REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2010

UDE SINGH & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)

VS

STATE OF HARYANA ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order

dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 1997 whereby, the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while upholding the conviction of

accused-appellants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has modified the sentence of four years’

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- with default stipulation, as

awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No. 23

of 1997, to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.

2.The relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed, in

brief, as follows:

2.1 The appellants Ude Singh, Manoj Kumar and Daulat Ram (accused

Nos. 2 to 4) and one Hem Karan alias Hemla (accused No. 1- since

1

deceased) were tried for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC on the

allegations that they had abetted commission of suicide by the daughter of the

complainant Pohap Singh (PW-1). The parties involved in this matter are

closely related to each other. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been brothers

and the complainant is their cousin. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 Manoj and

Daulat Ram are the sons of accused No. 2 Ude Singh. The witness Smt.

Krishna (PW-11) is the mother of deceased girl whereas another witness Jai

Narain (PW-2) is also the cousin of the complainant and the accused Nos. 1

and 2. The parties lived in the same village Shahadatnagar (Haryana) and in

the neighbourhood. However, the relations of parties were too strained and

they were engaged in several litigations against each other, including the

complaint relating to a hurt case, as lodged by PW-11 Smt. Krishna(wife of the

present complainant) against Hem Karan alias Hemla and Ude Singh that was

pending trial at the relevant time.

2.2The case of prosecution in the present matter has been that the

accused persons, Hem Karan alias Hemla, Ude Singh, Manoj and Daulat

Ram, were taunting the unmarried daughter (the deceased girl) of the

complainant by addressing her as "wife", "Chachi" (aunt) and "Bohoria"

(younger brother's wife); and the deceased girl had been complaining to her

family about the indecent behaviour of the accused. It was alleged that on

15.04.1996, when the wife of complainant and other witnesses returned to the

village after completing their evidence in the criminal case against Hem Karan

and Ude Singh, Hem Karan caught hold of the daughter of the complainant;

2

dragged her into his house; pushed her; and verbally abused her and her

family members. On returning home, daughter of the complainant narrated

this incident to her mother and stated that she was unable to tolerate such

continuous insults. It was also alleged that on the advice of village elders, no

report of this incident was made, as it concerned the future and honour of an

unmarried girl; however, the accused persons continued to taunt the girl on

daily basis and, at all the times, the girl was only advised by her family to keep

quiet.

2.3.It was further alleged that on 05.05.1996, on sighting the daughter of

the complainant, who was returning after throwing garbage, Ude Singh said,

"see my Bohoria is coming"; Daulat Ram and Manoj said, "she is our Chachi";

and Hem Karan alias Hemla exclaimed, "she is my wife". Having heard all

these taunts, daughter of the complainant became very upset and entered into

altercation with the men. This incident was allegedly witnessed by Jai Narain

(PW-2). The victim girl once again complained to her mother and the

complainant's elder brother Raj Kumar about the incident and while crying,

stated that she had no right to live and would end her life as and when she

would get the opportunity to do so. Upon hearing this, the wife and the elder

brother of the complainant tried to pacify the girl and also told her that they

would inform the complainant (who was posted as Head Constable at Police

Station Beri, District Rohtak). They also advised her not to be troubled by such

taunts as the prestige of the family was in her hands and she was to be

married soon. However, the very next day, i.e., on 06.05.1996 at about 9:00

3

a.m., daughter of the complainant was found dead, hanging by her neck. Her

mother was the first to see her dead. The complainant, who was on duty, was

informed through his nephew about his daughter's demise.

2.4. After noticing the unnatural death of his daughter, the complainant

lodged the report and made his statement whereupon FIR No. 93 dated

06.05.1996 was registered at Police Station, Jatusana; investigation was

carried out; and ultimately, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the

offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

3.In trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses in support of its

case that the accused persons were guilty of abetment of suicide by the

daughter of the complainant. In view of the questions involved in this appeal,

we may briefly take note of the statements of relevant witnesses, being PW-1

Pohap Singh (the complainant- father of the deceased); PW-2 Jai Narain

(brother of the complainant); and PW-11 Smt. Krishna (wife of the complainant

– mother of the deceased).

