Holding

The Court held that the evidence established a dowry demand and the accused’s conduct amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, confirming the conviction while reducing the sentence to three years.

Summary

Randhir Singh and another were convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetting the suicide of their wife, who allegedly died by self‑immolation within seven years of marriage. The prosecution proved that the accused repeatedly demanded additional dowry, threatened a second marriage, and harassed the victim, leading to her suicide. The defence argued that the relationship was cordial, the victim never disclosed the dowry demand to friends, and the complainant lacked the capacity to pay. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of dowry demand and harassment was cogent and sufficient to establish abetment, rejecting the defence’s contentions. While confirming the conviction, the Court reduced the custodial sentence to three years for each appellant.

Issues considered

Whether a demand for dowry and associated harassment can constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the elements of abetment—instigation or intentional aid—are satisfied in the present facts.
Whether the proximity of the dowry demand to the death (within seven years of marriage) is sufficient for conviction.
Whether the victim’s failure to disclose the dowry harassment to friends negates the existence of a demand.
Whether the complainant’s alleged inability to pay dowry affects the proof of demand.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 2
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306, s. 34

Subjects

abetment of suicidedowry demandSection 306 IPCSection 34 IPCDowry Prohibition Actsuicidecriminal convictionevidence assessmentsentencing

Judgment

RANDHIR SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
STA TE OF PUNJAB

OCTOBER 12, 2004

(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860-Section 306 r/w Section 34-Abetment of suicide-
Demand of dowry-Proved-Death occurring within 7 years of marriage-
Conviction by Courts below-On appeal, held: Conviction justified as demand C
is proved-In the facts of the case custodial sentence reduced to 3 years.

Words and Phrases:

'Abetment '-Meaning of in the context of Section 306 !PC

Appellant No.1-accused was married to the deceased, daughter of D
PW-9-informant. It was alleged that from the very beginning of the
marriage the appellants-accused had been making demand of more dowry
and abusing the deceased to bring more money from her parents and used
to threaten her with second marriage in case she did not bring it.
Informant and his wife (PW-12) were told about the demand by their E.
daughter (deceased) several times and they had paid the amount towards
the demand to their daughter which they lrad received by way of
compensation from acquisition of land. PW-10 informed the informant
that deceased had died after putting herself on fire. Death was within 7
years of marriage. FIR was lodged by the complainant. Appellants
alongwith one co-accused was tried for offences u/s 306 r/w Section 34 IPC. F
Plea of the accused was that he had cordial relationship with the deceased.
Defence examined 8 witnesses to substantiate their case. Trial Court
relying upon prosecution version convicted accused-appellants for the
offences charged, but acquitted the co-accused. Appellants-accused filed
appeal while the complainant filed revision petition before High Court. G
High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. Revision
I petition was dismissed.

In appeal to this Court appellants-accused contended that Section
306 IPC has no application to the facts of the case; that plea of the
351 H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A complainant that he had given money is unbelievable in view of his
evidence that he had no capacity to pay dowry; that defence version that
he had cordial relations with the deceased was supported by defence
witnesses (friends of deceased) who had stated that deceased had not made
any statement before them about lack of cordiality or any harassment for
B dowry.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. In view of the elaborate analysis of the evidence of the
trial Court and the High Court there is no infirmity in the conclusion
arrived at regarding guilt of the accused persons. The conviction is,
C therefore, confirmed. However, looking to the peculiar facts of the case
the custodial sentence is reduced to 3 years in each case. (3581-F-G)

2. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy
D 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 IPC.
[358-B-C)

E State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR (1994) SC 1418, relied on.

