'Our Criminal Justice System Itself Can Be A Punishment' : Supreme Court Says While Setting Aside Conviction In 30-Year-Old Case

Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man convicted for abetment to suicide of his wife, almost after 30 years of initiation of trial.

While doing so, the Court lamented that the criminal justice system of India can itself be a punishment for the accused if it took 30 years for the criminal justice system to acquit the accused.

“Before we part with this matter, we may only observe that the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. It is exactly what has happened in this case. It did not take more than 10 minutes for this Court to reach to an inevitable conclusion that the conviction of the appellant convict for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable in law.”, observed the Bench Comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

In the instant case, the deceased wife died by suicide in 1993 alleging that her husband (appellant-accused) and her in-laws started harassing her for demand of money. Subsequently, the FIR came to be registered under Section 306 IPC (Abetment to Suicide) against the accused husband.

In 1998, the Trial Court convicted the accused, and in 2008, the High Court confirmed the same.

Against the conviction, the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

It was contended by the accused husband that the Courts below committed an error in holding the appellant guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. He submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to even remotely suggest that there was any kind of harassment, physical or mental, to the deceased by her husband.

Finding force in the accused submission and after referring to plethora of Supreme Court's Judgment, the Supreme Court recorded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

“Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.”, the Supreme Court added.

The Supreme Court noted that there is no clinching evidence against the husband to convict him for abetment to suicide as the evidence relied upon by the prosecution couldn't prove that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide.

“Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).”

Presumption As To Abetment Of Suicide By A Married Woman Wouldn't Apply Automatically U/S 113A of Evidence Act

The Trial Court and High Court convicted the husband for abetment to suicide on the note that the presumption is drawn against the accused husband that he had abetted the suicide of her wife because the wife had died by 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.

Disagreeing with such an interpretation of Section 113 A, the Supreme Court held that mere fact that the deceased died by suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply as the presumption under Section 113A is discretionary.

“What is important to note is that the term 'the Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband' would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.”

Further, the Supreme Court observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under Section 113A to find out if cruelty is meted out.

“If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive 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 would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty.”, the Supreme Court observes.

“the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words 'may presume'. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard.”, the Top Court added.

Thus, the Supreme Court recorded that in the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by raising a presumption under Section 113A.

“In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence. Appreciation of evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating the evidence in cases of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is more arduous. The court must remain very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of abetment of suicide while appreciating the evidence on record. Otherwise it may give an impression that the conviction is not legal but rather moral.”, observes the Supreme Court while setting aside the conviction of the accused husband.

As a result, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court was hereby, set aside.

Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1722/2010