http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: GURBACHAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SATPAL SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1989

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  209            1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 292  1990 SCC  (1) 445        JT 1989 (4)    38  1989 SCALE  (2)677

ACT:     Criminal  Trial--Criminal charge must be  brought  home- Proved  beyond  all reasonable doubt-abetment  separate  and distinct offence--Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law.

HEADNOTE:     Ravinder  Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh was  married to  Satpal Singh in November, 1962. She died on  25th  June, 1983  at about 2.30 P.M. It was alleged, she committed  sui- cide  because of the harassment, constant taunts  and  cruel behaviour  of her in-laws towards her and persistent  demand for  dowry and insinnuations that she was carrying an  ille- gitimate  child.  It is alleged, provoked by  the  aforesaid conduct and behaviour she committed suicide. The  father-in- law, mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased have been the abetters of the crime and the deceased died of second to third degree burns.     The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the totality of evidence  on  record held that the accused  were  guilty  of abetment to suicide and as such punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. On appeal by the accused the High Court was of the  view that the guilt of the accused had not been  proved and as such acquitted them.     The complainant and father of the deceased aggrieved  by the  order of the High Court preferred these appeals by  way of  special  leave to appeal. This Court  holding  that  the order of acquittal made by the High Court is not sustainable and  affirming the conviction of the accused  under  section 306  of  I.P.C. and the sentence imposed by  the  Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,     HELD: (Per Sabyasachi Mukharji J. ) Abetment is a  sepa- rate  and distinct offence provided the thing abetted is  an offence. Abetment does not involve the actual commission  of the crime abetted; it is a crime apart. [295G]     Criminal charges must be brought home and proved  beyond all  reasonable  doubts. While civil case may be  proved  by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases the prose- cution must prove the 293 charge  beyond reasonable doubt. There must not be any  ’re-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

asonable  doubt’ of the guilt of the accused in  respect  of the particular offence charged. The courts must strictly  be satisfied  that no innocent person-innocent in the sense  of not  being guilty of the offence of which he is  charged--is convicted.  even at the risk of letting of some guilty  per- sons.  Even after the introduction of S. 493A of the  I.P.C. and  S. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof  must  be beyond  any  shadow of reasonable doubt. There is  a  higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but there  is  no  absolute standard in  either  of  the  cases. [296C-F]     The  standard adopted must be the standard adopted by  a prudent  man which, of course, may vary from case  to  case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to  the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts of lingering  suspicions  and thereby destroy  social  defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to  let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.  Let- ting  guilty escape is not doing justice, according to  law. [296F]     (Per  B.C. Ray, J): Circumstantial evidence as  well  as the prosecution witnesses in the instant case clearly  prove beyond doubt that the accused instigated and abetted Ravind- er  Kaur, deceased in the commission of the offence by  com- mitting suicide by burning herself. [306G]     The findings arrived at by the Trial Court after consid- ering  and weighing the entire evidences are  unexceptional. The findings arrived at by the High Court without  consider- ing  properly  the circumstantial evidence as  well  as  the evidences of the prosecution witnesses cannot be  sustained. As  such  the findings of the High Court are  liable  to  be reversed and set aside. [306H; 307A]     The  suicide  having been committed within a  period  of seven years from the date of her marriage in accordance with the provisions of Section 113A the Court may presume  having regard to all the other circumstances of the case that  such suicide  had been abetted by the husband and his  relations. Therefore,  the findings arrived at by the  Additional  Ses- sions  Judge are quite in accordance with the provisions  of this  section  and the findings of the High Court  that  the accused  persons  could not be held to  have  instigated  or abetted  the  commission of offence, is not  sustainable  in law. [308C-D]     Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was inserted  in the Statute Book by Act 46 of 1983 whereas the offence under Section  306,  I.P.C. was committed on June, 23,  1983  i.e. prior to the insertion of the 294 said provisions in the Indian Evidence Act. [308E]     Bardendra  Kumar  Ghosh,  52 ILR Cal.  197.  Mancini  v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1942] AC 1. Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462, Bater v. Bater,  [1950]  2 AET 458 at 459. Wazir Chand  and  Anr.  v. State  of Haryana with State of Haryana v. Wazir  Chand  and Anr.,  [1989]  I SCC 244, Sat Pal v.  Delhi  Administration, [1976]  2  SCR 11 at 30. Blyth v. Blyth,  [1966]  A.C.  643. Herridge’  v.  Herridge, [1966] I AER 93, Brij Lal  v.  Prem Chand  & Anr. JT. 1989 3 SC 1, Halsbury’s Laws  of  England, 4th Edn. Vol. 44 P. 510 & P. 574, refered to.

