NACHHATTAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2011] 2 S.C.R. 478


A                 NACHHAITAR SINGH & ORS.
                                 v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2005)
                       FEBRUARY 03, 2011
B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                      PRASAD, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860: s.306 - Abetment of suicide -
C Unnatural death of married woman - A/legation of
  maltreatment of victim by husband and parents-in-law on
  account of dowry demand - Victim found dead - Medical
  opinion that death was caused by poisoning - Trial court
  convicted accused u/s.3048 - High Court held that case uls.
D 3048 was not made out but accused were liable to conviction
  u/s. 306 for having abetted the suicide of the victim - SLPs
  filed by husband and parents-in-law - SLP of husband
  dismissed - In respect of appeal filed by parents-in-law, held:
  There was no evidence to show that suicide was a dowry death
E as evidence with respect to the demand for dowry was vague
  and stale - In the background of the findings recorded while
  acquitting the accused of the charge uls.3048, no inferences
  or presumptions can be drawn - Cruelty means any wilful
  conduct of such a nature as was likely to drive a woman to
F commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
  or health whether mental or physical) to the woman -
  Evidence of victim's brother that the victim wanted to join
  service but her parents-in-law were old and insisted her to stay
  at home to look after household chores and this led her into
G depression and to commit suicide - Difference of opinion
  within a family on everyday mundane matters would not fall
  within the category of wilful conduct - Merely because the
  parents-in-law wanted her to look after them In old age could
  not be abetment of suicide - Presumption against them u/

H                               478
                                                 ·-.

NACHHATTAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 479
    480     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A which Sukhmander Singh, P.W., along with other family
  members rushed to the house of the accused. They saw 8albir
  Kaur lying dead on her cot. The police were informed and a
  First Information Report was registered. The dead body was
  despatched for its post mortem examination. The viscera was
8 also sent to the Chemical Examiner who rendered an opinion
  that the death had been caused by poisoning. A criminal
  complaint was also filed by P.W. 6 Sukhmander Singh against
  the appellant in the meanwhile. The complaint case as well as
  the case arising out of the First Information Report were clubbed
c together and on the completion of the investigation a charge
  under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 3048 IPC was
  framed against the accused.

          The prosecution relied primarily on the evidence of P.W.
    6, the complainant, P.W. 1, Dr. Yashpal Garg who had
D   performed the post mortem of the dead body, P.W. 2 the
    Chemical Examiner and P.W. 7 Sajjan Singh, a resident of
    Moga who deposed to the demands for dowry made by the
    accused even a day before the incident. The prosecution case
    was then put to the accused and they denied the allegations
E   levelled against them and on the contrary pleaded that as 8albir
    Kaur was a qualified Steno-typist she wanted to join service
    and live at Moga but as her parents-in-law were old they had
    insisted that she stay at home to look after the house hold
    chores and this frustration had led her into a depression and
F   finally to suicide. The trial court, on a consideration of the
    evidence, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable
    under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted
    them for the offence punishable under section 3048 and
    awarded a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. An
G   appeal was thereafter filed by the accused before the High
    Court. The High court partly allowed the appeal inasmuch that
    it held that a case under Section 3048 of the IPC was not made
    out but the accused were nonetheless liable to conviction under
    Section 306 for having abetted the suicide of 8albir Kaur. The.
H   Court found ~s a fact that there was absolutely no evidence to
     '-.
NACHHATIAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 481


show that Balbir Kaur's suicide was a dowry death as the            A
evidence with respect to the demands for dowry were both
vague and stale and could not fonn the basis for conviction. This
is what the Court had to say:

          "Analysis of statements of prosecution witnesses,         8
    referred to above, clearly indicates that allegations
    regarding demand of dowry and cruelty inflicted upon the
    deceased are in general terms and vague. None of the
    prosecution witnesses had stated as to when, in which
    year, date and month, any act of cruelty in connection with     C
    demand of dowry was committed by any fo the appellants
    against the deceased. Not even a single witness had
    given any specific instance in that regard. None of them
    except Sajjan Singh (PW &) had stated that soon before
    death, acts of cruelty in connection with demanq of dowry
    were committed by the appellants against the deceased."         D

     The Court nevertheless went on to hold that though there
were no specific instances of demands of dowry yet an
inference that certain demands had been made was available
from their testimony and the 9ther documentary evidence on          E
record and particularly, that no woman who had a young child
would commit suicide (as had happened in the present case)
unless she had been driven to it by the ill treatment meted out
to her. The accused were, acc:Ordingly, acquitted of the offences
under Section 3048 of the IPC but convicted under Section 306       F
IPC and awarded a sentence of four years. It is the conceded
case that a Special Leave Petition filed by Nachhattar Singh,
the husband, has .·since been dismissed. The present appeal
is thus confined only to the. in-laws i.e. Nirmal Singh and
Harbans Kaur, the appellants before us.                             G
    We have gone through the evidence as also the reasons
given by the High Court to arrive at its conclusions. It will be
seen that the allegations against the accused were that they
had driven the deceased to suicide on account of cruelty which
                                                                    H ·-
    482     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A included demands for dowry. The High Court has rejected the
  story about the demands for dowry but has drawn an inference
  that there must have been some cruelty which had forced a
  young woman to suicide despite the fact that she had a young
  child. We find that in the background of the findings recorded
B while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 3048
  of the IPC, no inferences or presumptions .can be drawn.
  Moreover, a perusal of Section 498A IPC would show that
  cruelty would mean any wilful conduct which was of such a
  nature as was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to
c cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether
  mental or physical) to the woman. We find no evidence on this
  score and it has been so found by the High Court. On the
  contrary, a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6 shows that the
  defence story is in fact reflected in his cross-examination. He
  initially testified that it was wrong to suggest that she did not
0
  want to stay in the village or that she wanted to join service but
  in the very next line he admitted that the reason that the
  deceased was not encouraged to shift to Moga was that as the
  appellants were old they had wanted her to work in the house
E and to look after them. In this view of the matter, we find that
  the wilful conduct referred to above should be of such a nature
  as would provoke a person of common prudence to commit
  suicide and a difference of opinion within a family on everyday
  mundane matters would not fall within that category. We find
  that merely because the appellants were of the opinion that the
F deceased, as a good daughter-in-law, should look after them
  in old age could not be said to an abetment of suicide. The
  presumption against the appellants raised under Section 113A
  of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot thus be drawn. We are,
  therefore, of the opinion that the High Court's judgment suffers
G from serious contradictions. We, accordingly, allow this appeal
  and set aside the conviction of the appellants before us. Their
  bail bonds be discharged.

    D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.
H