3.1.PW-1 Pohap Singh stated that on a previous occasion, Hem Karan and

others had assaulted his wife and criminal proceedings were pending in that

regard. He also narrated about the incidents that had allegedly taken place on

15.04.1996 and on 05.05.1996. In his cross-examination, the complainant

admitted the relationship of parties; and also admitted that his deceased

daughter, 18 years of age, could not qualify her 10

th

standard examination and

had dropped her studies. The complainant PW-1 stated further that he was

4

aware of the insults his daughter had faced at the hands of accused; that he

had not witnessed the incident in question himself but was made aware of the

same by his wife, his brother and Jai Narain; and that his nephew Naresh had

informed him about the demise of his daughter. In his cross-examination, the

complainant further stated that no panchayat was ever convened to resolve

the issue of harassment of his daughter as it was believed that such a step

would eventually affect the marriage prospects of the girl. The complainant

also admitted a previous land dispute with the accused that had commenced

in the year 1988 and was ultimately compromised. He also admitted that a

case was registered by Hem Karan under Section 307 IPC against him

wherein his brother Raj Kumar and the witness Jai Narain were also named

as accused.

3.2.PW-2 Jai Narain testified to the occurance of 05.05.1996 as also the

conduct and behaviour of the accused persons. This witness specifically

stated that he was standing at a plot with Ram Kumar and Virender when

daughter of the complainant came there to throw garbage and when she was

going back, the utterances were made by the accused with Hem Karan calling

her as his wife; Ude Singh calling her as Bohoria and Daulat and Manoj calling

her as Chachi. This witness also stated that the daughter of the complainant

started crying and also rebuked the accused for their behaviour; and that she

was consoled by him and other persons and they walked down with her to the

house and left her there. Even while disputing some part of his statement

made during investigation, this witness stated that: “All the four accused are

5

rouges and as such we could not dare to rebuff or rebuke them for their

indecent behaviour. It is incorrect that all the four accused are decent person.”

3.3.PW-11 Krishna, wife of the complainant and mother of the deceased girl

stated that even during the pendency of land dispute between the parties, the

deceased was teased by the accused and she was taunted with the

expressions like "Chachi" and "Bohoria" etc.; that even during that time, none

of the elders of the panchayat controlled the behaviour of the accused; and

that the accused were eve-teasers and might have victimised other girls of the

village as well. She also deposed that she had brought the repeated indecent

behaviour with her daughter to the notice of the wives of the accused persons.

3.3.1.PW-11 further deposed that 3 years prior to the incident, Hem Karan

had inflicted head injury on her by using a gandasa and that he was facing

trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and, therefore, her

daughter was targeted regularly by the accused persons. She also deposed

that on the date of evidence in the hurt case i.e., on 15.04.1996, Hem Karan

dragged her daughter into his house and insulted her but, in order to protect

the honour of unmarried girl, the male members of the family were against

reporting the matter to the police.

3.3.2. PW-11 also deposed that on 05.05.1996, when her daughter had gone

to throw garbage, she was intercepted by the accused and was again teased

by all of them. PW-11 stated that her daughter was exhausted and disgusted

of all the taunts and remarks she had to bear; and throughout the night, she

6

kept on weeping and did not have even a wink of sleep. The witness deposed

that on 06.05.1996, that is the very next day, her daughter ended her life by

hanging as a result of continuous indecent behaviour of accused towards her;

and she was the one who found her daughter hanging by the neck. PW-11

also stated that her daughter was previously engaged but the engagement

was called off six months before the incident.

3.3.3. For their relevance, the material parts of the deposition of PW-11 are

extracted as under:

" …On 5.5.96 Meena had gone to dung garbage on a Kurhi in

the plot at about 5.30 p.m. As she returned from the plot, she

was intercepted by accused Hem Karan, Daulat, Manoj and

Udey Singh. Daulat and Manoj teased her by addressing her as

`Chachi’. Uday Singh accused addressed her as `Bohoria’

(younger brother’s wife). Accused Hemla alias Hem Karan

addressed her as ‘wife’. She then returned to her house and

wept bitterly in my presence. She told me that Virender, Jai

Narain and Ram Kumar had seen he untoward behavior of all

the accused. Meena had told me that she was totally

exhausted and disgusted from all the tautns and remarks given

occasionally to her by the accused and that she would end her

life.

On 6.5.96 my daughter ended her life by hanging as a

result of the continuous indecent behavior of the accused

towards her…."

xxx Cross-examination

"…Approximately 8/9 years back there was dispute in regards

to landed property between our family and the accused.

However, it was settled. Even during that land dispute, the

accused used to tease and taunt her. They used to address

Meena in these very words like Chachi and Bohdia etc. even

then. It had become an every day affair with the accused. The

entire village community knew about the indecent utterances

towards Meena. We always tried to overlook the matter as the

honour of an unmarried girl was involved. No elected member

of the panchayat of the village or any other respectable of the

7

society rebuked the accused against their behavior as they are

all anti-social elements and no respectable wants to take

cudgels with them. I would not know if more cases are pending

against the accused other than the two cases involving us.

