Holding

The conviction of the appellant under Sections 306/34 and 498A/34 IPC is upheld.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of Surender, convicted under Sections 306/34 (abetment of suicide) and 498A/34 (dowry harassment) of the IPC. The prosecution proved that Pushpa, his wife, was repeatedly harassed and beaten for dowry demands, was expelled from the matrimonial home, and later committed suicide while pregnant. The Court held that instigation need not involve explicit words; the appellant's conduct demonstrated the requisite intention to abet suicide. It also affirmed that the dowry harassment and cruelty satisfied the elements of Section 498A. Consequently, the Court concurred with the trial and High Court judgments and dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC despite lack of explicit instigation.
Whether the dowry harassment and cruelty constituted an offence under Section 498A IPC.
Whether the evidence of pregnancy, repeated beatings, and forced return to the matrimonial home established the requisite intention for conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306, s. 34, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry harassmentabetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 498A IPCcriminal appealconvictionpregnancycruelty

Judgment

A SURENDER
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

NOVEMBER 22, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATIU, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-Sections 306/34·and 498 A/34-Conviction under-
Correctness of-Suicide by wife within 7 years ofmarriage due to dow1y
C demand and cruelty meted out to her by her husband and in-laws-Evidence
substantiating the same-Wife_pregnant at the time of suicide, and ordinarily
such women would commit suicide only under compulsion-Also for offence
under s. 306 not necessary that express words to be used to show instigation-
Thus, conviction ofhusband by courts below justified.

D According to the prosecution case, P was married to the appellant in
the year 1994. She was harassed by the appellant and his parents on account
of demand of dowry and was also beaten up which compelled her to commit
suicide by hanging in 2002. Appellant and his parents were convicted and
sentenced under s. 306/34 and 498A/34 IPC. High Court acquitted the parents
but upheld conviction of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Both the courts below have held against the accused and the
reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below are concurred with.
(302-D-EJ
F
2.1. It cannot be said that no offence has been made under section 306
IPC because there is nothing to show any intention to abet or urge the deceased
to commit suicide. High Court observed that "to instigate means to goad, urge,
provoke, incite or encourage someone to do an act. It is not necessary that
express words should be used in order to instigate. The offence of abetment
G by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon
the act which is done by the person who has abetted". (301-F-GJ

2.2. It has come in the evidence of PW 2- mother of the deceased, PW4-
maternal uncle of the deceased, and PW 10-father of the deceased that the
deceased P had been harassed due to the demands of dowry. Two and a half
H ~ . .
SURENDER v. STATE OF HARYANA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 297

years after marriage, P gave birth to girl child and that time also her father A
gave sufficient gifts but the appellants were not satisfied. About six months
prior to the occurrence, the appellant visited the house of the maternal uncle
of the deceased and demanded money. However, when PW-4 refused to pay the
amount, appellant started beating the deceased and ultimately she was turned
out of the matrimonial house and went to her parents' house where she stayed B
for about three months. Thereafter she was taken back by the appellant with
the assurance that he will treat P well, but ten days thereafter she committed
suicide. PW 4 has produced a letter which was received by PW 2, perusal of
which shows that P's father-in-law and mother-in-law had stopped saying
anything to P but her husband had given severe beating to her to the extent
that she had become incapacitated and was unable to walk. It has also come in C
evidence of PW-I 0 that when the demand for dowry was not met, P was beaten
and she had injury marks when she came to her father's house.
(301-G-H; 302-A-D)
2.3. The deceased was pregnant at the time of the suicide. High Court
rightly held that a young pregnant women having a child in the womb would
not ordinarily commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so; and that D
she would not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of
demand for dowry: (302-B-C)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of
2005.
E
From the Filial Ju9gment and Order dated 24-2-2003 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 1827-SB/2002.

B.S. Mor, Gian Singh and Mahinder Singh. Dahiya for the Appellant.

