http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: BRIJ LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PREM CHAND & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1989

BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1661            1989 SCR  (2) 612  1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 680 JT 1989 (3)     1  1989 SCALE  (1)1076  CITATOR INFO :  D          1990 SC 209  (41)

ACT:     Indian  Penal Code--Sections 304B, 306  and  498A--Dowry Offences--Punishment  for----What would constitute  instiga- tion  for commission of offence----Would depend on facts  of case----Act  of abetment-To be judged in the  conspectus  of evidence of the case.

HEADNOTE:     Prem Chand, accused-respondent, had married Veena  Rani, deceased, in the year 1973. Veena Rani was then employed  in the  State  Bank of Patiala. Soon after their  marriage  the accused  resigned his job as Prosecuting  Sub-inspector  and started  his  practice at Sangrut. Veena  Rani  got  herself transferred  to Sangrur and the couple set up  house  there. From  the very beginning Veena Rani had an  unhappy  married life  because  the accused constantly tormented her  to  get more  money from her parents. The accused was also given  to heating her frequently.     Veena  Rani  gave  birth to a  male  child.  Even  after child-birth  the  accused  did not  stop  iII-treating  her. Unable  to bear the iII-treatment, Veena Rani took leave  on loss of pay and went away to her parents. She later filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court at Patiala for restitution of conjugal rights. At this stage,  a compromise was brought about between  the  parties and  Veena Rani came back to live with the accused  at  San- grur.  But  nothing changed, and the  accused  continued  to torment her for money.     The  immediate provocation for the accused  stepping  up his  illtreatment of Veena Rani was his demand of Rs.  1,000 to pay the balance amount of the scooter price which he  had purchased.  Veena Rani had no funds of her own. She,  there- fore, wrote to her brother and mother narrating her woes and requesting  them to send Rs. 1,000. In spite of  Veena  Rani writing  to  her  brother and mother, the  accused  did  not relent in the immediate compliance of his demand.     On  15.9.1975, the day of the tragedy, the  accused  and Veena Rani had a quarrel and thereupon both of them went  to the house of Shri Hari Om, Advocate, who advised the accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