Volunteered they are eve-teasers and have borrowed money

from different people and quite possible that they have many

more cases pertaining to these occurrence pending with the

police or in the courts but I have no definite information. I

would not know the names of the girls or their parents who

have been the targets of the behavior of the accused. May be

they are involving the teasing of 10/11 girls in the village. We

may have told the police about those incidents.

It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely against the accused or

that they have never been involved in any illegal activity in the

village.

The accused and my husband are cousins. The wives of Hem

Karan and Uday are my ‘Jethani and Devrani’ (Sisters-in-law). I

had complained to those ladies about the misbehavior of the

accused. I had complained to them repeatedly. I would not

know the result of my complaints to them. Our men folk had

also brought the incident to the notice of our neighbours and

Mohalla-wala.

My daughter had told me that she would end her life as she

was fed up of the in decent behavior of the accused towards

her and also because of our inaction against them. She wanted

us to report the matter to the police for action against the

accused."

xxx xxx xxx

"My daughter had returned home all alone after the dragging

incident on 5.5.96. It is incorrect that accused Manoj and

Daulat was not present in the village on 5.5.96 or that they were

in the native village of their maternal uncle called Jainabad. I

had not sent any person to call my husband after Meena

narrated all the happenings of 5.5.96 to me. Meena had slept

besides me on that night. She kept on weeping throughout the

night and did not have a pill of sleep. In the morning at about

8.00 a.m. I had given her a piece of bread (Roti) and a cup of

tea. I had then gone to place fodder before the bullocks. Even

at that time she was mentally disturbed. I returned to the house

after just 10 minutes and found Meena hanging by rope. I had

gone at about 9.00 a.m. to look after the bullock and had

returned in 10 minutes time. I had not gone to the fields (Khet)

on the day but I had gone to the plot in the Abadi where the

8

bullocks were tied. I had risen on that day at about 6.00 a.m. It

is incorrect that the entire story is a pure concoction with

nothing true in it. It is incorrect that my daughter had ended her

life or she was killed by my man on the night intervening 5/6

May, 1996. It is also incorrect that my daughter may have died

even at about 4.20 p.m. on 5.5.96. It is incorrect that a totally

false story was coined by my husband Pohap Singh, a police

man, and all the accused were falsely implicated in this case."

4.In defence, the accused examined 11 witnesses, essentially to suggest

that on 04.05.1996, accused Nos. 3 and 4, Manoj and Daulat, had visited

Jainabad and were falsely implicated in this case; and in this connection, an

application dated 05.06.1996 was sent to DIG Rohtak. The witnesses also

suggested that daughter of the complainant was under depression after her

engagement got broken; and she committed suicide for this reason.

5.On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment and order

dated 28.11.1997, observed that minor discrepancies in the statements of

witnesses could not be the reason to discard the case of the prosecution nor

could the case of the prosecution be said to be doubtful for their failure to

examine all the witnesses. The Trial Court rejected the suggestions made by

way of defence evidence and found that the case of the prosecution was

proved against all the accused; and that the acts and deeds of the accused

had been that of abetment of suicide. Accordingly, the accused were held

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC

and each one was awarded the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a

period of four years and fine of Rs. 300/- with default stipulations.

9

6.In appeal by the accused, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

observed that the incident of 05.05.1996 was not a solitary one; that the

incident that had occurred on 15.04.1996 was enough to malign the village

girl; that the deceased was teased and harassed by the accused persons on

several occasions; and that there was a consistent attempt on the part of the

accused to hurt the girl of marriageable age. The High Court, inter alia,

observed and held as under:

"In the present case, there is not a solitary instance of 5

th

May,

1996 which resulted into commission of suicide on 6

th

May,

1996, but prior thereto also, witnesses have stated that

accused were eve-teasing Meena. On 15

th

April, 1996 also,

when Krishana had returned from Court, Meena was caught

hold of one and she was dragged. Therefore in the whole

village, where great value is attached to the honour of the girl,

where girls are kept inside houses and are not allowed to

mingle in the society, the incident dated 15

th

April, 1996 was

sufficient to malign a girl. Furthermore, each day attempt was

made by the accused to browbeat, humiliate and insult the girl

only to assert that registration of a criminal case at the instance

of her mother had no effect, and they are superior in muscle

power and they intended to belittle the girl in the village. In our

society, to assert 'might is right' is not acceptable. Chain of

circumstances reveal that there was a consistent attempt on the

part of the accused to hurt the girl of marriageable age.