Manjit Singh, Addi. Adv. Gen., Harikesh Singh and T. V. George for the F
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the
impugne·d judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 24.2.2003 in G
Criminal Appeal No. 1827 of2002.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Pushpa was
the third daughter of PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She was married. to appellant H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Surender in village Aasan in the year 1994 according to Hindu rites. and
ceremonies. At that time, Dilbag Singh had given sufficient dowry but the
appellants were not satisfied with the dowry given. They started harassing
her. In order to make them happy, PW-10 Dilbagh Singh used to give some
money to his daughter Pushpa whenever she visited him but the demand of
B the appellants remained always on the increasing side. They used to beat her.
Smt. Pushpa used to tell to her father about the atrocities committed upon her,
whenever she visited him. After about two and half years of the marriage,
Pushpa had given birth to a daughter, namely, Garima and at that time also,
PW-10 Dilbag Singh had given sufficient gifts but the appellants were not
satisfied.
c About three months back, the appellant Surender went to PW-4 Sombir,
maternal uncle of Pushpa, with a demand of Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of a
tractor, but PW-4 Sombir refused to oblige him and informed about it toDilbag
Singh, who also told him not to oblige Surender as he and his father would
spend the amount on liquor.
D
It was further averred that after their demand was not fulfilled; the
appellant and his relatives became more harsh towards Pushpa and started
beating her. Pushpa then came to village Khudan and apprised about the
cruelty of her in-laws towards her to her father PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She
remained in her parental house for about three months and was. then taken
E back by Surender, appellant, only ten days prior to the occurrence, after
giving assurance that she would be treated nicely in the matrimonial home.

On 23.4.2002, PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh received a telephonic
message at about 617 P.M. through PW-3 Krishan that Pushpa had ended her
life by committing suicide by hanging.
F
Upon receipt of this information, PW-10 Dilbag Singh along with his
wife, PW-2 Prem, brother-in-law Sombir PW-4 and others reached village
Aasan and found the dead body of Pushpa lying in the room of first floor
of their house. Broken pieces of her bangles and her chappals were also lying
G there.

An FIR, Ex. PH, was registered upon the statement, Ex. PG of PW-10
Dilbagh Singh. PW-12 Ram Kishan, ASI, investigated the case. He got the
dead body of Pushpa photographed by PW~ 7 Raj Pal, photographer. He also
prepared inquest report, Ex.PC. He took into possession the broken bangles
H in a box, Ex. P7 and chappals Exs. P-5 and P-6 by making separate sealed
....
SURENDER v. STATEOFHARYANA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 299

parcels vide recovery memo Ex. PD. He also prepared a roug~ site plan, Ex. A
PK of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post mortem
examination with police application, Ex.PA.

PW-I Dr. Mahesh Parkash, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Smt. Pushpa and gave his report, Ex. PB. He stated that the
cause of death of Smt. Pushpa was due to asphyxia and congestion as a result B
of hanging, which was ante-mortem in nature and the time between injury and
death was within few minutes and between death and post mortem examination
was within 12 to 48 hours. He further stated that Smt. Pushpa was carrying
pregnancy of 28 weeks and on cutting, a male foetus had come out.·

PW-5 Constable Samit Kumar prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PF. The C
appellants were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan
was put up by PW-6 AS! Vijay Singh. Challan was initially put up in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate !st Class, Rohtak, who vide her order dated 2.8.2002,
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
D
Having made out a prima facie case, the appellants were charged under
Sections 498A and 306/34 IPC vide order dated 23.8.2002, to which they
pleaded not guilty.

In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
E
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the
appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the
allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. Surender, appellant,
in his statement stated that he and his wife Pushpa lived separately from his
parents and Pushpa had committed suicide as· she was mentally perturbed due
to pregnancy. He next stated that he did not harass her on account of demand F
of dowry. He further stated that there was no demand of dowry from his
parents. Vikram and Sahbo wife of Vikram, in their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. also denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that
their son Surender and their daughter-in-law Pushpa were living separately
from them and they had never harassed Pushpa on account of dowry, nor any G
demand of dowry was ever made from her and Pushpa committed suicide due
to mental tension owing to pregnancy. However, they did not lead any
defence evidence.

After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vi de his judgment dated 19 .10.2002 H
A
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

found the appellant and his parents Vikram and Sahbo guilty and convicted
-
them under Sections 306/34 and 498-A/34 !PC and sentenced them vide order
of even date.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed an appeal in
the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal of Vikram and Sahbo and
B acquitted them, but it upheld the conviction of the appellant. Hence this
appeal.