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  Nos. 600-601 of 1989.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

   From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  13.3.1986  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Revn. No. 434 and 1295 of 1984.     Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Pinky Anand and D.N. Goburdhah for the Appellant. R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Respondents. The following Judgments of the Court were delivered     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,  J.  Ravinder  Kaur,  daughter  of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Amritsar, was married to Satpal Singh  in  November, 1982. She died on 25th  June,  1983  at about  2.30  p.m.  She, it was  alleged,  committed  suicide because of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws soon after her marriage.  She used to visit her parents’ at Amritsar  occa- sionally and during those visits she used to tell them  that there  was demand for dowry and also taunting of her by  the members  of the family of her in-laws and  also  insinuation that  she  was  carrying on illegitimate  child.  There  are sufficient, relevant and acceptable evidence to that effect. It  is  alleged that provoked by the aforesaid  conduct  and behaviour-, she committed suicide. The father-in-law,  moth- er-in-law  and  the  husband of the accused  have  been  the abettors to the crime. The evidence further established that she  died of second to third degree burns on the  body,  and there was sprawling of kerosene oil on her body and the body was  burnt by fire. Accused no. 3--Smt. Kamal Dip Kaur,  the mother-in-law of the deceased and the mother of the  accused Satpal Singh, stated in her statement under s. 3 13 Cr. P.C. that  she  was lying in her house at that time and  the  de- ceased was 295 cooking  food on a kerosene stove, and as such the  deceased caught fire accidentally.     Learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that there was absence of burn injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law  and other  members of the family. As mentioned before,  the  de- ceased  was married in November, 1982. After  marriage,  she used to stay in the house of her-in-laws at Raja Sansi.  The deceased used to visit the house of her parents at  Amritsar occasionally, as noted before. During these visits she  used to tell them that her-in-laws were not happy with the  dowry given  to  the latter. It is further on  evidence..that  she complained  that her in-laws used to taunt her and  insisted her  tO bring more dowry. It is stated that  she  complained that  the in-laws taunted her that at the time of  the  mar- riage, her parents did not serve proper meals to the in-laws and their guests. It is further stated that the accused used to  tell  her that they had been offered by fridge  etc.  by other parties for the marriage of the accused while she  had not  brought dowry expected from her parents. It is also  on evidence that she was often openly threatened that she would be  turned out of the house in case she did not  bring  more articles.  These  were all established by  the  evidence  of Gurbachan  Singh, father of the deceased and his two  daugh- ters.  It was insinuated of her by the accused that she  was carrying an illegitimate child.     On the totality of these evidence on record, it was held by  the learned Sessions Judge that the accused were  guilty of  abetment to suicide and as such punishable under s.  306 of the I.P.C. The High Court on appeal was of the view  that the  guilt of the accused had not been proved, and  as  such acquitted them.     The  first thing that is necessary for proving  the  of- fence  is  the fact of suicide. Abetment is a  separate  and distinct  offence provided the thing abetted is an  offence. Abetment does not involve the actual commission of the crime

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

abetted; it is a crime apart. See the observations of Baren- dra Kumar Ghosh, 52 ILR Cal. 197. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no direct evidence of the  act of suicide by Ravinder Kaur. There, indeed, could not be  in the circumstances in which she died. She was in the house of her in-laws. There is ample and sufficient evidence that she had  complained  that she was taunted  for  bringing  meager dowry  and  that even insinuated that she was  carrying  ’an illegitimate  child’. The aforesaid facts stand  established by cogent and reliable evidence. These are grave and serious provocation  enough for an ordinary woman in the Indian  set up, to do 296 what  the  deceased is alleged.to have done. There  is  also evidence  that the persons in the house of her  in-laws  in- cluding  the  mother-in-law-mother  of  the  accused  Satpal Singh,  made no attempt to save her from the burn  injuries. The  absence of any burn injury in the hands of  the  people around, indicates and establishes that there was no  attempt to  save the deceased though she was seen being  burnt.  The evidence  of  attitude  and  conduct  of  the   in-laws--the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband after  Ravinder Kaur,  the deceased, got burns in not informing the  parents and  not  taking prompt steps to take her  to  hospital  for giving  medical  assistance corroborate the  inference  that these  accused  connived  and abetted  the  crime.  Criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all  reasona- ble doubt. While civil case may be proved by mere preponder- ance  of  evidence, in criminal cases the  prosecution  must prove  the  charge beyond reasonable doubt. See  Mancini  v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1942] AC 1, Woolmington v. The  Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462.  It  is true even today, as much as it was before. There must not be any  ’reasonable  doubt’ about the guilt of the  accused  in respect  of the particular offence charged. The courts  must strictly  be satisfied that no innocent person, innocent  in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he  is charged,  is convicted, even at the risk of letting of  some guilty  persons. Even after the introduction of s.  498A  of the I.P.C. and s. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof must  be beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There  is  a higher  standard  of proof in criminal cases than  in  civil cases,  but there is no absolute standard in either  of  the cases.  See  the observations of Lord Denning  in  Bater  v. Bater,  [1950] 2 AER 458 at 459 but the doubt must be  of  a reasonable  man. The standard adopted must be  the  standard adopted  by  a prudent man which, of course, may  vary  from case  to case, circumstances to  circumstances.  Exaggerated devotion  to the rule of benefit of doubt must  not  nurture fancilful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social  defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the  plea that  it is better to let hundred guilty escape than  punish an  innocent.  Letting guilty escape is not  doing  justice, according to law.     The  conscience of the court can never be bound  by  any rule  but that is coming itself dictates  the  consciousness and  prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable  doubt  is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a  reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of  the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. 297     Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there is no direct evidence indicating the circumstances in which the death took place, the conduct of the accused and the  nature

