Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2016

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO. 8764 OF 2016)

GURCHARAN SINGH .…APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

AMITAVA ROY, J.

1.In assailment is the judgement and order dated 17.12.2014

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Criminal Appeal No. S-566-SB of 2004, affirming the conviction of

the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as “IPC”), as

entered by the Trial Court. While by the decision impugned, the

conviction has been endorsed, the substantive sentence of six years

of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to each of the

accused persons has been scaled down to one of five years of the

same description. The instant appeal seeks to overturn the

concurrent determinations on the charge by the courts below.

Page 2 2

2.We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.The fascicule of facts, indispensable to comprehend the

backdrop of the prosecution, has its origin in the inexplicable

abandonment of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her two daughters

namely; Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr. Jaspal Singh, their

husband and father respectively, about two years prior to the tragic

end of his three family members as above. The prosecution version is

that Dr. Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the Government service,

had relinquished the same and started a coal factory at Muktsar. He

suffered loss in the business and consequently failed to repay the

loan availed by him in this regard from the bank. As he and his

brother Gurcharan Singh (appellant herein) and others succeeded to

the property left by their predecessors, he started medical practice in

private.

4.Be that as it may, before leaving his family, he addressed a

communication to the concerned bank expressing his inability to

repay the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed of

any property in his name. Dr. Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be

traced. Following this turn of events, according to the prosecution,

Page 3 3

his wife Surjit Kaur and his daughters shifted from Jalalabad where

they used to stay to Abohar and started residing in a rented house of

one Hansraj (PW3). According to them, they had no source of

income and further, they were also deprived of their share in the

property and other entitlements, otherwise supposed to devolve on

Dr. Jaspal Singh. They were also not provided with any maintenance

by the family members of her husband – Jaspal Singh and instead

were ill-treated, harassed and intimidated.

5.While the matter rested at that, on 3.10.2000 at about 10.30

p.m., Hansraj, the landlord of the deceased Surjit Kaur, being

suspicious about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his

tenants, though the television in their room was on, informed the

brother of the deceased Surjit Kaur. Thereafter they broke open the

door of the room and found all three lying dead. The police was

informed and FIR was lodged.

6.In course of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer collected a

suicide note in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to

by her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note implicated the

appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the convicted co-accused

Sukhvinder Singh @ Goldy as being responsible for their wretched

Page 4 4

condition, driving them in the ultimate to take the extreme step. A

note book containing some letters, written by deceased Geet Pahul

was also recovered. On the completion of the investigation, which

included, amongst others the collection of the post-mortem report

which confirmed death due to consumption of aluminium

phosphide, a pesticide, charge-sheet was submitted against the three

persons named hereinabove along with Satnam Kaur under Section

306/34 IPC.

7.Whereas Satnam Kaur died during the committal proceedings,

charge was framed against the remaining accused persons namely;

Gurcharan Singh (appellant), Ajit Kaur and Sukhvinder Singh @

Goldy under the aforementioned provisions of the Code. As the

accused persons claimed to be innocent, they were made to face trial.

8. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including

the doctor, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body. The

accused persons stood by the denial of the charge in their statements

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also examined five witnesses in

defence.

9.The Trial Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, held the

appellant herein and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh to be guilty of

Page 5 5

the charge levelled against them and awarded them the sentence as

hereto before mentioned. It, however, acquitted the co-accused Ajit

Kaur. To reiterate, by the impugned verdict, the conviction of the

appellant and the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh has been upheld

with the marginal modification in the substantive sentence as

aforementioned.

10.Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant has

emphatically urged that the evidence on record does not furnish the

ingredients of abetment as visualised in Section 306 of the Code and

thus, the conviction is manifestly illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

It being patent from the materials on record that the deceased Surjit

Kaur and her daughters, had been duly accorded their share in the

family property and that they had sufficient means to independently

maintain themselves with reasonable comfort, the accusation to the

contrary, as levelled by the prosecution, is wholly unfounded, she

insisted. According to the learned counsel, the in-laws of the

deceased Surjit Kaur had throughout been considerate,

compassionate and supportive towards her and two daughters and

that the suicide committed by them had been on their own volition

and not as a result of any torture, harassment and oppression by

Page 6 6

them, as alleged. The learned counsel has maintained that the

suicide note has not been proved in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur as

well and thus, there being no evidence whatsoever in corroboration of

the charge of abetment, the conviction and sentence is liable to be

set-aside in the interest of justice.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, has urged

in confutation, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more

particularly of (Gurjeet Singh) PW5 and Gaganjit Singh (PW6), the

brothers of Surjit Kaur as well as the medical testimony, has proved

the imputation against the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder

Singh beyond all reasonable doubt and in the face of concurrent

findings recorded by the courts below, on an in-depth appraisal of

the materials on record, no interference with the impugned

judgement and order is warranted.

