Wife's Suicide Within 7 Years Of Marriage Won't Raise Presumption Of Husband's Abetment If There's No Evidence Of Cruelty: Supreme Court

“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”, said the Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the order.

Background

Facts in brief are as follows: the appellant got married to one Rani on May 10, 1992. A year later, she consumed poison and died by suicide. On the allegations of harassing Rani for money, the appellant was charged under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. He was convicted by the Trial Court in 1998.

Though an appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court assailing the Trial Court's judgment, the same came to be dismissed in 2008. Against the High Court's judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The appellant's counsel argued that there was no evidence to even remotely suggest that the appellant harassed the deceased. The State's counsel, on the other hand, emphasized that there was no error of law involved and that Rani died within 7 years of marriage.

Court observations

After going through the testimonies of deceased's brother and father, the Court observed that what drove her to end her life was not clear. It held that mere demand of money from the deceased or her parents, without anything more, did not constitute “cruelty or harassment”.

“It appears from the evidence of both these witnesses that on account of such demand, the deceased used to remain tense…the plain reading of the oral evidence of both these witnesses does not disclose any form of incessant cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband which would in ordinary circumstances drag the wife to commit suicide as if she was left with no other alternative.”

Recapitulating the legal position on abetment of suicide, the Court cited many judicial precedents including Kashibai& Others v. The State of Karnataka (2023), where it was held that to bring a case within the purview of 'abetment' under Section 107 IPC, there has to be evidence wrt “instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused” and for proving a charge under Section 306, there has to be evidence wrt “a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide”.

It was noted that in the present case, there was no clinching evidence of incessant harassment, on account of which the deceased was left with no other option but to put end to her life. If there was, it could have been said that the appellant intended the consequences of the act (ie deceased's suicide).

Speaking on gathering of “intention”, the Court said, “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).”

It was emphasized in unequivocal terms that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there has to be visible and conspicuous mens rea and mere harassment is not sufficient.

“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.”

Dismissing the State's reliance on Section 113A of the Evidence Act, under which a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman (within 7 years of marriage) may be raised, the Court clarified that before this presumption is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment. It was added that the presumption is discretionary in nature, unlike the one under Section 113B(presumption regarding dowry death) of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory.

“The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”

Noting that it took 30 years for the appellant's ordeal to end, the Court lamented the faltering of the Courts below by saying that “it did not take more than 10 minutes” for it to “reach to an inevitable conclusion” that the appellant's conviction was not sustainable in law. It further remarked, “criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment.”

In closing, it sounded a word of caution that not only evidence under Section 113A is to be carefully assessed, but also all additional circumstances are to be considered as an additional safeguard. “Otherwise it may give an impression that the conviction is not legal but rather moral”.

Decision

Coming to a conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgments of the Courts below and acquitted the appellant of the charge framed against him. As the appellant already stood enlarged on bail vide order of 2009, his bail bonds were discharged.