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

of  the  crime  with which the accused  was  charged,  there cannot be any scope of doubt that the learned Sessions Judge was right and the conviction was properly made. This is  not a case where there could be two views possible on the  facts found  and  on the facts which could not possibly  be  found because  of  i,the nature of the offence. The fact  the  two view are reasonably possible, is not established by the fact that two different conclusions are reached by two  adjudica- tory authorities. The factum of that may be only a piece  of evidence, but whether two views at all are possible or  not, has  to be judged in all circumstances by the Judge, by  the logic  of the facts found in the background of law. For  the reasons  aforesaid, I respectfully agree with  the  judgment and order proposed by my learned brother. RAY, J. Special leave granted.     These  appeals are at the instance of  Gurbachan  Singh, the  complainant  against the judgment and order  passed  in Criminal  Appeal  No. 434 SB of 1984 by the  High  Court  of Punjab  & Haryana at Chandigarh acquitting  the  accused-re- spondents  of  the charge under s. 306 of the  Indian  Penal Code on setting aside the conviction and sentence passed  by the  Additional Session Judge on August 9,  1984  convicting and  sentencing all the accused. The appeal was  allowed  on holding  that there was no evidence on record that  the  ac- cused at the time of commission of suicide by Ravinder Kant, in  any way instigated or abetted her to commit suicide  and as  such  the  prosecution failed to  establish  the  charge against  the accused and their conviction  consequently  can not be sustained.     The  prosecution  case is that  the  deceased,  Ravinder Kaur,  daughter  of  Gurbachan Singh,  the  complainant  was married  to Satpal Singh in November, 1982. After  marriage, Ravinder Kaur started living in the house of her in-laws  at Raja  Sansi. She used to visit the house of her  parents  at Amritsar  occasionally and during these visits, she used  to tell  them  that her in-laws were not happy with  the  dowry given to her and they used to taunt her and insisted her  to bring  more dowry and that they even used to taunt her  that her  parents at the time of the marriage did not serve  them with  proper meals. The accused also used to tell  her  that they were being offered Fridge etc. by the other parties  in the  marriage of Accused Satpal Singh and that she  has  not brought  the dowry expected from her parents. She was  often told 298 by  them that she would be turned out of the house, in  case she did not bring more articles.     In November, 1982, Gurbachan Singh visited the house  of her in-laws at Raja Sansi where his daughter complained that the behaviour of her in-laws towards her was not cordial and that  they  were maltreating her for  bringing  insufficient dowry  and  they even taunted her that she was  carrying  an illegitimate child. Hearing these complaints from her daugh- ter,  Gurbachan Singh brought her daughter to his  house  at Amritsar,  one day prior to Baisakhi, 1983 and his  daughter continued  to  remain  at his house for  about  eight  days. There-.  after  Satpal Singh, his  father  Harbhajan  Singh, accused  and  his  mother Smt. Kanwal Dip  Kaur  along  with Harjit Singh, and Mohinder Singh, maternal uncles of  Satpal Singh  came to the house of Gurbachan Singh at Amritsar  and pursuaded that he should send Ravinder kaur with them where- upon Gurbachan Singh told them that his daughter  complained against  the ill-treatment and cruel behaviour  towards  her for  bringing insufficient dowry and they also  taunted  her for  this  as  well as for her illegitimate  child  and  put

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

pressure on her to bring more dowry. So he was reluctant  to send  her  daughter  back to her  in-laws.  Gurbachan  Singh called Ved Prakash, President of the Mohalla Committee, Smt. Raj  Kumari, a social worker living in the neighbourhood  of Gurbachan  Singh and one Ramesh Kumar to his house  and  all these complaints and grievances were repeated in presence of these  persons. The accused assured him that in future  they would  not  maltreat  and taunt her and that  he  would  not receive  any complaint against them. They also  assured  him that  in future they would not ask her to bring more  dowry. On these assurances of the accused, Gurbachan Singh sent his daughter  with the accused to Raja Sansi, the house  of  the accused.     For  about two months, Gurbachan Singh did  not  receive any  information  from his daughter and so he sent  his  two daughters Surjit Kaur and Sajinder Kaur to Raja Sansi to the house  of the in:laws of Ravinder Kaur to enquire about  her welfare.  The said daughters of Gurbachan Singh went to  the house of the in-laws of Ravinder Kaur on June 23, 1983  that is,  two days prior to the death of Ravinder Kaur.  The  de- ceased complained to them about the torture as well as cruel behaviour  of  her  in-laws, as before  and  they  have  not stopped  maltreating her and torturing her and she  was  not happy  there. On June 25, 1983 at about 6.30 p.m.,  Mohinder Singh,  maternal uncle of Satpal Singh came to the  shop  of Gurbachan Singh at Amritsar and informed him that his daugh- ter committed suicide by sprinkling 299 kerosene  oil on her body and then setting herself  on  fire and  that  she was  lying at S.G.T.B.   Hospital,  Amritsar. Gurbachan  Singh immediately went to the hospital and  found the  dead body of her daughter lying in the dead  house.  It has  been  alleged that Ravinder Kaur committed  suicide  on June  25,  1983 at 2.30 p.m. having fed up  with  the  cruel behaviour  of her in-laws. The appellant alongwith the  mem- bers of his family stayed in the hospital. On June 26, 1983, Gurmeet  Singh,  A.S.I. Police Station, Ajnala came  to  the dead house at Amritsar at about 5 p.m. and examined the dead body of Ravinder Kaur. He recorded the statements of  Gurba- chan Singh, Ved Prakash and Ramesh Kumar.     The  statement of Gurbachan Singh was reproduced in  the Roznamcha,  and  the statements of Gurbachan Singh  and  Ved Prakash,  President  of  the Mohalla  Sudhar  Committee  and Ramesh Kumar though disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence  by  the accused yet Gurmit Singn, A.S.I.  and  even Shri Iqbal Singh Dhillon, D.S.P., Ajnala Police Station  did not register the case for extraneous reasons.     On June 27, 1983, Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal, Medical  Offi- cer,  Police  Hospital, Amritsar conducted the  post  mortem examination on the dead body of Ravinder Kaur and found  2nd to third degree burns on the body of deceased.     Gurbachan Singh alongwith his daughters and Raj  Kumari, Ramesh Kumar, Ved Prakash and others met the S.S.P. Amritsar in  this regard and the investigation of the case  was  then entrusted  by S.S.P. to Shri Surjit Singh, S.P. (Head  Quar- ters)  Amritsar who summoned Gurbachan Singh and other  per- sons and recorded their statements on July 23, 1983.     All the three accused were charged for an offence  under s. 306 of the Indian Penal Code and they pleaded not  guilty to  the charge framed against them. The accused no.  3  Smt. Kanwal  Dip  Kaur, the mother of the accused,  Satpal  Singh stated  in her statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. that she  was lying in her house at the time and the deceased was  cooking food in the kitchen on a kerosene stove and she caught  fire accidentally.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

