Holding

Mere harassment of a wife does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC; the charge under s.306 is therefore untenable.

Summary

The deceased Shobha committed suicide, allegedly after prolonged harassment by her in‑laws for insufficient dowry and for bearing a girl child. The trial court framed charges under IPC sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498‑A (dowry death) and 34. The Delhi High Court quashed the s.306 and s.34 charges, directing that only s.498‑A be framed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that mere harassment or domestic discord does not satisfy the elements of abetment under s.306 read with s.107, unless the suicide is directly caused by a dowry demand made shortly before death, in which case s.3048 could apply. Since no charge under s.3048 was framed, the accused could not be convicted on that ground. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether harassment for dowry and related domestic discord amounts to abetment of suicide under IPC s.306 read with s.107.
Whether a charge under s.306 can be sustained in the absence of a direct dowry demand immediately preceding the suicide.
Whether s.3048 (dowry death) is applicable when the suicide is allegedly caused by dowry demands.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 3048, s. 306, s. 34, s. 498-A

Subjects

abetment of suicidedowry harassmentIPC s.306IPC s.498-Adowry deathSection 107Section 3048criminal law

Judgment

A ~
BHAGWANDAS
v
KARTAR SfNGH AND ORS.

MAY 14, 2007
B
(S.B. SfNHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

I
Penal Code, J86U-s.306 rlw s.107-Abetment for Suicide-Allegation >-
c that suicide committed due to dowry demand-Charges framed u/s 30614981
34 !PC-Charge under 306 quashed by High Court with direction to frame
charge u/s 498-A /PC-On appeal, Held: charges u/s 306 rightly quashed-
Mere harassment of wife due to differences per se does not attract s. 306 rl
w s. 107-However, if suicide was due to dowry demand soon before her
death, thens. 304 B may be attracted-But action cannot be taken thereunder,
D charge not having been framed under that provision.

Trial Court framed charges u/s 306/498/34 IPC against the four accused
~
persons-respondents on the basis of the allegations that due to prolonged ill-
treatment and harassment of the deceased for not having brought sufficient
..
dowry and for giving birth to a girl child, who brought bad luck to the family,
E the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. In revision petition
thereagainst, High Court held that charges u/s 306/34 IPC were not made
out and remitted the matter to trial court for framing charges u/s 498-A/34
IPC. Hence the present appeal by the father of the deceased.

Dismissing the Appeal, the Court
F
HELD: Mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se
T
does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits
suicide. However, if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her
death then Section 3048 IPC may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide
G or suicide. In the present case, since no charge under Section 3048 IPC has
been framed, obviously the accused cannot be convicted under that provision.
[Paras 16 and 17) [478-H; 479-A-8)
Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of MP., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 731 and
Randhir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, [2004) 13 SCC 129, relied on
H 474
BHAGWAN DAS v. KARTAR SINGH [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 475
~ Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Anr., AIR (1989) SC 1661; Netai Dutta v. A
State of West Bengal, JT (2005) 3 SC 46; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and
Ors., (2000[ 5 SCC 207; Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr..
(2001 j 8 SCC 633 and Smt. Shanti and Anr. ,., State of Haryana, AIR (1991)
SC 1261, referred to

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 720 of B
2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18 .07 .2006 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi Cr!. Revision No. 188 of 2005.

Suresh Chand and Goodwill Indeveer for the Appellant. c
R. Mohan, ASG., O.P. Saxena, Usha Saxena, M.A. Chinnasamy, Ranjana
Narayan and P. Parmeswaran for the Repondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
Delhi High Court dated 18.7.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2005. The
said judgment was delivered on a Criminal Revision filed by the accused
appellant against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court E
dated 28.2.2005 framing charges under Section 306/498/34 IPC against the
accused persons.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case is that on the night intervening Ist and 2nd F
March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at about 2.00 a.m.
by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home. It is
alleged that she married Mangal Singh (since deceased) on 23.1.1992 and a
girl child was born to them in the year 1999. Soon thereafter, in an accident,
the said Mangal Singh became paralysed. It appears that the deceased (Shobha) G
did not leave any suicide note. It is the case of the prosecution that after her
marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing less dowry and was being
harassed on account therefore. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been
given by her father a few days after her marriage to Mangal Singh for his
business as he was allegedly unemployed. It is further the case of the
prosecution that Mangal Singh squandered the said sum of Rs.50,000/- in H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A gambling and drinking and thereafter he raised a further demand of Rs.2 lakhs
which could not be fulfilled. The prosecution also alleges that Shobha was
ill-treated and harassed by the present petitioners as she was not able to give
birth to a child and this harassment continued till 1999 when she gave birth
to a girl child as mentioned above. Till 1999, Shobha was being subjected to
mental cruelty by being told that her husband would be married elsewhere.
B It is further alleged by the prosecution that since Mangat Singh, shortly after
the birth of the girl child, was paralysed on account of an accident, the
deceased (Shobha) was being taunted that she gave birth to a girl child which
I
brought bad luck to the petitioners. It is these circumstances which, according _:> ....
to the prosecution, drove the said Shobha to commit suicide. On the basis
c of these allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the
following conclusion :