not to torment Veena Rani. 613 There,  in the presence of Hari Om, the accused went to  the extent  of  saying  that Veena Rani may go to  hell  but  he should get the money forthwith. Veena Rani reacted by saying that she preferred death to such life. The accused, far from expressing  regret for his conduct, drove her to despair  by further  saying that she can provide him relief  quicker  by dying  on the very day. Thereafter, the accused  left  Veena Rani at their house and went to court at about 9.00 a.m.  At 10.15  a.m.  shrieks were heard from their house,  and  when people rushed in, they found Veena Rani lying on the  ground with extensive burn injuries. Before her death in the hospi- tal,  Veena Rani told the doctor that she had been  tortured at home and that she wanted to die as early as possible.     The  Additional Sessions Judge found the accused  guilty under section 306, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for  four  years. The Judge held that the accused  had  been tormenting  and also physically assaulting Veena  Rani,  and that  Veena  Rani  had committed suicide by  reason  of  the accused’s instigation.     The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the accused holding that even though Veena Rani had committed suicide on account of her unhappy married life, there was nothing on the record to  show  that the appellant in any  manner  instigated  the deceased to commit suicide.     In  this  Court, two special leave petitions  have  been filed, one by the father of Veena Rani and the other by  the State of Punjab. On behalf of the appellants it was contend- ed that the High Court had completely erred in its apprecia- tion  of the evidence and in its application of the law.  On behalf  of  the accused it was contended that  even  if  the prosecution  evidence  was accepted in full,  there  was  no material  to show that the suicidal death of Veena Rani  was abetted in any manner by the accused.     Allowing the appeals and restoring the conviction of the accused under s. 306, this Court,     HELD:  (1)  Veena Rani’s death was  undoubtedly  due  to suicide and not due to any accident or homicide. [621A]     (2) There is overwhelming evidence in the case to estab- lish  that  Veena Rani’s life was made  intolerable  by  the accused  by  constantly demanding her to get him  money  and also beating her frequently. [620G] 614     (3)  Viewed  in the background of  Veena  Rani’s  plight during the few days preceding her death and the events  that took place on the morning of the tragedy, the utterances  by the  accused to the effect that she can provide  him  relief quicker  by dying on the very same day would have  certainly been  seen by Veena Rani as an instigation to her to  commit suicide. [621D; 622B]     (4)  No  mother,   however  distressed  and  frustrated, would  easily make up her mind to leave her young  child  in the  lurch and commit suicide unless she had been goaded  to do so by someone close to her [622B-C]     (5) When the evidence is of so compulsive and telling in nature against the accused, the High Court, it is  regretted to say, has dealt with the matter in a somewhat  superficial manner  and acquitted the accused on the basis of  imaginary premises.  The High Court has failed to comprehend the  evi- dence  in its full conspectus and instead has whittled  down the evidence by specious reasoning. [624E-F]     (6) As to what constitutes instigation would depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore, in order to decide wheth- er a person has abetted by instigation the commission of  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in  the conspectus  of the entire evidence in the case. The  act  of abetment  attributed  to an accused is not to be  viewed  or tested in isolation. [627A-B]     (7)  Such being the case, the instigative effect of  the words used by the accused must be judged on the basis of the distraught  condition to which the accused had driven  Veena Rani. [627B-C]     (8) In the instant case, the abetment of the  commission of  suicide by Veena Rani is clearly due to instigation  and would therefore fail under the first clause of section  107, IPC. [626E-F]     (9)  The  degradation of society due to  the  pernicious system  of  dowry  and the unconscionable  demands  made  by greedy  and  unscrupulous  husbands and  their  parents  and relatives  resulting in an alarming number of  suicidal  and dowry deaths of women has shocked the Legislative conscience to such an extent that the Legislature has deemed it  neces- sary to provide additional provisions of law, procedural  as well as substantive, to combat the evil and has consequently introduced  Sections  113A and 113B in the  Indian  Evidence Act,  and  section 498A and 304B in the Indian  Penal  Code. [627E-G] 615     (10)  It  is not a case where Veena Rani had  wanted  to commit  suicide for reasons of her own and the  accused  had facilitated  her  in  the commission of  suicide,  as  would attract Explanation II to Section 107 IPC. [626A]    Sri  Ram  v.  State of U.P., [1975] 2  SCR  622;  distin- guished.     (11) Taking all factors into consideration including the fact  that  more than 11 years have elapsed since  the  High Court acquitted the accused and the accused is now leading a settled life, the Court considered the plea of leniency, and while restoring the conviction of the accused under  section 306  modified the sentence to the period  already  undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.20,000, out of which Rs.  18,000 were  to  be given to the father of the deceased  for  being utilised for the maintenance of Veena Rani’s son. [628E]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1978.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  23.11.1977  of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.  880 of 1976.                       WITH      Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1989.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 23.11. 1977  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 670 of 1976.     S.K.  Bisaria and J.K. Nayyar for the Appellant in  Crl. Appeal No. 477 of 1978.     R.C.  Kohli and R.S. Suri for the Appellant in  Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1989. S.K. Mehta, Dhuru Mehta and Atul Handa for the Respondent.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:     NATARAJAN,  J. Appeal No. 477 of 1978 by  Special  Leave and  Appeal No. 288 of 1989 by Special Leave arising out  of Special  Leave (Crl.) Petition No. 250 of 1980 are  directed against  a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and  Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1976 616 whereunder a learned single Judge of the High Court had  set