   The  learned  Additional Sessions Judge  held  that  the absence   of  burn  injuries  on  the  fingertips   of   the mother-in-law or other members of the family as evident from the statement of D.W. 1, Jaswant Singh, 300 ruled  out  the story of accidental fire as set  up  by  the defence.  He further held referring to the provisions of  s. 113A of the Evidence Act that having regard to the facts and circumstances  of the case it may be presumed that  the  ac- cused  persons  have abetted the suicide  committed  by  the deceased  and they fail to reverse this prosecution case  by any  evidence. Accordingly, the Additional  Sessions  Judge, Amritsar  convicted  the accused under s. 306 IPC  and  sen- tenced  them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five  years each  and  to  pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each,  in  default  of payment  of  fine  the accused shall be  further  liable  to rigorous imprisonment for four months.     The accused-respondents preferred an appeal being Crimi- nal  Appeal No. 454 of 1984 in the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana.  The  appeal  was allowed and  the  conviction  and sentence  was set aside on the ground that  the  prosecution failed to establish the charge against the accused  persons. Hence  this  appeal by special leave has been filed  by  the complainant.     It  has been contended by the learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of the appellant that the cruel  behaviour,  mal- treatment and taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry  have been  made  to the deceased, Ravinder Kaur, soon  after  her coming  to the house of her in-laws. It has also been  urged that  in November, 1982 she complained of her in-laws’  iII- treatment  and taunts to his father and her father took  her to his house. It has also been urged that the accused Satpal Singh  and  his  father accused Harbhajan  Singh  and  other relatives  of  the accused met the deceased  father  at  his house and requested him to send his daughter to the house of her  in-laws and assured them that they would  not  maltreat her or taunt her or torture her for not bringing  sufficient dowry.  These assurances were given in the presence  of  Ved Prakash, the President of the Mohalla Sudhar Committee,  and Raj Kumari, a social worker and one Ramesh Kumar.  Gurbachan Singh,  father of the deceased on these assurances given  by the accused and their relations sent his daughter,  Ravinder Kuar  to her in laws house. It has also been urged  that  on June  23,  1983 the two daughters Surjit Kaur  and  Sujinder Kaur  were sent by Gurbachan Singh to the house of  the  in- laws  of Ravinder Kaur to enquire about her welfare.  Surjit Kaur,  PW-7  stated in her statement under s. 161  Cr.  P.C. that her sister Ravinder Kaur complained them about the same iII-treatment  by her husband continuing in the same  manner as  before and as such she was not happy. This was  reported by them to their father at Amritsar. It has also been  urged that  all the three accused taunted the  deceased,  Ravinder Kaur that she was carrying an illegitimate child. Being 301 depressed  with these taunts and iII-treatment the  deceased committed  suicide by sprinkling kerosene on her person  and setting her to fire. The evidences of PW-4 Gurbachan  Singh, father of the deceased and the evidence of PW-7 Surjeet Kaur as well as evidence of PW-6 Raj Kumari were duly  considered by  the  trial court and the trial court clearly  found  the accused  persons guilty of the offence of abetting the  sui- cide  committed by the deceased. The court of  appeal  below had  wrongly  found  that the prosecution  could  not  prove charge  against the accused and set aside the order of  con- viction  and sentence made by the trial court and  acquitted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

