of 3 years, ·10 years and 5 years
     respectively for the aforesaid offences and fine of Rs.5,000/-,
     Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.

         3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:          E
           The accused married Kantaben (hereinafter referred to as
     the 'deceased') in 1989. Soon after two years of his marriage,
     the accused started inflicting mental and physical torture on her
Jr
     and she was taunted by the accused for not bringing sufficient
     dowry in the marriage. He also demanded from the victim an F
     amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a house.
     He even wrote letters to the in-laws and demanded Rs.40,000/
     - for purchasing the house. The demand was persistent. Even
     threats were administered to the deceased and her family
     members. Thus, the accused inflicted mental and physical G
     torture on the victim which prompted her to commit suicide by
"'   burning herself on 23-03-1999 after pouring kerosene on her
     body. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the appellant has
     committed the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306
     IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of DP Act.                         H
    676          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A      The complaint was given by Dhulagiri Gumangiri Goswami
  on 17.5.1999. On the strength of the complaint given by the
  complainant investigation was carried out. The place where the
  suicide was committed by the victim was visited and the
  panchnama of the place of incident was prepared in the
B presence of the panch-witnesses. Statements of the witnesses
  from the neighbourhood were recorded. The ·injured was
  immediately rushed to the hospital for providing necessary
  treatment. Muddamal seized was sent to Forensic Science                +
  Laboratory for the purpose of detailed analysis. On the death
C of the victim, the inquest panchnama was prepared and the
  dead body was sent for autopsy. The appellant was arrested
  during the course of investigation. On receipt of the report from
  FSL, the post-mortem report along with other material, the
  appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
  under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and
0
  7 of the DP Act. He was produced before the Metropolitan
  Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who in turn committed the case to the
  Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') as the case was
  exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
E
         As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.
    Seventeen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution
    version. The trial court found that the letters written by the
    accused clearly established the demand of dowry and further
F   the suicide was clearly abetted by the acts and conduct of the
    appellant. Accordingly, the conviction was recorded and
    sentences were imposed as afore-stated.

          In appeal, the High court concurred with the views of the
G   trial Court.

        4. In support of the appeal, it was submitted that the letters
    whereby the alleged demand of dowry was made has not been
    signed by the appellant and even has not been addressed to
    anyone. There was no material to show that the appellant had
H   subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to
           KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF                 677
                 GUJARAT [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

       instigate her to commit suicide. The evidence on record shows        A
~:i-
       that the appellant had purchased valuable silver ornaments for
       the deceased and in his insurance policy, the deceased was
       shown to be his nominee. Their relation was otherwise cordial.
       Since the substratum of the allegations of dowry and
       harassment were letters, their authenticity having not been          B
       established the trial Court and the High Court should not have
       relied upon the same.
 +-
             5. It is pointed out that the accused himself had taken the
       deceased to the hospital and from his conduct it clearly shows
       that the accused was not guilty. In essence, it is submitted that    c
       the commission of alleged offences has not been established
       by the prosecution.

           6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State
       supported the judgment.                                              D

           7. We shall first deal with the plea relating to applicability
       of Section 306 IPC.


            8. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The          E
       said provision reads as follows:

            "306 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE.

           If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
                                                                            F
           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."

            9. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
       person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.      G
       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 it required before a person can be said to be
       abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.         H
     678          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009) 1 S.C.R.


A       10. In State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC
   1418) 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
B induced her to end her 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
c 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.

        11. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
D offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided
   in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing
  when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)
   engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for
  the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal
E omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to
  complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally
  means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion
  to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy
  or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
F 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed
  in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the
  punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be
  punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
  'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted.
G Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is
  charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved
  offence

        12. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be
    proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
H
I
              KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF                679
                    GUJARAT [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

·~        of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the              A
          deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh
          v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570)].

               13. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kishori Lal
          v. State of M.P. (2007 (10) SCC 797), Randhir Singh and Anr.
                                                                              B

    .     v. State of Punjab (2004 (13) SCC 129) and Criminal Appeal
          No. 1464 of 2007 (Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana
          disposed of on April 7, 2008) .

                14. The conviction so far as it relates to Section 306 IPC,
          therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the background facts      c
          and is set aside. But the materials on record particularly the
          letters on which specific emphasis has been led by the trial
          Court and the High Court amply demonstrate the commission
          of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section
......-   3 of DP Act. The convictions are sustained. But the sentence        D
          in respect of Section 3 of DP Act is reduced to three years.
                 15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
          D.G.                                     Appeal partly allowed.