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

aside the conviction of respondent Prem Chand and  acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The former appeal has  been  filed by the father of the  deceased  Veena  Rani while  the  latter  appeal has been filed by  the  State  of Punjab. The facts of the case are in brief as under:     Deceased  Veena Rani who died of burn injuries on  15.9. 1975  was married to the respondent Prem Chand  (hereinafter referred  to as accused) in the year 1973. Veena  Rani,  who had  passed  the  M.A. and B .Ed.  degree  examinations  was employed in the State Bank of Patiala and was earning  about Rs.  600 to 700 per month. The accused, who had  obtained  a degree in law was a prosecuting Sub-Inspector and soon after marriage  he  resigned his job and set up  practice  in  his native place Sangrur. When the accused resigned his job  and set  up practice in Sangrut, Veena Rani obtained a  transfer to  Sangrur  from Patiala and the couple set up house  in  a building owned by PW 5 Krishan Dutt. From the very beginning Veena  Rani had an unhappy married life because of  the  ac- cused  constantly demanding her to get more money  from  her parent’s  house.  Even  though the accused  had  joined  the office  of a senior advocate by name Shri O.P. Singhal,  his earnings  were  meager and consequently the  house-hold  ex- penses  were  borne by her from out of her  salary.  Besides tormenting  Veena Rani to get more money from  her  parents, the accused was also given to beating her frequently.  Veena Rani  complained to her parents, brother and  brother-in-law about  the cruel treatment meted out to her by the  accused. PW 4 Shanti Devi and PW 14 Khem Chand, the mother and broth- er  respectively  of Veena Rani and PW 17  Kuldip  Rai,  her brother-in-law  have deposed about Veena Rani  telling  them about the accused iII-treating her and physically assaulting her.  Apart from them, PW 5 Krishan Dutt, the  landlord  has also testified that the accused was in the habit of  beating Veena  Rani and that on hearing her cries he used to  inter- vene  and advise the accused to stop beating her. Since  the accused did not mend his ways and continued his beatings  of Veena  Rani. PW 5 Krishan Dutt asked the accused  to  vacate his house.     Veena Rani conceived and gave birth to a male child. But even  after the child birth, the accused did not  stop  iII- treating  her. Unable to bear the iII-treatment, Veena  Rani took  leave  on loss of pay and went away  to  her  parent’s house  at Patiala. The separation had no effect on  the  ac- cused  and hence Veena Rani filed an application under  Sec- tion 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court at Patiala for restitution  of  conjugal  rights. As a  counter  move,  the accused also filed a 617 similar  petition  in  the Court at  Sangrur.  However,  the enquiry of that petition was stayed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangfur  till the disposal of the earlier petition filed  by Veena  Rani at Patiala. At that stage of matters, Shri  O.P. Singhal,  who was acting as the counsel for the accused  and PW  9  Shri  Hari Om, another advocate at  Sangrut  who  was appearing for Veena Rani brought about a compromise  between the  parties  and in terms thereof Veena Rani came  back  to Sangrur  to  live with the accused. The  re-union,  however, took place only after the accused’s counsel Shri O.P.  Sing- hal had personally assured that their would be no danger  to Veena Rani’s life at the hands of the accused.     This  time,  the  parties set up residence  in  a  house belonging  to  PW  12 Nathu Ram.  Nothing  changed,  however because  the  accused started tormenting Veena  Rani  almost from  the  day of re-union for money and  continued  beating her.  PW 12 Nathu Ram was a witness to the accused  quarrel-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

ling with Veena Rani and beating her. The immediate provoca- tion for the accused stepping up his iII-treatment of  Veena Rani  was  his purchase of a scooter for Rs.3,500  from  one A.N.  Jindal. The accused was able to obtain  only  Rs.2,500 from  his father for buying the scooter and for the  balance amount  of  Rs. 1,000 he asked Veena Rani to get  tile  same from her parents. Veena Rani had no funds of her own because she had been on leave on loss of pay for several months  and had joined duty at the Bank only on 13.8.1975. She was in  a fix  and  therefore  she wrote a letter on  10.9.75  to  her brother PW 14 Khem Chand as under:     "Dear brother, the day I came here he is asking for  Rs. one  thousand  from the same day to repay the  loan  of  the scooter. He does not pay any expenses which are required  by me. Because I will receive my pay only on 26th September and all  things  are as they were before." Again  just  one  day before  her  death i.e. 14.9.1975, she wrote to  her  mother PW-4 Shanti Devi a pathetic letter as follows:                        "Yesterday I was to come to see Saroj               in  the evening but there is a quarrel in  the               house. I have no money, if I have any require-               ment I must fulfil myself, otherwise no alter-               native  than  to  go on  weeping  and  crying.               Because  he is saying that I am to  repay  the               loan of Rs. 1,000 and I am to pay Rs. 100  for               the house rent. Dear mother, you know it  very               well  that I have not received my pay.  It  is               therefore I am unable to pay anything for  the               household expenses. It is therefore, I am in a               very  bad  condition  at my house.  I  do  not               understand  what to do. Whenever I talk to  go               to any               618               place, the same day there is an uproar in  the               house  and he does not turn up till  12.00  in               the night and unhealthy atmosphere develops in               the  house.  Dear mother, please send  me  Rs.               1,000  immediately  through  Bhupinder.   Dear               mother,  I  am very sad on  this  account  and               unhappy.  The  whole  day  I  remain  weaping.               Manish  (the  child) is alright.  You  do  not               worry but please send me Rs. 1,000  immediate-               ly."     In  spite  of  Veena Rani, writing to  her  brother  and mother  for a sum of Rs. 1,000 being sent  immediately,  the accused  did  not  relent in his  insistence  for  immediate compliance of his demand. This led to a quarrel between  the husband  and wife on the 15th morning and thereupon both  of them  went  to the house of PW-9 Shri Hari Om at  6.30  a.m. itself.  After-PW-9 Shri Hari Om woke up, he made  enquiries and  Veena  Rani told him that the  accused  was  "demanding money from her and annoying her on that account" in spite of her telling him that she had written letters to her  brother and mother. He advised the accused not to torment Veena Rani for  money  but in spite of it the accused  said  he  wanted immediate payment of the sum of Rs. 1,000. The accused  went to  the extent of saying that Veena Rani can go to hell  but he  should  get his sum of Rs. 1,000 forthwith.  Veena  Rani reacted  by saying that because of the  accused  quarrelling with her every day over the payment of money, she  preferred death to life in this world. The accused, far from  express- ing regret for his conduct, drove her to despair by  further saying  that she can provide him relief quicker by dying  on the  very same day and that she need not postpone her  death to  the  next day. PW-9 Shri Hari Om then sent  the  parties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