the  accused. It has been urged in this connection that  the defence  that  it was a case of accidental fire and  not  of suicide  was  also not believed by the trial court  and  the trial  court gave very cogent and plausible reasons for  not believing  this  story  and holding that it was  a  case  of suicide  committed  by  the deceased Ravinder  Kaur  by  the taunts and ill-treatment made to her by her in laws and this forced  her  to take her own life by suicide.  It  has  been submitted  that the accused have abetted the  commission  of suicide  by  Ravinder Kaur, deceased and  the  accused  are, therefore, guilty of the said charge. The order of acquittal made  by the High Court is not sustainable in these  circum- stances.     The learned counsel, Mr. R.C. Kohli has made three  fold submissions before this Court. The first submission is  that the case of suicide committed by the deceased Ravinder  Kaur was  not proved and as such the conviction on the charge  of s.  306 I.P.C. as made by the trial court was  not  sustain- able. He has further submitted that the prosecution has  not proved beyond reasonable doubts that the deceased  committed suicide.  The  next submission made is  that  the  evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution are meagre and do  not prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased Ravinder Kaur. The prosecution did not prove that  there  was  any instigation  by  the  accused  persons charged  with the offence in this case. The High  Court  has rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingre- dients of s. 306 of the IPC and acquitted the accused of the charge  under s. 306. This order of acquittal should not  be interfered  with by this Court in this appeal. It  has  been lastly contended that if two reasonable views could be taken of  evidences,  one in favour of the accused and  the  other against  them  the appellate court should not  interfere  in such case and set aside the order of acquittal.     As regards the first submission that the case of suicide has  not been proved, it is relevant to mention that in  the FIR (Ex. PF) lodged by the complainant it has been  specifi- cally stated that due to constant 302 harassment  of  Ravinder  Kaur by the  accused  persons  for having brought less dowry in her marriage as well as due  to constant  taunts  and also torture, the  deceased  committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and burnt herself and afterwards  she died. It has been further stated in the  FIR that the complainant apprehended that some quarrel must have happened  on the day of the incident between  his  daughter, Ravinder  Kaur and her husband Satpal  Singh,  father-in-law Harbhajan Singh and mother-in-law Kanwaldip Kaur before  she took  the  extreme step. P.W. 4, Gurbachan  Singh  has  also stated in his deposition that his daughter used to tell them that  her  husband, father-in-law and  mother-in-law  always taunted her saying that her parents had not given sufficient dowry during the marriage and had not even served them  with proper meals at the time of marriage. He further stated that on  25th  June, 1983 at 6.30 p.m. Mohinder  Singh,  maternal uncle  of  Satpal Singh came to shop and told him  that  his daughter had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her  body  and then setting her on fire.  In  his  statement under  Section 161, Cr. P.C. recorded on 23rd July, 1983  he also stated that her two daughters namely Sajinder Kaur  and Surjeet  Kaur (P.W. 7) who visited Raja Sansi to meet  their sister, Ravinder Kaur two days before the incident were told by her deceased daughter that her in-laws often taunted  her for  not bringing sufficient dowry. It has also been  stated by him that the accused taunted her daughter saying that she

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

was  carrying an illegal child which is a great  defame  for them. It has also been stated that "due to the bad treatment meted out towards his daughter Ravinder Kaur at the hands of her husband, Satpal Singh, her mother-inlaw, Kanwaldip  Kaur and  her  father-in-law, Harbhajan Singh that  she  had  not brought scooter and fridge and had brought less dowry in her marriage they had forced her to put kerosene oil on her body and commit suicide and as they often taunted her saying that she had begotten immoral and illegal pregnancy and for  this reason  she  had  committed suicide and thus  had  lost  her life."     Furthermore, though the house of the accused persons  is not  far  off  yet  the information was  given  not  by  his son-in-law  or other members of the family promptly  but  it was  given by the maternal uncle of the  son-in-law,  Satpal Singh  at 6.30 p.m. to the appellant although  the  incident occurred  at  about 2.30 p.m. It is also  evident  that  the deceased, Ravinder Kaur who had second to third degree burns on her person was brought to the hospital in the evening and the  doctor,  P.W. I immediately examined her  and  declared that  she was already dead. Another most pertinent  question which  has been decided by the Trial Court is that  the  de- fence story as stated by her mother-in-law, 303 Kanwaldip  Kaur  in her examination under section 3  13  Cr. P.C. that it was a case of accidental fire and not a case of suicide,  was falsified by the absence of burn  injuries  on the finger tips of the mother-in-law or other members of the family.  The  Trial Court rightly held "that  the  intending circumstances show that she was not allowed to move till the process  of  burning had become irrecoverable and  till  she succumbed to her injuries."     We do not find any infirmity in this finding and we also hold  on consideration and appraisement of the evidences  as well  as the circumstances set out hereinbefore that it  was not a case of accidental fire but a case of suicide  commit- ted  by the deceased Ravinder Kaur being constantly  abused, taunted  for bringing less dowry and also being defamed  for carrying  an illegitimate child. It is pertinent to  mention that in the appeal before the High Court it was not urged on behalf  of  the  accused that the case of  suicide  was  not proved and as such there was no finding by the High Court on this  score. In such circumstances this argument is  totally devoid of merit and as such it is not sustainable.     It  is convenient to refer in this connection the  deci- sion cited at the bar in Wazir Chand and Another v. State of Haryana  with State of Haryana v. Wazir Chand  and  Another, [1989]  1  SCC 244 to which one of us (B.C. Ray,  J)  was  a party,  wherein  it has been held that "a plain  reading  of this provision (S. 306 I.P.C) shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must  be established that such other person  committed  sui- cide." This decision is not at all applicable to the instant case  in  view  of our specific finding  that  the  evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish  that the deceased Ravinder Kaur committed suicide at the instiga- tion  and abetment of the accused persons in the  commission of the said offence.     The  next argument advanced is that the  evidences  were too meagre and unreliable to sustain the conviction. It  has also been urged that the High Court considered the evidences and came to a reasonable finding that the prosecution  could not  prove the ingredients of Section 306, IPC as there  was no  instigation by the accused nor there was any  conspiracy for  the commission of that offence. The High Court  arrived