"I am of the Prima facie opinion that the cumulative effect of the
prolonged ill-treatment and harassment of Shobha compelled her to
commit suicide."
D 5. As already stated above, the learned Sessions Judge by the order
dated 28.2.2005 framed charges under Section 306/498/34 !PC against the four ~
accused persons namely Kartar Singh, Smt. Panno Devi, Subhash and A,rvind.
~
Kartar Singh is the father-in-law of the deceased Shobha, Panno Devi is her
mother-in-law, Subhash and Arvind are her devars (brothers of her husband
E Mangat Singh). Admittedly the husband of the deceased Shobha, Mangat
Singh, has died.

6. The High Court has held that no charge under Section 306/34 IPC was
made out and it has set aside the charge. However, it remitted the matter
regarding framing of charges under Section 498-A/34 !PC to the learned
F Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and we are informed that said charge has
since been framed. {

7. This appeal has been filed by the Bhagwan Das, who is the father
of the deceased Shobha. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the charge under Section 306 was made out and hence the same should
G not have been quashed. We do not agree.

8. The only allegation against the respondents was that they harassed
the deceased Shobha because she did not bring adequate dowry. Hence, it
is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this amounted to
abetment to suicide and hence was covered under Section· 306 !PC, read with
H
BHAGWAN DAS v. KART AR SINGH [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 477

~
s. 107. A
9. The word "abetment" has been defined m Section I07 !PC as
follows:

"Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or,
B
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
-.I.' takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or
c
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.

Explanation I - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by
willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a D
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 the act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof,
is said to aid the doing of the act." E

IO. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this
Court in Brij Lal v. Prem Chand & Anr., AIR (1989) SC 1661. In that case it
was held that :

"Where there was overwhelming evidence that the accused had F
made the life of his wife intolerable by constantly demanding money
--r and made it clear to her that if she wanted to die, she may do so on
very same day and give him relief forthwith, thereby spurring her and
goading her to commit suicide, the case would squarely fall under the
first category of abetment under Section 107." G
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the
decisions referred to in the impugned judgment. Thus in Netai Dutta v. State
of West Bengal, JT (2005) 3 SC 46, where a suicide note was involved, this
--.,.. Court came to the conclusion that in the suicide note there was no reference
of any act or incident whereby the appellant was alleged to have committed H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or insdgated the deceased
~
to have committing suicide. Hence, it was held that there was no abetment
to suicide.

12. Similarly, in Mahendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P .. [1995] Supp.
3. SCC 731, it was observed by this Court that it is common knowledge that
B the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot
be treated as constituting mens rea. In that case the appellant said to the
deceased "to go and die". As a result of such utterance, the deceased went
and committed suicide. However, the Supreme Court observed that no offence
I
under Section 306 !PC read with Section I07 !PC was made out because there ~
L_

c was no element of mens rea.

13. In Randhir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab., [2004] 13 SCC 129, it
was observed that "more active role which can be described as 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 !PC."
D
14. In the same decision it was observed following the decision in State
of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal (1994] I SCC 73 that:
~
"the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
'I
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
E the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victilll.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 ·
F 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." '
15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often
G happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a
wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our ~.
opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306
!PC read with Section I07 !PC.

H 16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due
BHAGWAN DAS v. KARTAR SINGH [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.) 479
_ to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section I07 !PC, A
if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High
Court. We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of
dowry soon before her death then Section 3048 IPC may be attracted, whether
it is a case of homicide or suicide. Vide Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2000) 5 sec 207, Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2001) 8 sec B
633, Smt. Shanti & Anr. v. Stare of Haryana, AIR (1991) SC 1261.

17. In the present case, since no charge under Section 3048 has been
framed, obviously the accused cannot be convicted under that provision.

18. In view of the above, there is no force in the appeal and hence it
is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that we are not approving or justifying C
harassment of wives by their husbands or in-laws, but are only clarifying the
law in the peculiar facts of this case as it stands today. Whether the law
should be amended is for the legislature to decide. Appeal dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.