home  saying  that  the matter can be  talked  over  in  the evening.     After  things had gone to such a pitch the  accused  and Veena Rani left the house of PW-9 Hari Om at about 9.00 a.m. and  went back to their house. After leaving Veena  Rani  in the  house,  the accused went to the Court. At  about  10.15 a.m.  PW-12 Nathu Ram was informed by one Keemat Rai,  advo- cate that shrieks were heard coming from the house  occupied by  the accused and .Veena Rani. Both of them rushed to  the house and saw Veena Rani lying on the ground with  extensive burn injuries on her body. At once PW-12 Nathu Ram rushed on his  bicycle to the Court and informed the accused  and   11 D.K. Jindal, about Veena Rani having sustained burn injuries Thereupon all of them came to the house and the accused with the  help  of PW-11 D.K. Jindal removed Veena  Rani  to  the Civil Hospital at Sangrut. FW-9 Hari Om on coming to know of Veena Rani having 619 sustained  burn  injuries, had information sent  to  PW-  17 Kuldip  Rai and also made arrangements for a  phone  message being given to the parents of Veena Rani at Patiala.  There- after  he  went to the hospital but by then Veena  Rani  had died.     Veena Rani was seen by Dr. B.R. Dular at the hospital at 10.45 a.m. and the doctor found her to have sustained severe burns  and  to be in a state of shock. Veena  Rani  who  was given treatment by PW- 19 Dr. J.K. Sharma told him that  she had  been  tortured at home and that she wanted  to  die  as early  as  possible. At 11.30 a.m. Veena Rani died.  At  the autopsy,  it  was  noticed that she had  sustained  19  burn injuries. Her death was certified to be due to shock result- ing from the burn injuries.     On  receipt of an intimation from the  hospital  entries were  made in the general diary and subsequently a case  was registered  on the basis of representations made  to  PW-18, the Deputy Superintendent of Police by PW- 16 Kuldip Rai and another  relation. Investigation of the case resulted  in  a chargesheet being laid against the accused under Section 306 I.P.C.     In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the  accused denied  having iII-treated Veena Rani but admitted  that  he had asked her to give him a sum of Rs. 1,000 for payment  of the  balance  money  for the scooter purchased  by  him.  He however  stated that he had offered to repay the  amount  as soon  as  he received his G.P.F., amount. He  denied  having told  Veena Rani at the house of PW-9 Shri Hari Om that  she may  go to hell and that she can put at an end to  her  life the  same  day without waiting for the morrow. He  has  also stated that Veena Rani was of an irritable nature and  would get  agitated for no reason whatever. Lastly, he has  stated that  on  coming to know of her having  sustained  burn  in- juries, he had rushed home and taken her to the hospital  to save her life but unfortunately she could not be saved.     After  a detailed consideration of the prosecution  evi- dence  and  the  statement of the  accused,  the  Additional Sessions  Judge,  Sangrur, found the  accused  guilty  under Section  306 I.P.C. and sentenced him undergo R.I. for  four years.  The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that  the  ac- cused  had  been tormenting and also  physically  assaulting Veena  Rani  and that Veena Rani had  committed  suicide  by reason of the accused’s instigation. The  accused  preferred an appeal to the High  Court  and  a learned 620 single  judge  of the High Court has acquitted  the  accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

