http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  720 of 2007

PETITIONER: Bhagwan Das

RESPONDENT: Kartar Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/05/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 720 of 2007 (Arising out of  SLP (Crl.) No.424 of 2007)

Markandey Katju, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Delhi High Court dated 18.7.2006 in Criminal Revision No.188 of 2005.   The said judgment was delivered on a Criminal Revision filed by the  accused appellant against the order of the learned Sessions Judge,  Karkardooma Court dated 28.2.2005 framing charges under Section  306/498/34 IPC against the accused persons.   

3.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.      The prosecution case is that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd  March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at about 2.00  a.m. by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home.   It is alleged that she married Mangal Singh (since deceased) on 23.1.1992  and a girl child was born to them in the year 1999.  Soon thereafter, in an  accident, the said Mangal Singh became paralysed.  It appears that the  deceased (Shobha) did not leave any suicide note.  It is the case of the  prosecution that after her marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing  less dowry and was being harassed on account therefore.  A sum of  Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been given by her father a few days after her  marriage to Mangal Singh for his business as he was allegedly unemployed.   It is further the case of the prosecution that Mangal Singh squandered the  said sum of Rs.50,000/- in gambling and drinking and thereafter he raised a  further demand of Rs.2 lakhs which could not be fulfilled.  The prosecution  also alleges that Shobha was ill-treated and harassed by the present  petitioners as she was not able to give birth to a child and this harassment  continued till 1999 when she gave birth to a girl child as mentioned above.   Till 1999, Shobha was being subjected to mental cruelty by being told that  her husband would be married elsewhere.  It is further alleged by the  prosecution that since Mangal Singh, shortly after the birth of the girl child,  was paralysed on account of an accident, the deceased (Shobha) was being  taunted that she gave birth to a girl child which brought bad luck to the  petitioners.  It is these circumstances which, according to the prosecution,  drove the said Shobha to commit suicide.  On the basis of these allegations,  the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the following conclusion :

"I am of the prima facie opinion that the cumulative  effect of the prolonged ill-treatment and harassment of  Shobha compelled her to commit suicide."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

5.      As already stated above, the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated  28.2.2005 framed charges under Section 306/498/34 IPC against the four   accused persons namely Kartar Singh, Smt. Panno Devi, Subhash and  Arvind.  Kartar Singh is the father-in-law of the deceased Shobha, Panno  Devi is her mother-in-law, Subhash and Arvind are her devars (brothers of  her husband Mangal Singh).  Admittedly the husband of the deceased  Shobha, Mangal Singh, has died.   

6.      The High Court has held that no charge under Section 306/34 IPC was  made out and it has set aside the charge.  However, it remitted the matter  regarding framing of charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC to the learned  Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and we are informed that said charge has  seen been framed.

7.      This appeal has been filed by the Bhagwan Das, who is the father of  the deceased Shobha.  It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant  that the charge under Section 306 was made out and hence the same should  have been quashed.  We do not agree.  

8.      The only allegation against the appellant was that they harassed the  deceased Shobha because she did not bring adequate dowry.  Hence, it is  submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this amounted to  abetment to suicide and hence was covered under Section 306 IPC, read with  S. 107.  

9.      The word "abetment" has been defined in Section 107 IPC as follows: "Abetment of a thing \026 A person abets the doing of a  thing, who \026

First   - Instigates any person to do that thing; or,

Secondly \026 Engages with one or more other person or  persons in any conspiracy for the 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 \026 Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal  omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 \026 A person who, by willful  misrepresentation, or by willful 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  thing.

Explanation 2 \026 Whoever, either prior to or at the time  of the commission of an act, does anything in order to  facilitate the commission of the act, and thereby  facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing  of the act."

10.     Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this  Court in Brij Lal  vs.  Prem Chand & Anr. AIR 1989 SC 1661.  In that  case it was held that :

"Where there was overwhelming evidence that the   accused had made the life of his wife intolerable by  constantly demanding money and made it clear to her  that if she wanted to die, she may do so on very same day  and give him relief forthwith, thereby spurring her and  goading her to commit suicide, the case would squarely  fall under the first category of abetment under Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

107."

11.     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the  decisions referred to in the impugned judgment.  Thus in Netai Dutta  vs.   State of West Bengal JT 2005(3) SC 46, where a suicide note was involved,  this Court came to the conclusion that in the suicide note there was no  reference of any act or incident whereby the appellant was alleged to have  committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the  deceased to have committing suicide.  Hence, it was held that there was no  abetment to suicide.

12.     Similarly, in Mahendra Singh & Anr.  vs.  State of M.P. 1995  Supp.(3) SCC 731, it was observed by this Court that it is common  knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment or  in anger cannot be treated as constituting mens rea.  In that case the  appellant said to the deceased "to go and die".  As a result of such utterance,  the deceased went and committed suicide.  However, the Supreme Court  observed that no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC  was made out because there was no element of mens rea.

13.     In Randhir Singh & Anr.  vs.  State of Punjab 2004(13) SCC 129,  it was observed that "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."

14.     In the same decision it was observed following the decision in State  of West Bengal  vs.  Orilal Jaiswal 1994(1) SCC 73 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 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 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."

15.     In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct.  It often  happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a  wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws.  This, however, in our  opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306  IPC read with Section 107 IPC.  

16.     However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to  differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if  the wife commits suicide.  Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High  Court.  We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of  dowry soon before her death then Section 304B IPC  may  be  attracted,   whether  it  is  a case  of  homicide  or  suicide.   Vide Kans Raj  vs.  State  of Punjab & Ors.  2000(5) SCC 207, Satvir Singh & Ors.  vs.  State of  Punjab & Anr.  2001(8) SCC 633,  Smt. Shanti & Anr.  vs.  State of  Haryana  AIR 1991 SC 1261.

17.     In the present case, since no charge under Section 304B has been  framed, obviously the accused cannot be convicted under that provision.

18.     In view of the above, there is no force in the appeal and hence it is  dismissed.  We, however, make it clear that we are not approving or  justifying harassment of wives by their husbands or in-laws, but are only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

clarifying the law in the peculiar facts of this case as it stands today.   Whether the law should be amended is for the legislature to decide.  Appeal  dismissed.