12.Though, in the teeth of the sequential findings of guilt of the

courts below, normally, reappraisal of the evidence is otherwise

uncalled for, we are impelled to embark upon that exercise, having

regard to the rival assertions in the unique facts and circumstances

of the case. This is more so, as in controversion of the allegation of

wilful and deliberate deprivation of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her

Page 7 7

daughters of their share in the family property, as laid by the

prosecution, evidence has surfaced to the contrary, being conceded

by her brothers in the course of their testimony at the trial.

13.PW3 Hans Raj, the landlord stated on oath that the deceased

Surjit Kaur and her daughters used to reside in the first floor of his

house. On the date of the incident, at about 10.00 p.m. his wife

reported to him that though the lights of that floor were off, the

television was on. The witness thereafter along with his wife knocked

the door of the apartment of the deceased, but there was no

response. After waiting for some time, the witness informed Gurjit

Singh and Gaganjit Singh, the brothers of Surjit Kaur, and on their

arrival, as the same state of affairs continued, they broke open the

door and found all the three lying dead. The police was thereafter

informed. According to this witness, even after this incident, none of

the accused persons or the in-laws of Surjit did come to inquire

about the same.

14.In cross-examination, the witness mentioned that all the three

deceased used to remain dejected and depressed. They however,

often visited the parents and the brothers of Surjit. He disclosed that

Surjit had a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time,

Page 8 8

Surjit and her daughters did complain to him about any threat

extended by the accused persons. The witness disclosed that though

Surjit had expended substantial amount on the coaching of her

daughter, she failed in the examination, for which she was morose

and anguished. The witness opined that Surjit and her daughters

had committed suicide out of grief for their missing husband/father.

According to him, the accused persons were not in any manner

responsible for their death.

15.PW4 Dr. Kalra, who had performed the post-mortem

examination of Preet Bahul, testified on the basis of the report of the

chemical analysis of her viscera that death was due to consumption

of aluminum phosphide which was sufficient to cause death in due

course of time. To the same effect, is the evidence of PW11 Dr.

Thakral vis-a-vis Surjit and her daughter Geet.

16.PW5 and PW6 Gurjit and Gaganjit, the brothers of Surjit Kaur

did depose in similar lines. They stated that at the time of their

death, Geet and Preet were aged 22 years and 18 years respectively.

They reiterated the version narrated in the FIR pertaining to the

sudden disappearance of their brother-in-law Dr. Jaspal Singh,

husband of Surjit, he having suffered losses in business. They also

Page 9 9

mentioned that, at that time, Dr. Jaspal Singh had heavy

outstanding dues qua the bank. They disclosed as well that after the

death of Jaktar Singh, the father of Dr. Jaspal, their brother-in-law

along with his brothers inherited the joint property. They also

reiterated the narration of the facts preceding the discovery of the

dead bodies as recited by PW3. They confirmed the recovery and

seizure of, amongst others the diary containing the suicide note.

They identified the text of the suicide note in the hand of their sister

Surjit. They identified the signature of Preet also thereon. These

witnesses in their examination-in-chief, though alleged that their

sister and nieces had committed suicide because they were deprived

of their share in the joint properties, and for which they suffered from

sustained depression, in cross-examination, they acknowledged a

sale deed executed by the appellant Gurucharan in favour of Surjit

regarding half share in the house at Abohar, which was also a

segment of the family property. They conceded as well that Satnam

Kaur, the mother-in-law of Surjit might have issued a cheque of

Rs.68,650/- in her name and that she had opened an account

therewith in the name of her brother Gagandeep. They admitted

that there was a parcel of land in the name of deceased Surjit at

Page 10 10

Muktsar. When confronted with the statements under Section 161

Cr.P.C., they admitted of not having disclosed to the Investigating

Officer, that the share in land of Dr. Jaspal Singh had not been given

to Surjit Kaur. They accepted that the main reason for the

depression of the deceased was the absence of near and close

relatives. They conceded that neither Surjit nor they had ever lodged

any complaint with the police against the accused person for the

ill-treatment meted out to her or for denying her entitlements in the

joint property. They admitted as well that no civil suit had been filed

in that regard.

17.PW6, in addition admitted his signature on the sale deed

executed by appellant Gurucharan in favour of Surjit. According to

PW6, the sale deed was executed in a family settlement after Jaspal

Singh had gone missing. This witness disclosed as well that the

appellant and the other family members were ready to transfer the

share of his brother-in-law to his sister.

18.The evidence on record, to start with, in our estimate, does not

substantiate the imputation that Surjit and her daughters had been

deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property as the

heirs of Dr. Jaspal Singh. Admittedly, there is no proof of any threat

Page 11 11

being extended by the appellant or anyone of the in-laws of Surjit so

as to reduce them to destitutes in a petrified state. The

disappearance of Dr. Jaspal Singh, the husband of Surjit, father of

Preet and Geet though unfortunate, the event had occurred about

two years prior to the incident. Neither the appellant nor the in-laws

of Surjit did have any role in this regard. The absence of any

complaint or civil litigation also permits an inference against the

denial of the share in the family property to Surjit and her daughters

or of any ill-treatment, torture, oppression meted out to them. There

is thus neither any proximate nor remote acts of omission or

commission on the part of the appellant and his family members that

can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor

compelling Surjit and her daughters to take the extreme step of

self-elimination.