holding that even though Veena Rani had committed suicide on account of her unhappy married life "there is nothing on the record  to show that the appellant in any manner  instigated the  deceased to commit suicide." Aggrieved by the  judgment of  the High Court the father of Veena’ Rani and  the  State have preferred the two appeals under consideration.     Shri  R.S. Suri, learned counsel for the State  and  Mr. S.K.  Bisaria, learned counsel for the father of Veena  Rani took  us through the evidence in the case and the  judgments of  the Addl. Sessions Judge and the High Court  and  argued that the High Court has completely erred in its appreciation of the evidence and in its application of the law and there- fore  the appeals should be allowed and the  conviction  and sentence  awarded  to the accused should be  restored.  Shri S.K.  Mehta, learned counsel for the accused contended  that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted in full,  there is no material to show that the suicidal death of Veena Rani was  abetted  in  any manner by the accused  and  hence  the judgment  of the High Court does not call for any  interfer- ence.     We have considered the evidence and the arguments of the counsel in great detail. The evidence brings out with  tell- ing  effect the distressed life that Veena Rani was  leading almost from the day of her marriage with the accused.  Since the  accused had resigned his job and set up practice as  an advocate at Sangrur, she got herself transferred from Patia- la to a branch of the Bank at Sangrur. The parties lived  as tenants  in a portion of the house of PW-5 Krishan Dutt  and Veena  Rani was meeting the household expenses from  out  of her salary because the accused had no income as a lawyer. In spite of Veena Rani spending her entire salary on the house- hold, the accused was constantly demanding her for money and made  her  life miserable by frequently beating  her.  These matters have been spoken to by PW-4 Shanti Devi, PW-14  Khem Chand  and PW-17 Kuldip Rai. Besides them, independent  wit- nesses  viz. PW-5 Krishan Dutt, PW-9 Shri Hari Om and  PW-12 Nathu Ram have also spoken about the iII-treatment of  Veena Rani and their evidence has gone unchallenged. There is thus overwhelming  evidence in the case to establish  that  Veena Rani’s life was made intolerable by the accused by constant- ly  demanding  her  to get him money and  also  beating  her frequently.     Before considering the question whether the accused  had abetted Veena Rani in her committing suicide, we must  point out that 621 Veena  Rani’s death was undoubtedly due to suicide  and  not due  to  any accident or homicide. When Veena Rani  had  set fire to herself no one else except her one and half year old son was in the house. Hearing her shouts PW-12 Nathu Ram and Keemet  Rai rushed to the house and found her lying  on  the ground with burn injuries. The accused was at once  informed in  the court and he removed her to the hospital along  with others. Despite treatment, she succumbed to her injuries  by about 11.30 a.m. The autopsy revealed that her death was due to  severe shock resulting from the burn injuries  sustained by  her. In such circumstance, the suicidal death  of  Veena Rani is an incontrovertible factor.     The crucial question for consideration is whether  Veena Rani put an end to her life of her own will and volition  or whether  her  committing  suicide had been  abetted  in  any manner by the accused.     To  determine this question, we must see the  plight  of Veena  Rani during the few days preceding her death and  the events  which  had  taken place on the  morning  of  15.9.75

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

itself. It is an admitted fact that the accused was  wanting a sum of Rs. 1,000 for paying the balance of sale price  for the scooter purchased by him and that he was demanding Veena Rani to get him the amount from her parents. The accused has himself admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. this  fact but has stated that he wanted it only as  a  loan and not as a gift. Besides the letter, (annexure 3)  written by  Veena Rani to her brother and mother respectively  throw considerable  light  on  the matter. In the  letter  to  the brother  dated 10.9.75, Veena Rani has stated that  even  on the  day she came to Sangrur the accused began  demanding  a sum of Rs. 1,000 for being paid for the scooter purchased by him.  The accused would not wait and hence she had again  to write  a  letter to her mother on 14.9.75. Therein  she  has stated  that  she was in a very bad condition and  that  her mother  should  send her Rs. 1,000  immediately.  These  two letters written in quick succession reveal fully the  amount of  pressure  the accused must have been applying  on  Veena Rani to get him a sum of Rs. 1,000. So constant should  have been  his  demand for money that on the morning  of  15-9-75 even at about 6.30 or 7 a.m. the accused and Veena Rani  had to go to the house of PW-9 Shri Hari Om to seek a  solution. Even in front of PW-9 Shri Hari Om, the accused had insisted that Veena Rani should get him a sum of Rs. 1,000 forthwith. When Veena Rani pleaded inability to make immediate payment, the  accused told her that he did not care even if she  went to  hell  but he wanted immediate payment. When  Veena  Rani stated  in despair that she had enough of torment  and  that she preferred death to living, the 622 accused added fuel to fire by saying that she may put an end to her life the very same day and she need not wait till the next  day to quit this world. Such an utterance by  the  ac- cused  would have certainly been seen by Veena Rani  as  an. instigation  to her to commit suicide. Otherwise, she  would not  have set fire to herself within a short time after  she reached  home. One significant factor to be noticed is  that but  for being spurred to action, Veena Rani would not  have ,easily  reconciled herself to forsaking her one and a  half year  old  son and commit suicide. No mother,  however  dis- tressed  and  frustrated. would easily make up her  mind  to leave her young child in the lurch and commit suicide unless she  had been goaded to do so by someone close to  her.  Yet another  factor  to  be borne in mind is that  there  is  no evidence as to what transpired between the accused and Veena Rani after they had left the house of PW-9 Shri Hari Om. The only  two persons who could speak about it are  the  accused and Veena Rani and since she is dead it is only the  accused who  can throw some light on the matter.  Strangely  enough, the accused has not said anything about it in his  statement under  Section 313 Cr. P.C. He has not said a word  that  he had  assuaged the wounded feelings of Veena Rani  before  he left  for  Court. His silence on this aspect of  the  matter would  therefore  mean  that he had not  changed  his  stand subsequently.     We  may now look to the relevant provisions of the  law. Section 306 I.P.C. under which the accused was charged reads as under:               "306  I.P.C.  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 fine."                   Section  107 I.P.C. sets out as  to  what-               constitutes  abetment.  The Section  reads  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