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

at  this finding on some contradictions in the statement  of the  evidences  of P.W. 4, Gurbachan Singh,  father  of  the deceased and of P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur, sister of the deceased respectively  with their statements made under  Section  161 Cr. P.C. 304     It is convenient to refer in this connection the  obser- vation  made by this Court in the case of Sat Pal  v.  Delhi Administration,  [1976]  2  SCR 11 at 30  to  the  following effect:               "It emerges clear that on a criminal  prosecu-               tion  when  a witness  is  cross-examined  and               contradicted  with the leave of the court,  by               the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as               a matter of law, be treated as washed off  the               record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact               to  consider in each case whether as a  result               of  such cross-examination and  contradiction,               the  witness stands thoroughly discredited  or               can  still be believed in regard to a part  of               his testimony. If the Judge finds that in  the               process,  the  credit of the witness  has  not               been completely shaken, he may, after  reading               and  considering the evidence of the  witness,               as a whole, with due caution and care, accept,               in  the  light of the other  evidence  on  the               record  that  part of his testimony  which  he               finds to be creditworthy and act upon it."     We have already referred to the material portions of the FIR  as  well as all the statements made by P.W.  4  in  his evidence as well as his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. as  well as the evidence of P.W. 7 and her  statement  under Section 161 Cr. P.C. On a plain reading of these  statements it will be crystal clear that the accused persons since  the date  when the deceased, Ravinder Kaur went to her  in-laws’ house after the marriage, was mal-treated and was constantly taunted,  harassed and tortured for not bringing  sufficient dowry  from her father and she was taunted for  carrying  an illegitimate child. The appellant sometime in November, 1982 went  to  her  in-laws house. His  daughter,  Ravinder  Kaur complained to him about this torture and constant taunts for not  bringing sufficient dowry. On hearing this, her  father brought  her to his house and after eight days  the  accused persons,  Satpal Singh, his father Harbhajhan Singh and  two maternal  uncles  came  to the house of  the  appellant  and requested  him to send his daughter with them assuring  that there would be no further taunts or any iII-treatment by the respondents. The President of the Mohalla Sudhar  Committee, Ved  Prakash, P.W. 5 and a social worker, Smt.  Raj  Kumari, P.W.  6 and another person Ramesh Kumar of the same  village were called in by Gurbachan Singh and in their presence  all these  talks were held. On the assurances  given,  Gurbachan Singh  sent his daughter with them. It is also  in  evidence that as no information of her was received, Gurbachan  Singh sent his two other daughters namely Surjeet Kaur, P.W. 7 and Sajinder Kaur, to the 305 house  of the in-laws of the deceased Ravinder Kaur  to  en- quire about her welfare. Ravinder Kaur told them that  there was no improvement in the treatment meted out to her and she was  being taunted and tortured by her in-laws in  the  same way and she was not happy. Two days thereafter i.e. on  25th June, 1983 at 2.30 P.M. this unfortunate incident  occurred. P.W.  7, Gurjeet Kaur also stated in her deposition  to  the same effect. In her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. she