It is an admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa was married to Surender, appellant,
in the year 1994 and she committed suicide by hanging on the night of
C 23 .4.2002. The case of the prosecution is that Push pa was being harassed by
the appellants on account of demand of dowry and due to that harassment,
she was compelled to commit suicide .. PW-2 Prem wife ofDilbag Singh stated
that her daughter Pushpa was married with Surender son of Vikram, resident
of village Aasan in the year 1994 and they gave dowry to him according their
capacity. After about two years of her marriage, Pushpa had given birth to
D a daughter. She further stated that the appellants, namely, Vikram, Surender
and Sahbo started harassing her daughter, Pushpa for bringing inadequate
dowry. About 3-4 months prior to the occurrence, Vikram had sent his son
Surender to her brother PW-4 Sombir at village Ritholi, asking him to make
payment of Rs. 80,000/- as they wanted to purchase a tractor, but her brother
did. not fulfill their demand and he sent information to her. She further stated
E that when her brother Sombir failed to fulfil the demand of Surender, appellant,
then they started harassing Pushpa more vigorously and even started giving
beating to her. When the appellants gave Pushpa severe beating; Pushpa left
for her parental house and stayed with tier parents for about three months,
and at that time she was pregnant. She further stated that thereafter Surender,
F appellant, came to take Pushpa with her and he promised not to harass
. Pushpa. On his assurance, Pushpa was sent with him and after ten days of
sending Pushpa with him, she received a telephonic message at the residence
of Krishan at about 6/7 PM that Pushpa had committed suicide by hanging.
She further stated that on 24.4.2002, she along with Krishan, Sombir and her
husband Dilbag went to village Aasan and found Pushpa hanging in the room
G of the first floor and her bangles were broken and chappals were also lying
there.

PW-4 Sombir stated that Smt. Prem was his sister and she was married
in village Khudan with Dilbag Singh. He further stated that Pushpa was the
H daughter of his sister Prem and had studied upto middle class and was
... SURENDER v. STATE OF HARYANA[MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 301
married to Surender in the year 1994. He further stated that Surender, appellant, A
along with his parents started harassing Pushpa on account of bringing
inadequate dowry and she was being taunted that she was not taking interest
i in the household affairs. He next stated that she was shunted out of her
matrimonial house on one or the other pretext. She gave birth to a female child
after two and half years or three years of her marriage. He further stated that
the appellants used to raise demand for bringing cash from her parents and
B
about five to six months prior to her death, Surender, appellant, had come to
him. and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchasing a tractor. He consulted his
brother-in-law, Dilbag Singh, who told him that he would not be responsible
for re-payment as Surender and his father were habituated to take liquor. He
next stated that when demand of Rs. 80,000/- was not met, then they started c
harassing Push pa and beating her and she was thrown out of the matrimonial
home and she lived with her parents for 3 months and then ten days prior
to· the occurrence, she was sent to the matrimonial home with Surender,
appellant, on his assurance that they· would not harass Pushpa. To the same
effect is the statement of PW-10 Dilbag Singh, father of the deceased.
D
The letter, Ex. PE, has been produced on record during the cross-
examination of PW-4 Sombir. He stated that his sister had received this letter
and she had handed over th~s letter to him about 2-3 days of its receipt. A
perusal of this letter shows that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had
stopped saying anything to Pushpa but her husband, Surender, had given
E
severe beating to her to the extent that she had become incapacitated and was
r unable to walk.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence
has been made under Section 306 IPC because there is nothing to show any
intention to abet or urge the deceased to commit suicide. We do not agree. p
As observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, "to instigate
means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage someone to do an act. lt
is not necessary that express words should be used in order to instigate. The
offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person
who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has
abetted". G
It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Prem, PW-4 Sombir and PW-10
Dilbag Singh that the deceased Pushpa had been harassed due to the demands
of dowry. About six months prior to the occurrence, the appellant visited the
house of. Sombir, the maternal uncle of the deceased where Push pa had H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A studied upto class VIII, and demanded Rs. 80,000/~ for purchase of a tractor.
However; when PW-4 Sombir refused to pay the amount,· Surender started
beating the deceased and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial
house and went to her parents' house where she stayed for about three
months. Thereafter she was taken back by the appellant wtth the assurance
B that he will treat Pushpa well, but ten days thereafter she committed suicide.
It has come in evidence that Surender gave beating .to Pushpa to such an
extent that she became unable even to walk.

The deceased Pushpa was pregnant at the time of the suicide and we
agree with the High Court that a young pregnant women having a child in
C the womb would not ordinarily commitsuicide unless she was compelled to
do so. We also agree that she would not have felt depressed if she had not
been harassed on account of demand for dowry.

It has also come in evidence of PW- I 0 Dilbag Singh, father of deceased
Push pa, that when the demand for· dowry was not met, Push pa was beaten
D and she had injury marks when she came to the house of her father.
"
Both the courts below have held against the accused and we fully agree
with the reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below.
. .

There is, thus, no merit in .this· appeal. Hence· it is dismissed accordingly:
E
N.l Apppeal dismissed. ..