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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1262 of 2005

PETITIONER: Surender

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 24.2.2003 in Criminal  Appeal No. 1827 of 2002.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased  Pushpa was the third daughter of PW-10 Dilbag Singh.  She was  married to appellant Surender in village Aasan in the year 1994  according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.  At that time, Dilbag  Singh had given sufficient dowry but the appellants were not  satisfied with the dowry given.  They started harassing her.  In  order to make them happy, PW-10 Dilbagh Singh used to give  some money to his daughter Pushpa whenever she visited him but  the demand of the appellants remained always on the increasing  side.  They used to beat her.  Smt. Pushpa used to tell to her father  about the atrocities committed upon her, whenever she visited him.   After about two and half years of the marriage, Pushpa had given  birth to a daughter, namely, Garima and at that time also, PW-10  Dilbag Singh had given sufficient gifts but the appellants were not  satisfied.

About three months back, the appellant Surender went to  PW-4 Sombir, maternal uncle of Pushpa, with a demand of Rs.  80,000/- for purchase of a tractor, but PW-4 Sombir refused to  oblige him and informed about it to Dilbag Singh, who also told  him not to oblige Surender as he and his father would spend the  amount on liquor.

It was further averred that after their demand was not  fulfilled, the appellant and his relatives became more harsh  towards Pushpa and started beating her.  Pushpa then came to  village Khudan and apprised about the cruelty of her in-laws  towards her to her father PW-10 Dilbag Singh.  She remained in  her parental house for about three months and was then taken back  by Surender, appellant, only ten days prior to the occurrence, after  giving assurance that she would be treated nicely in the  matrimonial home.

On 23.4.2002, PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh received a  telephonic message at about 6/7 P.M. through PW-3 Krishan that  Pushpa had ended her life by committing suicide by hanging.

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

Upon receipt of this information, PW-10 Dilbag Singh along  with his wife, PW-2 Prem, brother-in-law Sombir PW-4 and others  reached village Aasan and found the dead body of Pushpa lying in  the room of first floor of their house.  Broken pieces of her bangles  and her chappals were also lying there.

An FIR, Ex. PH, was registered upon the statement, Ex. PG  of PW-10 Dilbagh Singh. PW-12 Ram Kishan, ASI, investigated  the case.  He got the dead body of Pushpa photographed by PW-7  Raj Pal, photographer.  He also prepared inquest report, Ex.PC.   He took into possession the broken bangles in a box, Ex. P7 and  chappals Exs. P-5 and P-6 by making separate sealed parcels vide  recovery memo Ex. PD.  He also prepared a rough site plan, Ex.  PK of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post  mortem examination with police application, Ex.PA.

PW-1 Dr. Mahesh Parkash, Medical Officer, conducted  autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Pushpa and gave his report, Ex.  PB.  He stated that the cause of death of Smt. Pushpa was due to  asphyxia and congestion as a result of hanging, which was ante- mortem in nature and the time between injury and death was  within few minutes and between death and post mortem  examination was within 12 to 48 hours.  He further stated that Smt.  Pushpa was carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks and on cutting, a male  foetus had come out.

PW-5 Constable Samit Kumar prepared scaled site plan, Ex.  PF.  The appellants were arrested.  After completion of the  investigation, the challan was put up by PW-6 ASI Vijay Singh.   Challan was initially put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st  Class, Rohtak, who vide her order dated 2.8.2002, committed the  case to the Court of Sessions.

Having made out a prima facie case, the appellants were  charged under Sections 498A and 306/34 IPC vide order dated  23.8.2002, to which they pleaded not guilty.

In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined  13 witnesses.

After closure of the   prosecution evidence, the statements of  the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein  they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false  implication.  Surender, appellant, in his statement stated that he  and his wife Pushpa lived separately from his parents and Pushpa  had committed suicide as she was mentally perturbed due to  pregnancy.  He next stated that he did not harass her on account of  demand of dowry.  He further stated that there was no demand of  dowry from his parents.  Vikram and Sahbo wife of Vikram, in  their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also denied the  allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that their son Surender  and their daughter-in-law Pushpa were living separately from them  and they had never harassed Pushpa on account of dowry, nor any  demand of dowry was ever made from her and Pushpa committed  suicide due to mental tension owing to pregnancy.  However, they  did not lead any defence evidence.

After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence  counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his  judgment dated 19.10.2002 found the appellant and his parents  Vikram and Sahbo guilty and convicted them under Sections  306/34  and 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced them vide order of even  date.

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

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed an  appeal in the High Court.  The High Court allowed the appeal of  Vikram and Sahbo and acquitted them, but it upheld the conviction  of the appellant.  Hence this appeal.