Therefore, abetment on their part to cause suicide of Meena is

complete and they are held guilty of offence under Section 306

IPC…."

6.1.With the findings aforesaid, the High Court upheld the order of

conviction but reduced the sentence to that of imprisonment for a period of two

and half years on the ground that the accused had already faced 12 years of

protracted trial.

10

7. It may be pointed out that on 22.07.2009, while entertaining the petition

for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter and while issuing notice to the

respondent, this Court also issued notice to the petitioners-appellants as to

why, in the event, if sufficient evidence is found acceptable, they be not

suitably punished under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, even

if they may not be held guilty for commission of offence under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. We shall examine hereafter a little later the questions

as to whether the accused are guilty of the acts and utterances attributed for

them; and if so, they are liable for the offence of abetment of suicide or if they

are guilty of any other offence under the Indian Penal Code.

8.Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has strenuously argued that

there is want of direct and cogent proof of the fact that the accused abetted the

suicide in question; that there is no evidence to show that the deceased ended

her life for the words or actions attributed to the accused; and that there are no

eye-witnesses to the incident and the depositions of the witnesses are all

nothing but hearsay. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased was

obviously depressed on account of dropping out of her studies as she had

failed to clear her 10

th

standard examination as also on account of her

engagement having been called off a few months prior to the incident and

these being the real causes of her committing suicide, the appellants cannot

be held responsible therefor. The learned counsel would submit that there had

been previous litigations including criminal cases between the parties and the

accused appellants have unnecessarily been implicated in this case because

11

of previous enmity. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the

decisions in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618,

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Another: (2010) 8 SCC 628 and

Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh: (2017) 7 SCC 780 . The

learned counsel has also argued in the alternative that even if the evidence of

the prosecution is taken on its face value, the offence against the appellants

cannot travel beyond that of insulting the modesty of a woman by some

utterances; and in that event too, the appellants could only be held guilty of the

offence under Section 509 but not for abetment of suicide under Section 306

IPC. The learned counsel has also argued for appellant No. 2 that as on the

day of incident i.e., 05.05.1996, the appellant No. 2 was a minor, being around

16 years of age with his date of birth as 20.04.1980 and hence, he was

required to be treated as a juvenile and could not have been sentenced in this

trial.

9.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has duly opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the appellants with reference to the evidence

on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. The

learned counsel would submit that the depositions of the witnesses,

particularly those of PW-2 and PW-11, establish beyond doubt that the

accused persons had insulted, humiliated and harassed the victim, a young

girl 18 years of age, on continuous basis and their actions led to the girl ending

her life by committing suicide. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the

appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

12

10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the

record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that so

far the appellant No. 2 (accused No. 3) is concerned, he is entitled to the

benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [‘the Act

of 2000’] and the proceedings qua him are required to be terminated.

11.The matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary

Education, Haryana dated 24.06.1994 in relation to the appellant No. 2 is

placed on record and therein, his date of birth is distinctly recorded as

"20.04.1980". This certificate has not been disputed on behalf of the

respondents and in the given set of circumstances, we find neither any reason

to doubt the correctness and veracity of the same nor there appears any

reason to hold further enquiry in the matter.

11.1.The daughter of the complainant was found dead on 06.05.1996 after

committing suicide and the cause for her taking such extreme step is said to

be the continuous humiliation and harassment by the accused; the last such

incident being of 05.05.1996. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant No. 2

was about 16 years of age as on the date/s of incident/s. Though this fact was

not placed for consideration before the Trial Court and the High Court but, in

the light of the law declared by this Court in the case of Raju v. State of

Haryana: 2019 (4) SCALE 398, he is entitled to raise this plea even in this

appeal. In view of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the Act of

2000, the appellant No. 2, being a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of

13

age on the date of commission of the offence, remains entitled to the benefit of

juvenility. In Raju's case (supra) this Court has observed and held as under:

"9. It is by now well-settled, as was held in Hari Ram v. State of

Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, that in light of Sections 2(k), 2(l),

7A read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended in 2006, a

juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of

commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act

(also see Mohan Mali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC

669; Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 224;

Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi (supra); Jitendra Singh @

Babboo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 193). It is

equally well-settled that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any

stage before any Court by an accused, including this Court, even

after the final disposal of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the

2000 Act (see Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Abuzar

Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489; Jitendra

Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of UP, (supra); Abdul Razzaq v.

State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637).