3. In the present case the evidence of relatives, more particularly,
father and the mother clearly proves demand of dowry. Mere fact that
whatever he had obtained by way of pension or compensation for land
acquisition had been spent, the capacity to pay may be affected. But it
F does not prove that the accused persons did not make a demand.
(357-C-D)

4. In a· tradition and custom bound Indian society no conservative
woman would disclose family discords before a person, however close he
or she may be. Merely because the deceased had not told close friends
G about the demand of dowry or harassment, that does not positively prove
the absence of demand of dowry. The said circumstance has to be weighed
along with the evidence regarding demand of dowry. If the evidence
regarding demand of dowry is established, is cogent and reliable, merely
because the victim had not stated before some persons about the
H harassment or torture that would be really of no consequence. (357-A-BI
RANDHIR SINGH v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [PASA YAT, J .] 353
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 641 A
of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Crl. A. No. 819-SB of 1986.

Ranjit Kumar, B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh and Goodwill Indeevar, with B
him for the Appellant.

Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh and Bimal Roy Jad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. By the impugned judgment the conviction of C
the appellant who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the 'IPC') was upheld though sentence in respect of appellant no. 2 was
reduced. While the trial court had imposed sentence of imprisonment for five
years and fine of Rs. 3000 each with default stipulation, the High Court by D
the impugned judgment maintained sentence so far as appellant no. 1 but
reduced the sentence so far as appellant no. 2 is concerned.

It is to be noted that the two cases were disposed of by the common
judgment. Criminal appeal no. 819 SB/86 was filed by the accused-appellants

- while Criminal revision No. 441/87 was filed by the informant questioning
correctness of acquittal of co-accused Gurdev Singh.

Background facts as unfolded during trial are as follows:
E

Pirthipal Singh (PW-9) father of Smt. Devinderjit Kaur (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased') alleged in the complaint filed before the police F
that he is resident of village Burail. He had one son, namely, Kulquant Singh
and one daughter i.e. the deceased. Deceased was married with Randhir
Singh (Accused-appellant no. 1). From this wedlock two sons, namely, Balraj
Singh and Ranpreet Singh were born. The complainant alleged that at the
time of engagement of his daughter one bangle (kara) weighing 3 Tolas, one
ring weighing one Tola and Rs. 50 I in cash were given to Shri Randhir Singh G
... appellant. Gold Jewellery weighing 20 Tolas, T.V., Bajaj Chetak Scooter
costing Rs. 13000, one Godrej Almirah, furniture and utensils etc. were given
to his daughter, the deceased and son-in law accused Randhir Singh on the
day of marriage. Gurdev Singh, father of Randhir Singh, Smt. Narhbai Kaur
(appellant no. 2), mother of Randhir Singh and Randhir Singh appellant had H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A started abusing his daughter from the very beginning after the marriage on
the pretext that she should bring more money from the house of her parents.
The complainant used to assure his daughter that he would meet the demand
of the accused subject to the availability of the funds. The complainant received
a sum of Rs. 16000 by way of compensation as the share of his land in the
l
year 1982. Randhir Singh (appellant no. 1) compelled the deceased to bearing
B the money from her parents, otherwise he sould arrange a second marriage.
Deceased came to village Burail and narrated this story to her father Prithipal
Singh, her mother Smt. Gurjit Kaur (PW-12) and her uncle Shri Bhopal
Singh. She further told her parents that her husband only used to pay her bus
fare from salary. Appellants had sent her in order to bring Rs. 15000 and
c have also warned her that if she did not bring the money dire consequences
would follow. Upon this the complainant made a payment of Rs. 5000 to his
daughter and assured her that the remaining amount would be paid thereafter.
After sometime, the complainant and his wife came to the house of Randhir
Singh in order to see their daughter, the deceased at Kharar. When they
entered the house, they saw accused-appellant Randhir Singh and Smt. Nirbhai
D Kaur giving taunts to the deceased to bring more money. The complainant
and his wife made them understand that they were poor persons and assured
them that they would pay more money on receipt of second instalment of
compP.nsation. Then the complainant received Rs. 22,000 as cost of the

