Supreme Court of India
NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 149
- Decided
- 22 February 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained without clear proof of mens rea and a positive act of incitement; the presumption under Section 113A is discretionary and may not be raised where cruelty is not established.
Summary
The appellant Naresh Kumar was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting his wife Rani's suicide in 1993, based largely on the fact that she died within seven years of marriage and that he repeatedly demanded money for a business. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother and father, who described the monetary demands and the wife's tension, and invoked the discretionary presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements for abetment, emphasizing the need for a clear mens rea and a positive act that directly induced the suicide, which the evidence failed to establish. It held that mere harassment or financial demands do not satisfy the threshold of cruelty or incitement required for conviction, and that the presumption under Section 113A is not automatic but discretionary, requiring proof of cruelty. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial and High Court judgments, acquitted the appellant, and discharged his bail bond.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of evidence to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether the discretionary presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be invoked in the absence of proven cruelty.
- Whether the appellant's demand for money and alleged harassment constitute the requisite mens rea and active act for abetment.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Justice Act, 1967
- Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 113A, s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306
Subjects
Abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 113A Evidence ActPresumption discretionaryMental intent (mens rea)CrueltyHarassment not sufficientEvidence appraisalCriminal justice
Judgment
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 830 : 2024 INSC 149
Naresh Kumar
v.
State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal (No.) 1722 of 2010
22 February 2024
[J. B . Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306,
Penal Code, 1860, if justified.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide
by a married woman – When cannot be raised – Conviction
of the appellant u/s.306, IPC – Correctness:
Held: In order to convict a person u/s.306, 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 – Presumption u/s.113A is discretionary – Before the
said presumption is raised, the prosecution must show evidence
of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard – The mere fact
that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven
years of her marriage, the presumption u/s.113A, Evidence Act
would not automatically apply – PW-4 and PW-5 (brother and
father of the deceased) only stated that after the marriage, there
was a demand of some money by the appellant, as he wanted to
start a ration shop and on account of such demand, the deceased
used to remain tense – However, what ultimately led the deceased
to take such a drastic step of committing suicide is not clear –
Their evidence does not disclose any form of incessant cruelty
or harassment on his part which would in ordinary circumstances
drag the wife to commit suicide as if she was left with no other
alternative – Mere demand of money from the wife or her parents
* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 831
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
for running a business without anything more would not constitute
cruelty or harassment – Prosecution did not establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Order of conviction
passed by Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court, set aside –
Appellant acquitted. [Paras 22, 29, 28, 10, 11 and 35-37]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Requirements under –
Discussed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Assessment of evidence –
Duty of Courts:
Held: Court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence
u/s.113A for finding out if cruelty was 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. [Para 30]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.113A, 113-B– Presumptions under
both the sections – Fine distinction between:
Held: In s.113A the legislature has used the word ‘may’, whereas
in s.113B the word used is ‘shall’ – 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
u/s.113B, which is mandatory – From the mere fact of suicide
within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the
conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved – 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.
[Paras 27, 29 and 32]
Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal
Justice – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide
– Appreciation of evidence – Guilt of the accused to be
determined in accordance with law – Correct application
832 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of principles of law – Duty of Courts – In 1993, appellant’s
wife committed suicide by consuming poison allegedly on
account of incessant harassment by him – Appellant held
guilty u/s.306 IPC, his parents were acquitted by Trial Court
– Appellant’s conviction upheld by High Court – Acquitted
by Supreme Court in 2024:
Held: Ordeal of the appellant which started in 1993 has come to
an end in 2024, i.e. almost after a period of 30 years of suffering
– Although, a young woman died leaving behind her 6 months
old infant and no crime should go unpunished – But at the same
time, the guilt of the accused has to be determined in accordance
with law and on the basis of evidence on record – Courts below
faltered as they failed to apply the correct principles of law to
the evidence on record on the subject of abetment of suicide
and got enamoured by just three aspects, that the deceased
committed suicide within seven years of marriage, the accused
was demanding money from the parents of the deceased for
starting some business, and the deceased used to remain tense
– Though, these are not irrelevant considerations and are in fact
relevant but, 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 – In the
present case, on the basis of evidence on record, conviction of
the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 306 of the IPC was
not sustainable – 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 u/s.306 of the IPC, it
is more arduous – 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. [Para 34]
Words and expressions – ‘may presume’ in s.113A, Evidence
Act, 1872 – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another,
[2021] 10 SCR 393 : (2021) 19 SCC 144; M.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 833
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of
Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Others v.
State of Haryana, [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17
SCC 301; Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The
Inspector of Police, [2022] 14 SCR 889 : (2022)
SCC Online SC 1387; Gurcharan Singh v. State
of Punjab, [2020] 8 SCR 741 : (2020) 10 SCC
200; Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka,
[2023] 3 SCR 175 : (2023) SCC Online SC 575
– relied on.
Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) Suppl. 1 SCC
173; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1998] 1 SCR
746 : (1998) (3) SCC 309; Smt. Shanti v. State of
Haryana, [1990] Suppl. 2 SCR 675 : (1991) 1 SCC
371 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983; Criminal
Justice Act, 1967.