10. In light of the above legal position, it is evident that the

Appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act if his age

is determined to be below 18 years on the date of commission of

the offence. Moreover, it would be irrelevant that the plea of

juvenility was not raised before the Trial Court, in light of Section

7A. As per the report of the inquiry conducted by the Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court, in this case, the Appellant was below 18

years of age on the date of commission of the offence. The only

question before us that needs to be determined is whether such

report may be given precedence over the contrary view taken by

the High Court, so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to

the Appellant.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

25. Criminal Appeal hereby stands allowed and the order of the

High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant

under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is set aside. Seeing that the

Appellant has already spent 6 years in imprisonment, whereas the

maximum period for which a juvenile may be sent to a special

home is only 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act. We

direct that the Appellant be released from custody forthwith, if he

is not required to be detained in connection with any other case.’’

14

11.2.In view of the above and in view of the indisputable fact that the

appellant No. 2 was below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of

offence, the appeal in his relation deserves to be allowed.

12.Taking up the case of other appellants, as noticed, while entertaining the

petition for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter, this Court also issued notice

to the appellants as to why they be not suitably punished under appropriate

provisions of the Indian Penal Code, even if they were not held guilty for

commission of offence under Section 306 IPC with reference to the evidence

on record. Apparently, this notice was issued to the appellants with reference

to the offence specified in Section 509 IPC, being of "word, gesture or act

intended to insult the modesty of a woman". Obviously, this Court had

pondered over the broad features of this case while entertaining the prayer for

leave to appeal and it was prima facie indicated that even if the acts and

actions of the accused in this case fall short of making out a case of abetment

of suicide under Section 306 IPC, they might, nevertheless, remain liable

under Section 509 IPC for insulting the modesty of a woman. Even during the

course of hearing of this matter, we have heard learned counsel for the parties

at sufficient length on this question, of the offence in the alternative. However,

having scanned through the entire record with reference to the law applicable,

we have no hesitation in concluding that the present case squarely falls within

the ambit of Section 306 IPC and the appellants have rightly been held guilty

thereunder.

15

13.The offence of abetment of suicide is specified in Section 306 IPC as

under:

"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."

13.1.The expression “abetment” within the meaning of Indian Penal Code is

defined as follows:

"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

thing.

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 aid the doing of that act."

13.2.The offence relating the words, gestures or acts intended to insult the

modesty of woman is specified in Section 509 IPC as under

1

:

"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty

of a woman. – Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any

1 Section 509 IPC was amended by Act No. 13 of 2013 in the present form with enhancement of the

term of simple imprisonment to three years in place of the earlier term of one year.

16

woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or

exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be

heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such

woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be

punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years, and also with fine."

14.When the accusation in the present case has its genesis in certain acts

and utterances attributed to the accused, the meaning and expanse of the

expression “abetment”, particularly on its operation in relation to the offence of

“abetment of suicide”, is required to be dilated upon. Hence, before proceeding

further, apposite it shall be to take note of the case law as cited and as

relevant in this matter.

14.1.In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), a three-Judge bench of this Court

held that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not satisfactorily proved so

as to implicate and punish the accused for the same. The facts of the case

leading to the aforementioned decision had been that the deceased was

married to the accused for about a year. The deceased committed suicide by

pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire in the kitchen. On the day of

incident, the accused had refused to take the deceased to her sister's house

and in the quarrel that ensued, the accused-husband told the deceased-wife

that she was free to do whatever she wished to and to go wherever she

wanted to. The accused attempted to save her by putting a bedsheet around

her body and himself suffered burns consequently. The deceased had written

a letter to her husband-accused in her diary that he had made her free to go

wherever she liked but she was not having any place to go and now she was

17

free of her word not to commit suicide. In her dying declaration too, she stated

that she had a quarrel with her husband who told her to go wherever she

wanted to and thereafter, she set herself ablaze. The accused-appellant was

convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A

IPC and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. In further appeal, after

examining the evidence led in by the parties and taking note of all the

surrounding factors, this Court, while maintaining the conviction of the

appellant under Section 498-A IPC, set aside his conviction for offence under

Section 306. This Court observed and held inter alia, as under:

"19. …… Presumably the accused may have said some such

thing – you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you

like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being

given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no

other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the

husband had "freed" her she thought impulsively that the only

thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and

thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband's

wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately,

the trial court misspelt out the meaning of the expression

attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the

accused had made her free to commit suicide. Making the

deceased free – to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she

wished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the

accused had made the deceased free "to commit suicide" as held

by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.

20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or

encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation

though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt

out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his

acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created

such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other

option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may

have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion

18

without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be

said to be instigation.