             follows:               "107.  A  person abets the doing of  a  thing,               who--               First. Instigates any person to do that thing;               or               Secondly.--  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.--Intentionally  aids, by any  act  or               illegal omission, the doing of that thing.               623               Explanation  I.--A person who, by wilful  mis-               representation, or by wilful 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.               Illustration (omitted)               Explanation Il--Whoever, either prior to or at               the  time  of the commission of an  act,  does               anything in order to facilitate the commission               of  that  act,  and  thereby  facilitates  the               commission  thereof, is said to aid the  doing               of that act."                   The learned Additional Sessions Judge  has               in  the course of his judgment  observed  that               Explanation-II  to  Section 107  I.P.C.  would               also  be attracted to the facts of  the  case.               The relevant portion in the judgment reads  as               under:               "Thus  when the circumstances  attending  this               case are read alongwith the aforesaid Explana-               tion No. II given under Section 107 I.P.C., it               is clear that the accused prior to the commis-               sion  of the suicide by Veena Rani,  had  con-               stantly  committed certain acts and  that  has               facilitated the commission of suicide and thus               he  had aided in the committing of  that  said               act by Veena Rani."                   A  few lines below the Sessions Judge  has               given his finding as under:               "The  question  of abetment  actually  depends               upon  the  nature of the act abetted  and  the               manner  in  which the abetment was  made.  The               offence  of  abetment  is  complete  when  the               alleged  abettor  has  instigated  another  to               commit  the offence. It is not  necessary  for               the offence of abetment that the offence  must               be  committed.  It is only, in the case  of  a               person  abetting an offence  by  intentionally               aiding another to commit that offence and  the               uttering  of hot words by the accused  to  his               wife  in  the presence of Shri Hari  Om  PW  9               clearly indicates that the accused had abetted               an act complained of."     From  the portion extracted above, it may be  seen  that though  the Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that  Explana- tion II would have 624 relevance to the case, he has in fact awarded conviction  to the  accused  on the basis that the accused  had  instigated Veena  Rani  to commit suicide and had thereby  abetted  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

commission of suicide by Veena Rani.     Having regard to the evidence in the case, there can  be no doubt whatever that the Addl. Sessions Judge was perfect- ly  right in holding that the accused had  instigated  Veena Rani  to  commit suicide and therefore he  would  be  guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. A person can abet the commission of an  offence in any one of the three ways set out in  Section 107.  The case of the accused would squarely fall under  the first category, viz. instigating a person to do a thing.  In such  circumstances, the need to invoke Explanation I1  does not arise. Mr. Mehta contended that since Explanation II  to Section  107 I.P.C. has no application to the facts  of  the case  and since the Addl. Sessions Judge has  convicted  the accused on the premise that Explanation H is attracted,  the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of  the accused.  We are unable to accept this argument because  the Addl. Sessions Judge: though he has referred to  Explanation II, has actually found the accused guilty only on the ground he had abetted the commission of the offence by instigation.     When  the  evidence is of so compulsive  and  telling  a nature  against  the accused, the High Court, we  regret  to say,  has  dealt with the matter in a  somewhat  superficial manner  and acquitted the accused on the basis of  imaginary premises.  The High Court has failed to comprehend the  evi- dence  in  its full conspectus and instead it  has  whittled down  the evidence by specious reasoning. To mention a  few, the  High Court has failed to give due weight to the  letter Veena Rani wrote to her brother on 10.9.1975 merely  because in the last line she has written "in any way there is  noth- ing  to worry. This time everything will be  alright."  This one sentence in the letter cannot efface the frantic  nature of  Veena Rani’s appeal for money to satisfy the  demand  of the  accused. As regards the last letter dated 14.9.75,  the High Court has totally lost sight of it. The High Court  has failed to see that unless Veena Rani was very desperate, she would  not have written to her mother for money within  four days of the letter to her brother. As regards the happenings on  the  morning of 15.9.75, the High Court  has  failed  to grasp  their  gravity. Unless a serious  quarrel  had  taken place, the accused and Veena Rani would not have gone to the house of PW 9 Shri Hari Om in the early hours of the morning itself to seek a solution to the problem. Despite PW 9  Shri Hari Om counselling patience, the accused refused to  relent and insisted upon immediate payment of 625 Rs.  1,000 and made it clear that the money was more  impor- tant  to him than Veena Rani’s life and that if  Veena  Rani wanted to die, she may put an end to her life the very  same day and give him relief forthwith. The High Court has viewed the  accused’s conduct and utterances as of  no  consequence because  PW. 9 Shri Hari Om has stated  in  crossexamination that  he  thought it was "an ordinary  quarrel  between  the husband and wife as they had been doing so previously also." The High Court has failed to realise that the effect of  the accused’s utterances on Veena Rani’s mind should be assessed in  the context of the overall evidence in the case and  not on  the basis of the opinion of PW 9 Shri Hari Om about  the nature of the quarrel. PW 9 Shri Hari Om despite his  having been the counsel for Veena Rani, could not have realised the effect of the utterances of the accused on the mind of Veena Rani.  Furthermore the High Court has failed to notice  that the  accused has not thrown any light as to what  transpired between him and Veena Rani after they had left the house  of PW 9 Shri Hari Om. The fact that Veena Rani had forsaken her young  son and had set fire to herself within a  short  time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