E
acquired land and he and his wife came to Kharar along with a sum of Rs.
5000 and gave it to the deceased. The accused told the complainant to pay
at least Rs. 20,000 so that their daughter may live comfortably. Upon this the
complainant told them that they were poor persons and they were not in a
..
position to pay the huge money. On 3.2.1985 the deceased again went to the
house of her parents in village Burail and told them that accused-appellant
Randhir Singh and Smt. Narbhai Kaur had sent her to bring more money and
F also told that they had warned her that in case she did not bring the money,
she would not be allowed to live. It was further told to the complainant by
the deceased that her life was miserable and that she was being abused every
time. PW-9 assured her that he along with his wife would visit very shortly
the house of her in-laws after making arrangement of the money. On 72.1985
G the complainant was present at his house in village Burail when one Bahadur
Singh (PW-10) came and told the complainant that the deceased had died
... after putting herself to fire. Upon this complainant, Bahadur Singh, Kamai! ....
Singh son of Hazure Singh, resident of Mohali, went to the house of Randhir
Singh at Kharar and they saw that the deceased was lying dead in a burnt
condition and her dead body was lying in a Kothri at the backside of the
H house. Jn-laws of the deceased had not sent any information to him. Thereafter
RANDHIRSINGHv. STATEOFPUNJAB[PASAYAT, J.] 355

the complaints proceeded for the Police Station but on the way S.I. Jaspal A
Singh (PW-17), met him and complainant Prithipal Singh made a statement
(Ex.PK) before him. It was recorded, read over and explained to the
complainant and vide endorsement (Ex.PK/I) it was sent for registration of
the case and on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PK/I) was recorded.
Thereafter the Investgating Officer along with ASI Aran Debv (PW-4), AS1 B
Ram Pal and other police officials visited the sopot. He arranged for takiflg
photographs and two photographs of the dead body were taken. Inquest report
(Ex.PB) of the dead body was prepared. If was sent for post-mortem
examination vide request (Ex~PC). The doctor conducted autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report (Ex.PA). In the opinion
of the doctor, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of extensive bums, C
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The
injuries were ante-mortem and the doctor also preserved viscera of the deceased
and it was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who vide report
(Ex.PD) detected aluminium phoshide weighing 46.0 mgms. and 18 mgms in
the stomach and large and small intestines, respectively.
D
The appellants along with their co-accused Gurdev Sirigh were challaned
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC in the Court of the Illaqa
Magistrate who vide commitment order dated 11.10.1985 committed them to
the Court of sessions. Appellants and their companion Shri Gurdev Singh
were charge sheeted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
E
Initially there were 3 accused persons but accused Gurdev Singh was
acquitted by the trial court. In order to substantiate its accusations, prosecution
examined 17 witnesses. Dr. Arun Chawla (PW-I) who conducted the post
mortem along with Dr. S. Chadha (PW-3) was associated with post mortem
examination. Father of the deceased was examined as PW-9 while her mother F
Gurjit Kaur was examined as PW-12. The accused persons took the plea that
the acquitted Gurdev Singh was not present at the spot at the relevant time
as in the morning he was gone to Chandigarh for medical treatment of his
father. Accµsed Randhir Singh also denied his involvement. His specific
stand was that he had cordial relationship with his wife. Prior to the incident
on the previous evening the deceased was seen moving in the company of a G
stranger. His friend Hari Singh who was examined as DW-7 had also seen
her then. When Randhir Singh enquired from her as to what was her
relationship with the stranger, her reply was unsatisfactory. He told her that
he would be telling her parents. This query was real reason for which she
took the extreme step to commit suicide. Randhir Singh stated that he was H
F

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A not present on that day. In order to substantiate their version the accused
persons examined 8 witnesses.

The trial court relied upon the prosecution version and convicted the
two accused-appellants while directing acquittal of Gurdev Singh. The appeal
by the accused persons and the revision by the infon,iant was taken up
B together by the High Court; which found that offence punishable under Section
306 read with Section 34 IPC was clearly made out. Therefore, the convict~on
was maintained. But the sentence as aforesaid was reduced. The criminal
revision was dismissed.