21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] , this Court

has cautioned that the court 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."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.2. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), the allegation against the

accused was that as he had eloped with the deceased girl, he thought that she

was responsible for the criminal proceedings against him by her family and

hence, subjected her to abject teasing despite she standing with him and

having him acquitted of the offences imputed. On one occasion, while the

deceased was staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and

this led to her pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her

dying declaration, she wrote a letter narrating that the accused was

responsible for the step that she had taken. Though the Trial Court had

acquitted the accused of all charges, on appeal, the order of acquittal was set

aside by the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 306

IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years

together with fine. In further appeal, another three-Judge Bench of this Court

upheld the order of the High Court with reference to the principles relating to

19

the offence of abetment of suicide. This Court referred to several decisions,

including that in the case Ramesh Kumar (supra), and observed, inter alia, as

under:

"34. The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306

IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under

Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those

who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person

has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be

gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found

out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental

element…….

xxx xxx xxx

36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward,

provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to

instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates

him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it

takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or

encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by

(implied) conduct.

37. The word "urge forwards" means to advise or try hard to

persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move

more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or

forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to

"goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke,

incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove

abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or

annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted.

A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation

should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment".

xxx xxx xxx

43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to

address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be

it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any

positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of

the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in

terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is

likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come

within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit

of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be

20

positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to

life.

44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his

continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a

consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option

except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led

the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any

material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the

victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,

discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society

to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has

played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of

the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty

meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark.

45. As is demonstrable, the High Court has not reversed the

judgment of acquittal solely on the basis of the dying declaration. It

has placed reliance on the evidence of the parents and also other

witnesses. It has also treated the version of the Pradhan of the

Gram Panchayat as credible. All these witnesses have deposed that

the accused after his acquittal engaged himself in threatening and

teasing the girl. He did not allow her to live in peace.

46. The harassment caused to her had become intolerable and

unbearable. The father had deposed that the girl had told him on

number of occasions and he had complained to the Pradhan. All

these amount to active part played by the accused. It is not a

situation where a person is insulted on being asked to pay back a

loan. It is not a situation where someone feels humiliated on a

singular act. It is a different situation altogether. The young girl living

in a village was threatened and teased constantly. She could not

bear it any longer. There is evidence that the parents belong to the

poor strata of the society. As the materials on record would reflect,

the father could not afford her treatment when case of his daughter

was referred to the hospital at Chandigarh. The impecuniosity of the

family is manifest. It is clearly evident from the materials brought on

record that the conduct of the accused was absolutely proactive."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.3In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), this Court also expressed serious

concern over the menace of eve-teasing and its adverse impact on the

civilized society while indicating the affirmative rights of a woman with

21

reference to Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Constitution of India. This Court referred

to an earlier decision and observed as under: -

"47. …..We are at pains to state that in a civilised society eve

teasing is causing harassment to women in educational institutions,

public places, parks, railway stations and other public places which

only go to show that requisite sense of respect for women has not

been socially cultivated. A woman has her own space as a man

has. She enjoys as much equality under Article 14 of the

Constitutions as a man does. The right to live with dignity as

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be violated by

indulging in obnoxious act of eve teasing. It affects the fundamental

concept of gender sensitivity and justice and the rights of a woman

under Article 14 of the Constitution. That apart creates an incurable

dent in the right of a woman which she has under Article 15 of the

Constitution. One is compelled to think and constrained to

deliberate why the women in this country cannot be allowed to live in

peace and lead a life that is empowered with dignity and

freedom…….

48. In a civilised society male chauvinism has no room. The

Constitution of India confers the affirmative rights on women and the

said rights are perceptible from Article 15 of the Constitution. When

the right is conferred under the Constitution, it has to be understood

that there is no condescension. A man should not put his ego or, for

that matter, masculinity on a pedestal and abandon the concept of

civiliaty. Egoism must succumb to law. Equality has to be regarded

as the summum bonum of the constitutional principle in this context.

The instant case portrays the deplorable depravity of the appellant

that has led to a heart-breaking situation for a young girl who has

been compelled to put an end to her life. Therefore, the High Court

has absolutely correctly reversed the judgment of acquittal and

imposed the sentence. It has appositely exercised the jurisdiction

and we concur with the same."

