Penal
Code, 1860 – S. 306 - Incident of slapping by the accused cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[L. NAGESWARA
RAO] AND [M.R.SHAH] JJ.
January
18, 2019
Criminal
Appeal No. 93 of 2019
(Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.8667 of 2016)
RAJESH
.... Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF HARYANA ….Respondent(s)
J
U D G M E N T
L.
NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave
granted.
1.
The Appellant was convicted under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced to
undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the Appellant was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.
2.
According to the complaint filed by Bharat
Singh (PW-1), his son Arvind was married to Manju, daughter of Laxmi Narayan on
07.11.2000. Indera is the sister-in-law of Arvind and the Appellant Rajesh is
his brother-in-law. Arvind committed suicide on 23.02.2002 by consuming Sulfas tablets.
On 01.03.2002 when Bharat Singh and other familymembers entered into the room
of Arvind to sprinkle Gangajal, they found a suicide note on the bed of the deceased.
It was stated that Arvind committed suicide due to the behavior of the
Appellant, Laxmi Narayan and Indera who made false allegations against deceased
regarding demand of dowry. A Panchayat was held in the village at the instance
of the accused during which the Appellant slapped the deceased. The Appellant
and his sister Indera used to threaten the deceased on telephone at the
instance of their father Laxmi Narayan.
3.
In the suicide note, the deceased Arvind
stated that false allegations of demand of dowry were made against him and that
a Panchayat was also conducted in which there was an attempt to assault him.
There were continuous threats from his father-in-law (Laxmi Narayan), his
brother-in-law (Appellant) and the sister-in-law (Indera) that his family members
will also be implicated in a criminal case. Unable to withstand the harassment,
the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide and held his
father-in-law, the Appellant and his sister-in-law responsible for his death.
4.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed under Section 306 IPC. 12 witnesses were examined onbehalf of the
prosecution and Manju, wife of the deceased was examined as DW-1. On a
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held the
Appellant, his father and sister guilty of committing the offence under Section
306 IPC. The Appellant and his father Laxmi Narayan were sentenced to
imprisonment of five years. Accused Indera was sentenced to three years
imprisonment on being convicted for committing of an offence under Section 306
IPC. The Trial Court took note of the Panchayat that was held in September,
2001 which was five months prior to 23.02.2002 on which date Arvind committed
suicide. Reference was also made to the evidence of PW-1 (Bharat Singh) who
stated that he and his son Arvind (deceased) had forgotten about the Panchayat
episode in view of the apology tendered by the accused. However, the Trial
Court observed that continuous threats held out by the accused to implicate the
deceased and his family members in a false dowry case assume importance. The
Trial Court also relied upon the suicide note to hold the accused guilty of the
offence of abetment to suicide. The version of the defence that Arvind
committed suicide due to his depression, due to unemployment and lack of
income, was rejected.
5.
The appeal filed by the Appellant was
dismissed by the High Court. The conviction and sentence of Laxmi Narayan and
Indera were set aside by the High Court by the same judgment. The High Court
referred to the suicide note Exhibit ‘PA’ to conclude that there was no error committed
by the Trial Court in convicting the Appellant. The High Court also relied upon
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 who spoke about the convening of the Panchayat by
the accused in September, 2001 during which false allegations were made against
the deceased. The High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant while acquitting
his father and sister, only on the ground that the Appellant slapped Arvind
during the Panchayat which was conducted in September, 2001.
6.
It is no doubt true that Arvind committed
suicide on 23.02.2002. He left a suicide note which was found by his family
members on 01.03.2002. There is also no dispute that Arvind blamed his
father-in-law (Laxmi Narayan), his sister-in-law (Indera) and the Appellant for
harassment and threats that he would be implicated in a false case of demand of
dowry. Admittedly, a Panchayat was held inSeptember, 2001 during which the
accused leveled allegations of demand of dowry by Arvind. More than five months
thereafter, Arvind committed suicide on 23.02.2002. In the meanwhile, according
to the prosecution, Arvind was being threatened by the accused through
telephone conversations. The point that arises for our consideration is whether
the Appellant can be held guilty for committing an offence under Section 306
IPC in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7.
It is necessary to refer to Section 306 IPC
and Section 107 IPC which 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.
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.”
8.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there 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. In order to bring a case within
the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation
or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the
act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC. (See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State
of West Bengal, (2010)
1 SCC 707).
9.
The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has
been explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367) as follows:
“16.
Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh
Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His
Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”,
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case,
an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said
to be instigation.
17.
Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person
who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of
an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of
the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to
action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep
irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”
10.
Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission
without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (See Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734).
11.
We are of the opinion that the evidence on
record does not warrant conviction of the Appellant under Section 306 IPC.
There is no proximity between the Panchayat held in September, 2001 and the
suicide committed by Arvind on 23.02.2002. The incident of slapping by the Appellant
in September, 2001 cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for
instigating the deceased to commit suicide. As the allegations against all the
three accused are similar, the High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant
after acquitting the other two accused.
12.
We are not in agreement with the findings of
the Trial Court that the deceased (Arvind) committed suicide in view of the
continuous threats by the accused regarding his being implicated in a false
case of demand of dowry. The evidence does not disclose that the Appellant
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There was neither a provocation nor
encouragement by the Appellant to the deceased to commit an act of suicide.
Therefore, the Appellant cannot be held guilty of abetting the suicide by the
deceased.
13.
For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is set aside. His bail
bonds stands discharged.