In support of the appeal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
C submitted that Section 306 IPC has no application to the facts of the present
case. It was submitted that with respect to evidence of the informant when
he had no capacity to pay dowry, the plea that he gave the money is
unbelievable. NSCs were purchased in the joint names of the wife and the
husband and joint savings accounts were opened into he names of the children.
D The relationship is thus established to be cordial. The basic requirement of
Section 306 IPC is demand for dowry "soon before the death". In other
words, there must be a proximity. The cordial relationship is borne out from
the record that appellant no. I used to visit the deceased and their children
when she was in the house of the informant. The defence witnesses as
examined clearly stated that at no point of time, the deceased had made any
E statement before them about lack of cordiality or any harassment for dowry.
The defence version that she was upset when questioned about her movement
with the stranger is established by the evidence of DW-7. It was pointed out
that the deceased had come to stay with the appellants. That itself shows that
the relationship was extremely courdial and normal.
F
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that merely because
the victim has not disclosed her anguish that in no way affects credibility of
the evidence tendered by the father, mother and other relatives about the
demand of dowry. The fact that the deceased came to live with her husband
is no proof of cordiality, and it was because of family compulsion. The elder
G child had been taken away by the husband and, therefore, not to be separated
from her son, the deceased had come back. It was submitted that the demands
of dowry continued unabated and the suicide was on account of victim not
being able to any further bear torture or harassment. Accordingly, it was
submitted that the appellants have been rightly convicted.

H Great stress was laid on the victim's statement having not expressed
RANDHIRSINGHv. STATE OF PUNJAB [PASAYAT, J.] 357

before her friends about a harassment. In a tradition and custom bound India A
society no conservative woman would disclose family discards before a person,
however close he or she may be. Merely because the deceased had not told
friends about the demand of dowry or harassment this does not positively
prove the absence of demand of dowry. The said circumstance has to be
weight all with the evidence regarding demand of dowry. If evidence regarding B
demand of dowry. If evidence regarding demand of dowry is established,
cogent and reliable merely because the victim had stated before some persons
about the harassment torture that would be really of no consequence.

In the present case th~ evidence of relation more particularly, father
and the mother clearly pr demand or fowry. Mere fact that whatever he C
obtained by way of pension or compensation for acquisition had been spent,
the capacity to pay may affected. But it does not prove that the act persons
did not make a demand. Trial court and the Court have considered this aspect
and given pos finding about the demand of dowry having established. The
death occurred during 7 years marriage. Section 306 IPC deals with abetmer
suicide. The said provision reads as follows: D
"306 Abetment of suicide.

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the 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 E
fine."

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Dowry Act')
defines "dowry" as under:-

Section 2 Definition of 'dowry'- In this Act, 'dowry' meaT1s any F
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly
or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage:
or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other G
person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in
the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Explanation I For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the
marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles,
shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section,
unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said
parties.
B
Explanation II The expression 'valuab:e security' has the same meaning
in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1980)."

Abetment involves a mental process of insigating a person or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of-a thing. In cases of conspiracy
C also it would involve that mental process of entering into.conspiracy for the
doing of that thing. More active role which can be described a5 ·instigating
or adiding the doing of a thing it required before a parson can be said to be
abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

D In state of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal, A'IR (1994) SC 1418 this
Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing
the fae<ts. 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 committil(g suicide was hypersensitive to. ordinary
E petulance, Ciiscord and differences in doiniestiv life quite common to the
society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and
differences were not expected to ihduce 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
F offence of suicide should be found gu~lty._

In view of the elaborate. analysis of the evidence of the trial court and
the high Court we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at
regarding guilt of the accused persons. The convict.ion is, therefore, confirmed.
However, looking. to the peculiar facts of the case the custodial sentence is
G reduced to 3 years in each case. .

Jhe appeal is disposed of accordingly.

K.K.T. Appeal disposed .of.