after reaching home will go to show that she would not  have acted  in  that  manner unless she had  felt  instigated  to commit  suicide by the utterances of the accused.  The  High Court,  besides unfortunately failing to give due weight  to the evidence in the case, has drawn certain inferences which are  not at all warranted. For example, the High  Court  has stated  that  since Veena Rani was an  earning  member,  the accused  would not have stood to gain by instigating her  to commit suicide. This inference is totally wrong because  the clear  evidence in the case is that the accused  had  placed greater  value on the payment of the money demanded  by  him than  upon the life of his wife. Then again, the High  Court has  remarked that Veena Rani was suffering from  depression and  a  diseased  mind and hence she  would  have  committed suicide.  We are at a loss to know wherefrom the High  Court derived  material  to draw this conclusion. Far  from  there being  any  evidence, to show that Veena Rani was  having  a diseased  mind, PW 5 Krishan Dutt and PW 12 Nathu Ram,  have stated  that  Veena Rani was a woman of gentle  and  amiable disposition.  She was working in the Bank without  any  com- plaint whatever about her mental condition. Even the accused has not stated that she was of diseased mind. We are, there- fore,  more  than satisfied that the judgment  of  the  High Court  suffers  from serious errors and infirmities  and  is therefore manifestly unsustainable.     Mr. Mehta relied upon the observations in Sri Ram v.U.P. State, [1975] 2 SCR 622 to contend that even if the  accused had  told  Veena Rani that money was more important  to  him than her life and that she 626 can  put  an end to her life the very same  day  instead  of waiting  for  the morrow, it cannot be  construed  that  the accused  had done anything to facilitate the  commission  of suicide  by  Veena Rani as would attract Explanation  II  to Section  107 I.P.C. We do not find any merit in the  conten- tion. The facts in Shri Ram’s case were entirely  different. The question in that case was whether by shouting that  "the Vakil has come", Violet, one of the accused, had abetted the commission  of the offence of murder of one Kunwar Singh  by the  other accused persons who were hiding behind a  shisham tree and coming out of their place of concealment and one of them shooting Kunwar Singh with a gun carried by him. Though the Sessions Judge and the High Court had held that Violet’s act  would amount to abetment of the commission of  the  of- fence  of murder in terms of Explanation II to  Section  107 I.P.C., this Court held that "apart from the words attribut- ed  to Violet, there is nothing at all to show that she  was aware   of  the  nefarious  design  of  Sia  Ram   and   his associates."  It was in that context this Court observed  as follows.               "Thus  in  order to constitute  abetment,  the               abettor must be shown to have  "intentionally"               aided the commission of the crime. Mere  proof               that  the  crime charged could not  have  been               committed  without  the interposition  of  the               alleged abettor is not enough compliance  with               the requirements of Section 107."     In  the  instant  case, we have already  seen  that  the committing of suicide by Veena Rani was due to the accused’s instigation. It is not a case where Veena Rani had wanted to commit  suicide for reasons of her own and the  accused  had facilitated her in the commission of suicide.     It  was  then urged by Mr. Mehta that  since  two  views could  be  taken  of the evidence we should  not  allow  the appeals and set aside the acquittal of the accused solely on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