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

also stated categorically that after about one month of  the marriage  whenever Ravinder Kaur met her she told  that  her in-laws i.e. the respondents were not treating her well  for bringing less dowry. She was also told that the  respondents were  demanding  refrigerator and a scooter. They  had  also taunted that she was having illegitimate child. She  further stated that two days prior to the present occurrence she and her  sister,  Sajinder Kaur went to Raja  Sansi  to  enquire about the welfare of our sister, Ravinder Kaur who told them weepingly that she was being beaten by the accused and again was  mal-treated  for bringing less dowry  and  scooter  and fridge  etc.  She further stated that the  respondents  were leveling allegations that she had been carrying an illegiti- mate  child and that she should die. It was also  stated  by her  that her mother-in-law, Kanwaldip Kaur was  present  in the  house  and  she  was abusing  Ravinder  Kaur  in  their presence.     The  learned Sessions Judge after carefully  considering and  weighing the evidences held that the witnesses P.W.  4, Gurbachan  Singh,  P.W.  5, Ved Prakash,  President  of  the Mohalla  Sudhar Committee, P.W. 6, Smt. Raj  Kumari,  social worker  and  P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur clearly  proved  that  the respondents  mal-treated  Ravinder Kaur  for  bringing  less dowry  and they even tortured her for carrying an  illegiti- mate  child. The said witnesses testified to the greedy  and lusty nature of the respondents that they were  persistently demanding  more money. It has also been held that the  worst part of the cruelty was that she was even taunted for carry- ing an illegitimate child. The Trial Court also held that  a respectable  lady cannot bear this kind of false  allegation levelled  against her and this must have  mentally  tortured her.  Thus  the persistent demands of the accused  for  more money, their tortures and taunts amounted to instigation and abetment that compelled her to do away with her life.     This  finding  was arrived at by  the  learned  Sessions Judge  on a proper appreciation of the evidences adduced  by the prosecution. The High Court without properly considering and weighing the evidences of the prosecution witnesses  and on  a  wrong appreciation of the evidences  found  that  the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of 306 Section  306  of I.P.C. It was also held that there  was  no evidence  on record that the accused at the time of  commis- sion of suicide by Ravinder Kaur, deceased in any way insti- gated  or abetted her to commit suicide even though  it  has been  brought but in evidences that the deceased  was  being maltreated  by the accused continuously after her coming  to the  house  of  her in-laws. It was further  held  that  the prosecution  has singularly failed to establish  the  charge against the accused and their conviction and sentences  were consequently unsustainable.     We have already stated hereinfore that P.W. 4, Gurbachan Singh,  P.W.  7, Surjeet Kaur have clearly stated  in  their depositions  about the ill-treatment, torture and the  cruel behaviour  meted  out to the deceased  Ravinder  Kaur  which instigated her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and  setting fire.  We  have  also stated hereinbefore  that  though  the incident occurred at 2.30 P.M. the information of the  death of Ravinder Kaur by burning was given to her father,  Gurba- chan  Singh at 6.30 P.M. in his shop at Amritsar.  Gurbachan Singh  with members of his family immediately rushed to  the hospital and found the dead body of her daughter in the dead house of the hospital. It is also in evidence that  Ravinder Kaur  was brought to the hospital after much delay when  she

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

was already dead.     The  Trial Court rightly held that in such cases  direct evidence  is  hardly  available. It  is  the  circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the trust- fulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.     We  have already referred to hereinbefore the  evidences of  the prosecution witnesses who clearly testified  to  the greedy and lusty nature of the accused in that they persist- ently  taunted the deceased and tortured her for not  having brought  sufficient  dowry from her father. It  is  also  in evidence that they also taunted her for carrying an illegit- imate child. All these tortures and taunts caused depression to  her mind and drove her to take the extreme step of  put- ting  an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil  on  her person and setting fire. Circumstantial evidence as well  as the  evidences  of the prosecution witnesses  clearly  prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons  instigated and abetted Ravinder Kaur, deceased in the commission of the offence by committing suicide by burning herself. The  find- ings  arrived  at by the Trial Court after  considering  and weighing 307 the entire evidences are unexceptional. The findings arrived at  by the High Court without considering properly the  cir- cumstantial evidence as well as the evidences of the  prose- cution  witnesses cannot be sustained. As such the  findings of the High Court are liable to be reversed and set aside.     The  High  Court drew an inference from the  conduct  of Gurbachan Singh, P.W. 4 in making a delay of about 24  hours after  receipt of the information regarding  her  daughter’s death  to make a statement to the police about the  incident with lodging the F.I.R. on the same date, i.e. June 25, 1983 or on the following morning. The High Court, therefore, held that all these circumstances would raise considerable  doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of these two witness- es  (P.W.  4  and P.W. 7) and point an  infirmity  in  their evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused.     It  is in evidence of P.W. 4 that he was intimate  about the  death  of his daughter by committing  suicide,  by  the maternal uncle of Satpal Singh, son-in-law on June 25,  1983 at  about  5.30 p.m. He immediately rushed to  the  hospital with  members of his family where his daughter was  brought. It  is also in his evidence that he stayed there  the  whole night with his wife and other members of his family near the dead body of his deceased daughter and also on the next  day till the dead body was handed over to him after the  comple- tion  of  post martem in the afternoon. The  Assistant  Sub- Inspector  of Police of Ajnala Police Station  reached  SGTB Hospital  on the next day i.e. on June 26, 1983 and got  his statement  recorded there. It has been rightly held  by  the Additional  Sessions  Judge  that in  the  circumstances  it cannot  be said that there has been any delay  in  reporting the  matter to the police. We fully accept this  finding  of the  Additional  Sessions Judge and we also  held  that  the delay in lodging the FIR in the above circumstances does not raise  any  doubt  regarding the veracity of  the  said  two witnesses and there is no infirmity in the evidences of P.W. 4  and  P.W. 7 which would render them unsafe  to  base  the conviction  of the accused as wrongly observed by  the  High Court.     It is also convenient to refer to this connection to the provisions  of  Section 113A of Indian  Evidence  Act,  1872 which provide that:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