List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Abetment of suicide by married woman;
Within seven years of marriage; Presumption not automatic;
Presumption discretionary/mandatory; Mere harassment not
sufficient; Mens rea; Intention; Abetting the commission of
suicide; Active act or direct act; Cruelty or incessant harassment;
Demand of money; Cruelty meted out or not; Incitement to
commit suicide; Victim committing suicide hyper sensitive;
Appreciation of evidence; Correct application of principles of
law; Criminal Justice System; Guilt not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1722
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2008 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No.726 of 1998
834 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
S.D. Singh, Mrs. Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh, Siddharth Singh,
Mrs. Aparna Jha, Advs. for the Appellant.
Raj Singh Rana, A.A.G., Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms.
Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed
against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal
Appeal No. 762-SB of 1998, by which the High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed
the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 08.09.1998/10.09.1998 in Sessions
Trial No. 06 of 1996 holding the appellant guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short ‘IPC’).
2. The short facts necessary to be narrated for disposal of this appeal,
are as under:-
The deceased, Rani, was married to the appellant herein. The
marriage was solemnized on 10.05.1992. The marriage of Rani
with the convict was her second marriage. In the wedlock with the
convict, Rani gave birth to a girl child.
The case of the prosecution is that soon after marriage, the appellant-
convict and her parents started demanding money as the appellant
convict wanted to start a ration shop. It may not be out of place to
state at this stage that the parents of the appellant-convict herein
were also put to trial for the alleged offence. However, they came
to be acquitted by the Trial Court.
The record reveals that on 19th November, 1993, Rani committed
suicide by consuming poison. According to the case of the
prosecution, Rani committed suicide on account of incessant
harassment at the end of her husband i.e., the appellant herein
and in such circumstances, the appellant-convict was charged
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 835
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
with the offence of abetting the commission of suicide by his wife
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
In the course of the trial many witnesses were examined, however,
we have looked into the oral evidence of PW-4, namely, Madan Lal,
who happens to be the brother of the deceased and PW-5, Narata
Ram, who happens to be the father of the deceased.
ORAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
3. PW-4 Madan Lal (brother of the deceased) son of Narata Ram in
his examination in chief has deposed as under:-
“We are four brothers and 9 sisters. My younger sister
Rani was married to Naresh accused on 10-5-92 at
Kurukshetra as per Hindu rites and custom. At the time
of her marriage she was aged about 18/19 years. A
female child was born to my sister Rani after marriage.
The daughter of Rani at the time of death of Rani was
aged about 4 or 5 months. After about 2/2½ months of
marriage, Fakir Chand, Anguri and Naresh demanded
a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for starting business of Kiryana
shop for accused Naresh. We being poor person could
not arrange for the said money. We had performed the
marriage of our sister by selling family property (later
portion is volunteered). About one or quarter before death
of Rani we got opened a shop at our village Raison for
accused Naresh Kumar which he had run for about 8 or
9 months. Accused Naresh had run the shop for about 11
months. Since accused Naresh suffered loss, he wound
up the shop and left for Delhi. About 1½ month before
death of Rani, accused Naresh had taken her to Delhi. On
17-11-93 my sister Rani along with accused Naresh came
to our house. My sister Rani stated that accused Naresh,
Fakir Chand and Anguri Devi are raising demand of Rs.
20,000/- for opening a shop for Naresh. I, my father and
my mother told accused Naresh that we would arrange
the amount and pay the same after about 8 or 10 days.
On 19-11-93 accused Naresh and my sister left for Delhi
at about 7 a.m. saying that they are going and amount be
sent later. My sister Rani used to remain tense because
836 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of repeated demands by the accused. Getting fed up my
sister consumed some poisonous thing on 19-11-93. On
learning that my sister had consumed some poisonous
thing, we came to Karnal. Police met me at G.H. Karnal
where my statement Ex. PJ was recorded by the police
which was read over to me and after admitting the
contents, I signed the same. After post mortem, the dead
body of my sister was handed over to us on 20-11-93.”
4. PW-5 Narata Ram (father of the deceased) in his examination in
chief has deposed as under:-
“I have four sons and 9 daughters. My daughter Rani was
married to Naresh accused on 10-5-92 at Kurukshetra.
After about 2½ months of marriage all the accused
started harassing my daughter. They raised demand of
Rs. 50,000/- for opening a shop for Naresh. Being poor
people we could not arrange the amount. By arranging
some amount we opened a shop for accused Naresh at
Raison. Accused Naresh continued the shop for about 7
or 8 months. The accused Naresh Dulian Kha Pee Kay
left the shop and went to Delhi. After about 5 or 7 months
accused Naresh came to take my daughter Rani to Delhi.
On 17-11-93 accused Naresh alongwith my daughter Rani
came to our house. My daughter Rani told that all the
accused are demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for starting
business at Delhi. I expressed my inability to pay same
day. At this Naresh told that either pay the amount or he
shall finish himself by consuming some poison. Accused
Naresh then left with my daughter. My daughter used to
remain tense due to repeated demands of the accused.