14.4.In the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra), the driver of the accused

had alleged in his suicide note that the accused had driven him to the extent of

committing suicide. However, on evidence, it was found that the deceased had

a grudge against his superior and even though the deceased felt that he was

22

wronged at some point in time, there was nothing available on record to prove

that the accused had done anything to instigate the deceased to commit

suicide. Hence, this Court observed as under:

"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide

note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence

much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the

FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as

abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an

allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit

suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a

conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act

or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. "

14.5. We may also refer to the decision in S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan and Ors: (2010) 12 SCC 190, where this Court reiterated on the

essentials of the offence under Section 306 IPC as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person

or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a

positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in

committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The

intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by

this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under

Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the

offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must

have been intended to push the deceased into such a position

that he committed suicide."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.6.In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): (2009) 16

SCC 605, this Court referred to the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) and,

while pointing out the complexities related with the determination of the

23

question as to the cause of suicide, expounded on the relevant principles in

the following:-

"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar (supra), where the accused

by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option

except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In

other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted

commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established

that:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the

deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or

conduct which may even be a wilful silence until

the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the

deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission

or conduct to make the deceased move forward

more quickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke,

urge or encourage the deceased to commit

suicide while acting in the manner noted above.

Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the

necessary concomitant of instigation.

20. ………….The question as to what is the cause of a suicide

has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours

in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different

individuals in the same situation react and behave differently

because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus

accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each

individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective

experience of mental pain, fear and loss or self-respect. Each

of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an

individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be

an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable

self."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.7.In the case Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.: (2010) 1 SCC 707, this

Court, after reference to several past decisions, held as follows:-

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before

holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,

24

the court must scrupulously examine the facts and

circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence

adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and

harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no

other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be

borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there

must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the

commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time of

occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled

the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306

IPC is not sustainable."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in

doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates

any person to do that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in

any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts

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

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

incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.

16.In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct

or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be

disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of

an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving

multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and

responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the

Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of

incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere

25

allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice

unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the

person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate

to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission

of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and

circumstances of each case.

16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of

suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the

act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this

Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge

forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who

committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is

otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person

to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment

of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his

continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased

perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within

the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in

tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually

draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of

abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in

such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds

of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the

26

accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a

particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,

if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds

until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of

abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human

behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while

taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and

psyche of the accused and the deceased.

16.2.We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could

react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another

carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by

different persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other

human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to

estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the

question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age,

personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the

response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could

also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-

confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on

its own facts and circumstances.

17.Having taken an overall view of the applicable principles, we may

notice that the real questions arising in this appeal are:

27

(i)Whether the accused persons are guilty of the acts and

utterances attributed to them; and

(ii)If the answer to the question (i) is in the affirmative, as to

whether such acts and utterances had only been of insult or

intimidation or had been of instigation; and whether such acts

and utterances amounted to abetment of suicide?

17.1Before entering into the questions aforesaid, it may be observed that

the fact that the daughter of the complainant indeed committed suicide with

hanging by neck is not of any dispute in this appeal. The fact has been

established on record and the Trial Court as also the High Court have

concurrently found this fact proved. No further dilation on this aspect of the

matter is requisite. Similarly, a feeble suggestion on behalf of the accused

persons that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were not present in the village on

05.05.1996 does not carry any substance and the finding in that regard is

also not required to be interfered with.

18.Coming to the material points for determination in the matter, the

question as to whether the accused persons were guilty of the actions and

utterances imputed on them does not detain us much longer. The fact that

they indeed did so and made such utterances is amply established in the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11,

as noticed above. It is also established beyond doubt that such utterances

were not of a solitary or one-off incident but the accused, working in unison,

had continuously made the imputed utterances towards the daughter of the

28

complainant and continuously taunted the girl, who committed suicide next

day after her last encounter with the accused. In the given fact situation, the

question is as to whether such actions and utterances of the accused

persons lead to the offence of abetment of suicide or only to the offence of

insult and/or intimidation?

19.Having examined the record in its totality, we are clearly of the view

that the actions and utterances of the accused, directed towards the

deceased on continuous basis, had driven her to suicide; and accused

persons are guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide.

20.The relevant background aspects of the matter make it clear that the

complainant (father of the deceased) and the accused persons, residing in

the same village in the State of Haryana, were closely related as cousins but

were estranged in relations; and were involved in several civil and criminal

cases against each other. Admittedly, there was a property dispute between

the parties that was later on compromised but, the relations of the parties did

not improve. There was a criminal case by the accused No. 1 (since

deceased) against the complainant and his brother, allegedly involving

offence under Section 307 IPC. Then, there was another criminal case

wherein wife of the complainant (PW-11 Smt. Krishna) alleged that the

accused No. 1 of this case had assaulted her with gandasa. The incident of

15.04.1996 (when the deceased girl was dragged by accused No. 1) had

allegedly taken place after evidence in the said criminal case lodged by the

mother of the deceased girl. The parties, therefore, were not standing on

29

good terms and there had been the elements of rather abject animosity

towards each other. On the other hand, the position of the deceased girl had

been that she was about 18 years of age; she had failed to clear her 10

th

standard examination and was practically a drop out from her studies; and

she was engaged for the purpose of marriage but, six months before the

incident in question, her engagement had broken. The accused Nos. 1 and 2

were uncles in her relation whereas, the accused Nos. 3 and 4 were her

cousins.