             "113-A. Presumption as to abetment of  suicide               by  a  married  women--When  the  question  is               whether  the commission of suicide by a  woman               had  been abetted by her husband or any  rela-               tive of her husband and it is shown that               308               she  had committed suicide within a period  of               seven years from the date of her marriage  and               that  her  husband  or such  relative  of  her               husband  had  subjected her  to  cruelty,  the               court  may presume, having regard to  all  the               other  circumstances  of the case,  that  such               suicide had been abetted by her husband or  by               such relative of her husband."     In  the  instant  case the deceased  Ravinder  Kaur  was married  to the accused, Satpal Singh in November, 1982  and she  committed  suicide on June 25, 1983. It has  also  been found on a consideration of the circumstantial evidence that she  was  compelled to take the extreme step  of  committing suicide as the accused persons had subjected her to  cruelty by constant taunts, mal-treatment and also by alleging  that she  has  been carrying an illegitimate child.  The  suicide having  been committed within a period of seven  years  from the  date of her marriage in accordance with the  provisions of this Section, the Court may presume having regard to  all the  other circumstances of the case which we have  set  out earlier  that such suicide has been abetted by  the  husband and his relations. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Additional  Sessions Judge are quite in accordance with  the provisions of this Section and the finding of the High Court that the accused persons could not be held to have instigate or abetted the commission of offence, is not sustainable  in law.     It has been contended on behalf of the  accused-respond- ents  that  Section  113-A of the Indian  Evidence  Act  was inserted in the Statutes Book by Act 46 of 1983 whereas  the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. was committed on June  23, 1983  i.e. prior to the insertion of the said  provision  in the  Indian Evidence Act. It has, therefore, been  submitted by  the learned counsel for the respondents that the  provi- sions  of  this Section cannot be taken  recourse  to  while coming to a finding regarding the presumption as to abetment of  suicide committed by a marriage woman, against  the  ac- cused persons.     The provisions of the said Section do not create any new offence and as such it does not create any substantial right but  it is merely a matter of procedure of evidence  and  as such  it  is retrospective and will be  applicable  to  this case. It is profitable to refer in this connection to  Hals- bury’s Laws of England, (Fourth Edition), Volume 44 Page 570 wherein it has been stated that:               "The  general rule as mat all statutes,  other               than  those  which are merely  declaratory  or               which relate only to mat-               309               ters  of procedure or of evidence,  are  prima               facie prospective, and retrospective effect is               not  to  be given to them unless,  by  express               words  or  necessary implication,  it  appears               that this was the intention of the legislature                   It has also been stated in the said volume               of Halsbury’s Law of England at page 574 that:               "The  presumption against  retrospection  does               not apply to legislation concerned merely with               matters  of procedure or of evidence;  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

             contrary, provisions of that nature are to  be               construed  as retrospective unless there is  a               clear indication that such was not the  inten-               tion of Parliament."     In  Blyth  v. Blyth, [1966] A.C. 643 the wife  left  the husband  in  1954  and lived with  the  co-respondent  until August,  1955, when she broke off the association.  In  1958 the  husband and wife met by chance and  sexual  intercourse took place. In December, 1962, the husband sought a  divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery. During the pendency of the  application  section 1 of the Matrimonial  Causes  Act, 1963  came into force on July 31, 1963 which  provided  that any presumption of condonation which arises from the contin- uance  or resumption of marital intercourse may be  rebutted on the part of a husband, as well as on the part a of  wife, by evidence sufficient to negative the necessary intent. The question arose whether this provision which came into  force on July 31, 1963 can be applied in the instant case. It  was held  that  the husband’s evidence was  admissible  in  that Section 1 of the Act of 1963 only altered the law as to  the admissibility  of evidence and the effect which  the  courts are  to  give to evidence, so that the rule  against  giving retrospective effect to Acts of Parliament did not apply.     In  Herridge v. Herridge, [1966] 1 AER 93 similar  ques- tion arose, it was held that section 2(1) of the Act of 1963 was  a procedural provision, for it dealt with the  adducing of  evidence in relation to an allegation of condonation  in any  trial after July 31, 1963; accordingly  the  subsection was  applicable, even though the evidence related to  events before that date, and the resumption of cohabitation in  the present  case did not amount, by reason of Section 2(1),  to condonation. On a conspectus of these decisions, this argument on  behalf of 310 the  appellant  fails and as such  the  presumption  arising under  Section  113-A of The Evidence Act has  been  rightly taken into consideration by the Trial Court.     It  has been urged by referring to the decision in  Brij Lal  v.  Prem Chand & Anr., JT 1989 3 SC 1  that  where  two views  could reasonably be taken the appellate court  should not interfere with the order of acquittal made by the  Trial Court.     In the instant case on a proper consideration and weigh- ing  of the evidences the only reasonable view that  can  be taken  is that the cruel behaviour and constant  taunts  and harassment  caused  by the accused  persons  while  Ravinder Kaur,  deceased was in her in-laws house instigated  her  to commit  suicide and in our considered opinion no other  rea- sonable  view  follows from a proper consideration  and  ap- praisement of the evidences on record. As such the  decision cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.     For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the judgment  and order  of acquittal passed by the High Court and affirm  the conviction  of the accused of the offence under Section  306 I.P.C.  and  sentence imposed upon them  by  the  Additional Sessions  Judge, Amritsar. The respondents will  immediately surrender in the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar to  serve out the remaining period of their sentence. R.N.J.                                               Appeals allowed. 311

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15