19.The suicide note which transpires to be the sheet anchor of the

prosecution case needs extraction for reference as hereunder.

“The whole of my land and property should be given

to National Defence Fund. The family of my in-laws

especially my mother-in-law, Jeth Master

Gurcharan Singh, his wife Ajit Kaur and his son

Goldy are responsible for our death. My younger

daughter is still minor.

My husband was also to die by them. Now how can

Page 12 12

we live when our living is more than a hell. I

pleaded before the Prime Minister, President and Chief

Minister but there is no one for me in this society. I

also filed a case before the Human Rights Commission.

This is our cultured and democratic society. I

struggled continuously for 1 ½ years but now no

more. My daughters are so intelligent that one is

doing pre-medical test and the second is doing

Master of Computer Applications. This is the reason

that I bore all such pains but still remain alive. If

there is any justice in this cultured and democratic

society then at least my in-laws should be punished

after our death and every common man should get

justice.

My two biggas land of Diwan Khera, 4 ½ biggas land

of Sajrana and 4/5 kanals land at Muktsar should go

to Mission Hospital, Muktsar. No body is entitled

for my two plots in Bharat Colony Bathinda and my

house in Anand Nagri, Abohar. All the sale deeds of

the land are lying by my side. Suicide note of my

husband is also lying here which I was forced not to

hand over to the police on 22 March 1999 and

assurance that I and my children would be looked after

in a very good manner.

Sd/ Surjit Kaur”

This is however the translated version of the original which is in

Hindi script.

20.A plain perusal of the above quote also reveals that apart from

an omnibus grievance against her in-laws to be responsible for their

death, for which according to her, they ought to be punished, there is

no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof.

The suicide note divulges her ownership of lands and house which

Page 13 13

per se belies the charge that she had been denied the share of her

husband in the family property. Noticeably, no attempt was made by

the prosecution to prove the author of the text through an expert and

both the courts below solely based their conclusion, in this regard on

the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the brothers of Surjit, who identified the

contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation.

21.Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for

abetment of suicide and is designed thus:

“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.”

22.It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of

abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating

existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the

propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision

are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment,

the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the

commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of

any of this constituents would militate against this indictment.

Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention

Page 14 14

of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the

offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of

Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of

the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of

abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained

incitement for suicide.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:

“107. Abetment of a thing. – 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.

Explanation 1 – A person, who by wilful

misrepresentation, 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 doing.

Explanation 2 – 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to

Page 15 15

aid the doing of that act.”

23.Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of

abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the

explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the

culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.

24.Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a

presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by

her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had

committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her

marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected

her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” to

have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section

498A IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as well.

“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by

a married woman —When the question is whether

the commission of suicide by a woman had been

abetted by her husband or any relative of her

husband and it is shown that 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.

Page 16 16

Explanation—For the purposes of this section,

“cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section

498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

25.In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A

of the Code also demand extraction.

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever,

being the husband or the relative of the husband

of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall

be punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable

to fine.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section,

“cruelty” means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is

on account of failure by her or any person related

to her to meet such demand.”

26.This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the

husband of a woman or the relative of his, punishable thereby with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also

Page 17 17

fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The

explanation thereto defining “cruelty” enfolds:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as

is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or

to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman, where it is with a

view to coercing her or any person related to her

to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure by

her or any person related to her, to meet such

demand.

27.Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of

the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct

actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine

qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.

28.The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been

enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab

(2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out

hereunder.

“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a

person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a

thing. In cases of conspiracy 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

Page 18 18

instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before

a person can be said to be abetting the commission of

offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73,

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 the life by committing suicide. If it

transpires to the court that a victim committing

suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,

discord and differences in domestic life quite common

to the society to which the victim belonged and such

petulance, discord and differences were not expected to

induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given

society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court

should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the

accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should

be found guilty.”

29.Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier

pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be

extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each

case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the

victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life

by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing

suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord

and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to

which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to

Page 19 19

induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step,

the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty.

The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State

of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.

30.That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a

person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to

commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act

leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option,

had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay

Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.

31.In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10

SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law

amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet

the social challenge of saving the married woman from being

ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his

relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of

proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained

therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the

prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that

Page 20 20

the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person

charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.

32.The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our

considered opinion, does not demonstrate with unqualified clarity

and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other implicated

in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above

provisions so as to return an unassailable finding of their culpability

under Section 306 IPC. The materials on record, to reiterate, do not

suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or

inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to

resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such

continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family

members with the required provocative culpability or lethal

instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased

Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed

state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as

if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly

miseries.

33.In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the

unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306

Page 21 21

IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be

acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below

cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by

this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed.

The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is

not required in connection with any other case.

.............................................J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

…...........................................J.

(AMITAVA ROY )

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 2, 2016.