21.In the given set up and the respective position of the parties, if the

accused No. 1 continuously addressed or called the deceased girl as his

“wife”, in our view, the utterance was not merely of teasing but of demeaning

and destroying the self-esteem of the young girl whose engagement had

broken and whose uncle was mocking her to join him in matrimony. It was the

act of humiliation of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered the

set-back of broken engagement, apart that she was unable to clear even 10

th

standard examination. Obviously, she was being ridiculed and taunted for her

broken engagement. The other accused persons chose to join the accused

No. 1 and aggravated the humiliation of the girl by addressing her as younger

brother's wife or aunt. There remains nothing to doubt that the accused

persons were working with the common intention to harass and humiliate the

girl with reference to her broken engagement. The significant part of the

matter is that such taunting and humiliation of the deceased at the hands of

the accused persons had not been a singular event or one-off affair but had

30

been a continuous feature, as amply established by the prosecution

witnesses. The incident of 05.05.1996 drew the final straw when the hapless

girl received the same taunts from the accused persons and she even

rebuked them. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-2 Jai

Narain as regards the incident of 05.05.1996. Equally, there is no reason to

disbelieve the statement of PW-11 Smt. Krishna that her daughter wept the

whole night after the said incident; and on being frustrated and exasperated

with such humiliations, expressed her intention to end her life. The fact of the

matter remains that the victim girl ended her life in the early morning very

next day.

22.Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the present

one had not been a case of a mere eve-teasing, insult or intimidation but the

continuous and repeated acts and utterances of the accused persons were

calculated to bring disgrace to the village girl and to destroy her self-esteem;

rather the acts and utterances were aimed at taking her to the brink of

helplessness and to the vanishing point of tolerance. It had not been a case

of mere intimidation or insult. The incessant intimidation and insult of the

innocent girl had been of instigation; and such instigation clearly answers to

the description of abetment of suicide. Therefore, in our view, the accused

Nos. 1 and 3 have rightly been held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide.

23.The contention of the appellants that their intention had never been to

make her commit suicide is required to be rejected because, as noticed

above, the hapless girl was intentionally chosen for humiliation by the

31

accused, who were otherwise involved in several litigations with her parents.

The accused persons also knew it that the father of the girl was posted in his

duty outside the village. As noticed, the intention of the accused had only

been to drive the deceased to the brink of helplessness and intolerance; they

in fact succeeded in doing so on 05.05.1996, when the girl rebuked them for

their utterances. However, the victim girl found no way out because the

humiliation at the hands of accused had been everyday affair; and, in the

given set up of the society she belonged to, any action against the accused

by her family was being avoided for the sake of her honour.

24. The present case indeed represents a sordid state of affairs in relation to

the young girl in the rural setting, whose honour and self-esteem got brutally

violated by none other but her own relatives, who found her to be the soft-

target to settle their scores with her parents. The accused rather exhibited

their denigrating mentality while targeting the young girl, who was otherwise

required to be treated by them with affection and respect, for being their niece

and their cousin. The facts of this case lead only to the conclusion that the

accused persons had intentionally, with their incessant acts and utterances,

goaded the victim girl to commit suicide. She indeed committed suicide within

few hours of her last and unbearable encounter with the accused. The acts

and deeds of the accused in the evening of 05.05.1996 had been too

proximate to the event of suicide by 9 a.m. in the morning of 06.05.1996. As

testified by PW-11 Smt. Krishna, her daughter cried the whole night for being

32

unable to bear the daily humiliation at the hands of the accused; and ended

her life in the morning.

25.For what has been discussed hereinabove and having examined the

matter in its totality, we find no reason to consider any interference in the

impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2008 in relation to the appellant

Nos. 1 and 3.

26.Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed to

the extent it relates to the appellant No. 2; the impugned judgment and order

of the High Court affirming his conviction are set-aside; and the proceedings

in his relation stand terminated. However, the appeal stands dismissed in

relation to the other appellants, who shall be required to serve out the

remaining part of sentence awarded by the High Court.

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

(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

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

(DINESH MAHESHWARI) 1

New Delhi,

Dated: 25

th

July, 2019.

33

34