REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.        169         OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2227 of 2008)

Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami …..Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat .….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian  Penal Code, 1860

(in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961  (in

short  ‘DP  Act’).  Learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Court  No.9,

Ahmedabad  City  imposed  sentences  of  3  years,  10  years  and  5  years

respectively for the aforesaid offences and fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.20,000/-

and Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.  

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The  accused  married  Kantaben  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

‘deceased’)  in  1989.  Soon  after  two  years  of  his  marriage,  the  accused

started inflicting mental and physical torture on her and she was taunted by

the  accused  for  not  bringing  sufficient  dowry  in  the  marriage.  He  also

demanded from the  victim an  amount  of  Rs.40,000/-  for  the  purpose  of

purchasing  a  house.  He even  wrote  letters  to  the  in-laws and  demanded

Rs.40,000/-  for  purchasing  the  house.  The  demand  was  persistent.  Even

threats were administered to the deceased and her family members. Thus,

the  accused  inflicted  mental  and  physical  torture  on  the  victim  which

prompted  her  to  commit  suicide  by burning  herself  on  23-03-1999  after

pouring  kerosene  on  her  body.  Thus,  as  per  the  prosecution  case,  the

appellant  has committed the  offence punishable  under  Section  498A and

306 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of DP Act.  

2

The  complaint  was  given  by  Dhulagiri  Gumangiri  Goswami  on

17.5.1999.  On  the  strength  of  the  complaint  given  by  the  complainant

investigation was carried out. The place where the suicide was committed

by the victim was visited and the panchnama of the place of incident was

prepared in the presence of the panch-witnesses. Statements of the witnesses

from  the  neighbourhood  were  recorded.  The  injured  was  immediately

rushed to the hospital for providing necessary treatment. Muddamal seized

was  sent  to  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  for  the  purpose  of  detailed

analysis. On the death of the victim, the inquest panchnama was prepared

and the dead body was sent for autopsy. The appellant was arrested during

the course of investigation.  On receipt  of the  report  from FSL, the post-

mortem report along with other material, the appellant was charge-sheeted

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as well as

Sections 3 and 7 of the DP Act. He was produced before the Metropolitan

Magistrate,  Ahmedabad,  who in  turn committed the case to  the  Sessions

Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short

the ‘Code’) as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. Seventeen

witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. The trial court

3

found that the letters written by the accused clearly established the demand

of dowry and further the suicide was clearly abetted by the acts and conduct

of the appellant.  Accordingly, the conviction was recorded and sentences

were imposed as afore-stated.  

In appeal, the High court concurred with the views of the trial Court.  

4. In support of the appeal, it was submitted that the letters whereby the

alleged demand of dowry was made has not been signed by the appellant

and even has not been addressed to anyone. There was no material to show

that the appellant had subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment

as to instigate her to commit suicide. The evidence on record shows that the

appellant had purchased valuable silver ornaments for the deceased and in

his  insurance  policy,  the  deceased  was  shown  to  be  his  nominee.  Their

relation was otherwise cordial.  Since the substratum of the allegations of

dowry  and  harassment  were  letters,  their  authenticity  having  not  been

established the trial Court and the High Court should not have relied upon

the same.  

4

5. It is pointed out that the accused himself had taken the deceased to

the hospital and from his conduct it clearly shows that the accused was not

guilty. In essence, it is submitted that the commission of alleged offences

has not been established by the prosecution.  

6. In response, learned counsel  for the respondent-State supported the

judgment.  

7. We shall first deal with the plea relating to applicability of Section

306 IPC.  

8. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide.  The said provision

reads as follows:

“306 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE.  

If  any  person  commits  suicide,  whoever  abets  the commission  of  such  suicide,  shall  be  punished  with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”  

9. Abetment  involves  a  mental  process  of  instigating  a  person  or

intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy

5

also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the

doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating

or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be

abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

10. In  State of West Bengal v.  Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418) this

Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing

the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the

trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim

had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.  If it transpires

to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary

petulance,  discord  and  differences  in  domestic  life  quite  common to  the

society  to  which  the  victim  belonged  and  such  petulance  discord  and

differences  were  not  expected  to  induce  a  similarly  circumstanced

individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court

should  not  be  satisfied  for  basing  a  finding  that  the  accused  charged of

abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.   

11. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment

is  a  separate  and  distinct  offence  provided  in  the  Act  as  an  offence.  A

6

person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do

that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy

for  the  doing  of  that  thing;  or  (3)  intentionally  aids,  by  act  or  illegal

omission,  the  doing of  that  thing.  These things  are essential  to  complete

abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite,

urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be

by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses

of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in

consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of

such abetment,  then  the  offender  is  to  be  punished  with the punishment

provided  for  the  original  offence.  'Abetted'  in  Section  109  means  the

specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a

person  is  charged  with  the  abetment  is  normally  linked  with  the  proved

offence

12. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct

or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.  The mere fact

that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See

Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570)].

7

13. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.

(2007 (10) SCC 797), Randhir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2004 (13)

SCC 129) and Criminal Appeal No.  1464 of 2007 (Sohan Raj Sharma v.

State of Haryana disposed of on April 7, 2008).

14. The  conviction  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Section  306  IPC,  therefore,

cannot be sustained in view of the background facts and is set aside. But the

materials on record particularly the letters on which specific emphasis has

been  led  by the  trial  Court  and  the  High Court   amply demonstrate  the

commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3

of DP Act.  The convictions are sustained. But the sentence in respect of

Section 3 of DP Act is reduced to three years.  

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………….………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 28, 2009

8