On learning that Rani had consumed some poisonous
thing we came to G.H. Karnal.”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant convict submitted
that the Courts below committed an error in holding the appellant
guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
He would submit 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.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 837
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
6. In such circumstances, he would submit that the conviction be set
aside and the appellant convict be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Sabarni Som, the learned counsel appearing
for the State of Haryana, submitted that no error not to speak of any
error of law could be said to have been committed by the Courts
below in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. Much
emphasis was laid on the fact that the deceased committed suicide
within seven years from the date of her marriage.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the State tried to fortify her
above referred submission by relying on Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’) which enables
raising of presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married
woman. She would submit that the oral evidence of PW-4 and PW-5
has been well appreciated and the Courts below have rightly held
the appellant guilty of the alleged offence.
ANALYSIS:
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any
error in passing the impugned judgment?
10. We have looked into the evidence of PW-4 i.e., the brother of the
deceased and also the evidence of PW-5 i.e., the father of the
deceased. Both these witnesses have only stated that after the
marriage, there was a demand of some money by the convict, as
he wanted to start a ration shop. It appears from the evidence of
both these witnesses that on account of such demand, the deceased
used to remain tense.
11. What ultimately led the deceased to take such a drastic step of
committing suicide is not clear. To put it in other words, 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.
Mere demand of money from the wife or her parents for running
a business without anything more would not constitute cruelty or
harassment.
838 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
12. Section 306 of the IPC reads 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. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment
of a thing is defined under Section 107 IPC as under:-
“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.”
14. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another,
(2021) 19 SCC 144, has considered the provisions of Section 306
IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC
observed as under:-
“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
...
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 839
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’
is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.
This Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as
under:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”.”
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its
co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed
repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was
observed 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 the Supreme 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.”
15. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of
Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients
of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under:-
“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section
306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
840 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.”
16. This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17
SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306
IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible
with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:-
“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 behavior 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 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
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 841
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
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 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.”
17. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of
Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of
2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above
referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section
306 IPC observed as under:-
“44. . . . 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 their 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.”
18. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC
200, observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can
be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to
commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability.
842 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19. This Court in Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023
SCC Online SC 575, Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2023 (arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) decided on 28th February, 2023, observed
that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section
107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the
purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has
to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
20. 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).
21. For intention in English law, Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act,
1967 provides the frame in which the mens rea is assessed. It states:
“A court or jury, in determining whether a person has
committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended
or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only
of its being a natural and probable consequence of
those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that
result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such
inferences from the evidence as appear proper in
the circumstances.”
Under Section 8(b), therefore, the jury is allowed a wide
latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intent or foresight
on the basis of all the evidence.
22. It is now well settled 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
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 843
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
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.
23. We take notice of the fact that the High Court has laid much emphasis
on Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
24. Section 113A of the Evidence Act reads thus:-
“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.
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. This Section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The Indian Penal Code, the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act were amended
keeping in view the dowry death problems in India.
26. The Section requires proof (1) that her husband or relatives subjected
her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.
27. Although, it is not necessary for us to refer to Section 113B of the
Evidence Act which raises presumption as to dowry death yet with
a view to indicate the fine distinction between the two presumptions
we are referring to Section 113B. In Section 113A the legislature
has used the word ‘may’, whereas in Section 113B the word used
is ‘shall’.
28. In this appeal, we are concerned with Section 113A of the Evidence
Act. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within
844 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under
Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply.
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.
29. 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.
30. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence
under section 113A for finding out if cruelty was 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.
31. Section 113A has been interpreted by this Court in Lakhjit Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 173, Pawan Kumar v. State
of Haryana, 1998(3) SCC 309, and Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana,
1991(1) SCC 371.
32. This Court has held that from 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.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 845
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
33. 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 presumption under Section 113A.
34. 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. The ordeal for the appellant started
some time in 1993 and is coming to the end in 2024, i.e. almost after a
period of 30 years of suffering. At the same time, we are also mindful
of the fact that a young woman died leaving behind her 6 months old
infant. No crime should go unpunished. But at the same time, the guilt
of the accused has to be determined in accordance with law. To put
it in other words, the guilt of the accused has to be determined on
the basis of legal evidence on record. The question is : On what and
where did the two courts falter? In our opinion, the two courts faltered
as they failed to apply the correct principles of law to the evidence
on record on the subject of abetment of suicide. The two courts got
enamoured by just three things, (i) the deceased committed suicide
within seven years of marriage, (ii) the accused was demanding
money from the parents of the deceased for starting some business,
and (iii) the deceased used to remain tense. We do not say that
these are irrelevant consideration. All the three aspects are relevant.
But there are settled principles of law to be made applicable to the
matters of the present type. 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.
35. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
846 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
36. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, hereby, allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as affirmed
by the High Court is, hereby, set aside.
37. The appellant stands acquitted of the charge framed against him.
38. Pending the present appeal, vide order dated 13.05.2009 a coordinate
Bench had ordered release of the convict on bail. Since the appeal
is being allowed and the convict is being acquitted, the bail bond(s)
furnished then shall also stand discharged.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Abetment of suicide"Sign in to search