It is an admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa was married to  Surender, appellant, in the year 1994 and she committed suicide by  hanging on the night of 23.4.2002.  The case of the prosecution is  that Pushpa was being harassed by the appellants on account of  demand of dowry and due to that harassment, she was compelled  to commit suicide.  PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh stated that  her daughter Pushpa was married with Surender son of Vikram,  resident of village Aasan in the year 1994 and they gave dowry to  him according their capacity. After about two years of her  marriage, Pushpa had given birth to a daughter.  She further stated  that the appellants, namely, Vikram, Surender and Sahbo started  harassing her daughter, Pushpa for bringing inadequate dowry.   About 3-4 months prior to the occurrence, Vikram had sent his son  Surender to her brother PW-4 Sombir at village Ritholi, asking him  to make payment of Rs. 80,000/- as they wanted to purchase a  tractor, but her brother did not fulfill their demand and he sent  information to her.  She further stated that when her brother  Sombir failed to fulfil the demand of Surender, appellant, then they  started harassing Pushpa more vigorously and even started giving  beating to her.  When the appellants gave Pushpa severe beating,  Pushpa left for her parental house and stayed with her parents for  about three months, and at that time she was pregnant.  She further  stated that thereafter Surender, appellant, came to take Pushpa with  her and he promised not to harass Pushpa.  On his assurance,  Pushpa was sent with him and after ten days of sending Pushpa  with him, she received a telephonic message at the residence of  Krishan at about 6/7 PM that Pushpa had committed suicide by  hanging.  She further stated that on 24.4.2002, she along with  Krishan, Sombir and her husband Dilbag went to village Aasan  and found Pushpa hanging in the room of the first floor and her  bangles were broken and chappals were also lying there.

PW-4 Sombir stated that Smt. Prem was his sister and she  was married in village Khudan with Dilbag Singh.  He further  stated that Pushpa was the daughter of his sister Prem and had  studied upto middle class and was married to Surender in the year  1994.  He further stated that Surender, appellant, along with his  parents started harassing Pushpa on account of bringing inadequate  dowry and she was being taunted that she was not taking interest in  the household affairs.  He next stated that she was shunted out of  her matrimonial house on one or the other pretext.  She gave birth  to a female child after two and half years or three years of her  marriage.  He further stated that the appellants used to raise  demand for bringing cash from her parents and about five to six  months prior to her death, Surender, appellant, had come to him  and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchasing a tractor. He consulted  his brother-in-law, Dilbag Singh, who told him that he would not  be responsible for re-payment as Surender and his father were  habituated to take liquor.  He next stated that when demand of Rs.  80,000/- was not met, then they started harassing Pushpa and  beating her and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and  she lived with her parents for 3 months and then ten days prior to  the occurrence, she was sent to the matrimonial home with  Surender, appellant, on his assurance that they would not harass  Pushpa.  To the same effect is the statement of PW-10 Dilbag  Singh, father of the deceased.

The letter, Ex. PE, has been produced on record during the  cross-examination of PW-4 Sombir.  He stated that his sister had  received this letter and she had handed over this letter to him about

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

2-3 days of its receipt.  A perusal of this letter shows that her  father-in-law and mother-in-law had stopped saying anything to  Pushpa but her husband, Surender, had given severe beating to her  to the extent that she had become incapacitated and was unable to  walk.  

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no  offence has been made under Section 306 IPC because there is  nothing to show any intention to abet or urge the deceased to  commit suicide.  We do not agree.  As observed by the High Court  in the impugned judgment, "to instigate means to goad, urge,  provoke, incite or encourage someone to do an act.  It is not  necessary that express words should be used in order to instigate.   The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention  of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the  person who has abetted".  

It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Prem,  PW-4 Sombir  and PW-10 Dilbag Singh that the deceased Pushpa had been  harassed due to the demands of dowry.   About six months prior to  the occurrence, the appellant visited the house of Sombir, the  maternal uncle of the deceased where Pushpa had studied upto  class VIII, and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of a tractor.   However, when PW-4 Sombir refused to pay the amount, Surender  started beating the deceased and ultimately she was turned out of  the matrimonial house and went to her parents’ house where she  stayed for about three months.   Thereafter she was taken back by  the appellant with the assurance that he will treat Pushpa well, but  ten days thereafter she committed suicide.   It has come in  evidence that Surender gave beating to Pushpa to such an extent  that she became unable even to walk.

The deceased Pushpa was pregnant at the time of the suicide  and we agree with the High Court that a young pregnant women  having a child in the womb would not ordinarily commit suicide  unless she was compelled to do so.  We also agree that she would  not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of  demand for dowry.  It has also come in evidence of PW-10 Dilbag Singh, father  of deceased Pushpa, that when the demand for dowry was not met,  Pushpa was beaten and she had injury marks when she came to the  house of her father.

Both the courts below have held against the accused and we  fully agree with the reasoning given in the judgment by the courts  below.  

There is, thus, no merit in this appeal.  Hence it is dismissed  accordingly.