the  ground that the view taken by the High Court  does  not commend itself for our acceptance. We are fully alive to the position  in  law that where two views could  reasonably  be taken  of the prosecution evidence in a case, the  Appellate Court should not interfere with the acquittal of an  accused merely because the view taken by the Trial Court and/or  the High  Court  was less acceptable than the other  view  which could  have been taken on the evidence. This principle  will however  have  no application where the  evidence  does  not afford  scope for two plausible views being taken but  still the  Trial  Court or the High Court acquits an  accused  for reasons 627 which  are patently wrong and the error leads to an  element of perversity pervading the judgment.     As to what would constitute instigation for the  commis- sion of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act  of abetment  has to be judged in the conspectus of  the  entire evidence  in the case. The act of abetment attributed to  an accused  is  not to be viewed or tested in  isolation.  Such being the case, the instigative effect of the words used  by the  accused must be judged on the basis of  the  distraught condition  to which the accused had driven Veena Rani.  Full well  knowing  her helpless state and  frustration,  if  the accused had told her that he set greater store on the sum of Rs. 1,000 required by him than her life and that she can die the  very  same day and afford him early relief, it  is  not surprising that Veena Rani committed suicide a little  later on account of the accused’s instigation.     It would not be out of place for us to refer here to the addition  of Sections 113A and 113B to the  Indian  Evidence Act  and Sections 498A and 304B to the Indian Penal Code  by subsequent  amendments. Section 113A Evidence Act  and  498A Indian  Penal  Code have been introduced in  the  respective enactments by the Criminal Law (Second amendment) Act,  1983 (Act  46 of 1983) and Section 113B of the Evidence  Act  and 304B Indian Penal Code have been introduced by Act No. 43 of 1986.  The  degradation  of society due  to  the  pernicious system  of  dowry  and the unconscionable  demands  made  by greedy  and  unscrupulous  husbands and  their  parents  and relatives  resulting in an alarming number of  suicidal  and dowry deaths by women has shocked the Legislative conscience to such an extent that the Legislature has deemed it  neces- sary to provide additional provisions of law, procedural  as well as substantive, to combat the evil and has consequently introduced Sections 113A and 113B in the Indian Evidence Act and  Sections  498A and 304B in the Indian  Penal  Code.  By reason  of  Section 113A, the Courts can  presume  that  the commission  of  suicide by a woman has been abetted  by  her husband or relation if two factors are present viz. (1) that the  woman  had committed suicide within a period  of  seven years  from her marriage, and (2) that the husband or  rela- tion had subjected her to cruelty. We are referring to these provisions  only to show that the Legislature  has  realised the need to provide for additional provisions in the  Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act to check the  growing menace  of dowry deaths. In the present case,  however,  the abetment of the commission of suicide by Veena Rani is 628 clearly  due to instigation and would therefore  fail  under the first clause of Section 107 I.P.C.     In the light of our conclusions, the appeals have to  be allowed  and the conviction of the appellant  under  Section

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

306  I.P.C. has to be restored. The question however  arises as  to whether the sentence of 4 years R.I. awarded  by  the Sessions  Judge should also be restored. Mr. Mehta,  learned counsel made a fervent plea for leniency on the ground  that more than 11 years have elapsed since the High Court acquit- ted  the  accused and the accused is now leading  a  settled life  and that he and his family members would be ruined  if he is to be sent back to prison to serve any further term of sentence.  Learned counsel also stated that the accused  has undergone  imprisonment  in connection with the case  for  a period of about 10 months and, therefore, even if we are  to restore  the conviction, we may reduce the sentence  to  the period of imprisonment already undergone. Shri Suri. learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the State was only  anxious that the error committed by the High Court  in acquitting  the accused should be set right. He  also  added that in the event of the substantive sentence being reduced, the  accused  should  be called upon to pay  a  heavy  fine. Taking  all  factors into consideration, we think  that  the ends  of justice would be met if we substitute the  sentence awarded to the accused with the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and enhance the sentence of  fine from Rs.500 to Rs.20,000 with a direction that  out of  the fine amount, if paid, a sum of Rs. 18,000 should  be paid  to  the  father of Veena Rani for  bringing  up  Veena Rani’s minor son Manish.     The High Court judgment is accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed and the conviction of the accused  under Section 306 I.P.C. is restored but the sentence is  modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone and fine  of Rs.20,000  in default thereof to suffer R.I. for two  years. Out of the fine amount if paid, Rs. 18,000 will be given  to the  appellant  in  Crl. Appeal No. 477 of  1978  for  being utilised  for the maintenance of Veena Rani’s  son,  Manish. One  month’s time from today is given to the accused to  pay the fine. R.S.S.                                               Appeals allowed.                                 1 ?629