REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2016

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO. 8764 OF 2016)

GURCHARAN SINGH .…APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

AMITAVA ROY, J.

1. In assailment is the judgement and order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. S- 566-SB of 2004, affirming the conviction
of the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter to be referred to as “IPC”), as entered by the Trial Court. While by the decision
impugned, the conviction has been endorsed, the substantive sentence of six years of rigorous
imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to each of the accused persons has been scaled down to
one of five years of the same description. The instant appeal seeks to overturn the concurrent
determinations on the charge by the courts below.

2. We have heard Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar,
learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The fascicule of facts, indispensable to comprehend the backdrop of the prosecution, has its
origin in the inexplicable abandonment of the deceased Surjit Kaur and her two daughters
namely; Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr. Jaspal Singh, their husband and father respectively,
about two years prior to the tragic end of his three family members as above. The prosecution
version is that Dr. Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the Government service, had relinquished
the same and started a coal factory at Muktsar. He suffered loss in the business and consequently
failed to repay the loan availed by him in this regard from the bank. As he and his brother
Gurcharan Singh (appellant herein) and others succeeded to the property left by their
predecessors, he started medical practice in private.

4. Be that as it may, before leaving his family, he addressed a communication to the concerned
bank expressing his inability to repay the loan inspite of his best efforts as he was not possessed
of any property in his name. Dr. Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be traced. Following this turn
of events, according to the prosecution, his wife Surjit Kaur and his daughters shifted from
Jalalabad where they used to stay to Abohar and started residing in a rented house of one Hansraj
(PW3). According to them, they had no source of income and further, they were also deprived of
their share in the property and other entitlements, otherwise supposed to devolve on Dr. Jaspal
Singh. They were also not provided with any maintenance by the family members of her husband
– Jaspal Singh and instead were ill-treated, harassed and intimidated.
5. While the matter rested at that, on 3.10.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., Hansraj, the landlord of the
deceased Surjit Kaur, being suspicious about prolonged and unusual lack of response by his
tenants, though the television in their room was on, informed the brother of the deceased Surjit
Kaur. Thereafter they broke open the door of the room and found all three lying dead. The police
was informed and FIR was lodged.

6. In course of the inquisition, the Investigating Officer collected a suicide note in the
handwriting of Surjit Kaur and also subscribed to by her daughter Preet Bahul. The suicide note
implicated the appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the convicted co-accused Sukhvinder Singh @
Goldy as being responsible for their wretched condition, driving them in the ultimate to take the
extreme step. A note book containing some letters, written by deceased Geet Pahul was also
recovered. On the completion of the investigation, which included, amongst others the collection
of the post-mortem report which confirmed death due to consumption of aluminium phosphide, a
pesticide, charge-sheet was submitted against the three persons named hereinabove along with
Satnam Kaur under Section 306/34 IPC.

7. Whereas Satnam Kaur died during the committal proceedings, charge was framed against the
remaining accused persons namely; Gurcharan Singh (appellant), Ajit Kaur and Sukhvinder
Singh @ Goldy under the aforementioned provisions of the Code. As the accused persons
claimed to be innocent, they were made to face trial.

8. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the doctor, who had
performed the autopsy on the dead body. The accused persons stood by the denial of the charge
in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also examined five witnesses in defence.

9. The Trial Court, on a scrutiny of the evidence adduced, held the appellant herein and the co-
accused Sukhvinder Singh to be guilty of the charge levelled against them and awarded them the
sentence as hereto before mentioned. It, however, acquitted the co-accused Ajit Kaur. To
reiterate, by the impugned verdict, the conviction of the appellant and the co-accused Sukhvinder
Singh has been upheld with the marginal modification in the substantive sentence as
aforementioned.

10. Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically urged that the
evidence on record does not furnish the ingredients of abetment as visualised in Section 306 of
the Code and thus, the conviction is manifestly illegal and is liable to be set-aside. It being patent
from the materials on record that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters, had been duly
accorded their share in the family property and that they had sufficient means to independently
maintain themselves with reasonable comfort, the accusation to the contrary, as levelled by the
prosecution, is wholly unfounded, she insisted. According to the learned counsel, the in-laws of
the deceased Surjit Kaur had throughout been considerate, compassionate and supportive
towards her and two daughters and that the suicide committed by them had been on their own
volition and not as a result of any torture, harassment and oppression by them, as alleged. The
learned counsel has maintained that the suicide note has not been proved in the handwriting of
Surjit Kaur as well and thus, there being no evidence whatsoever in corroboration of the charge
of abetment, the conviction and sentence is liable to be set-aside in the interest of justice.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, has urged in confutation, that the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly of (Gurjeet Singh) PW5 and Gaganjit Singh
(PW6), the brothers of Surjit Kaur as well as the medical testimony, has proved the imputation
against the appellant and co-accused Sukhvinder Singh beyond all reasonable doubt and in the
face of concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, on an in-depth appraisal of the
materials on record, no interference with the impugned judgement and order is warranted.

12. Though, in the teeth of the sequential findings of guilt of the courts below, normally,
reappraisal of the evidence is otherwise uncalled for, we are impelled to embark upon that
exercise, having regard to the rival assertions in the unique facts and circumstances of the case.
This is more so, as in controversion of the allegation of wilful and deliberate deprivation of the
deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters of their share in the family property, as laid by the
prosecution, evidence has surfaced to the contrary, being conceded by her brothers in the course
of their testimony at the trial.

13. PW3 Hans Raj, the landlord stated on oath that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters
used to reside in the first floor of his house. On the date of the incident, at about 10.00 p.m. his
wife reported to him that though the lights of that floor were off, the television was on. The
witness thereafter along with his wife knocked the door of the apartment of the deceased, but
there was no response. After waiting for some time, the witness informed Gurjit Singh and
Gaganjit Singh, the brothers of Surjit Kaur, and on their arrival, as the same state of affairs
continued, they broke open the door and found all the three lying dead. The police was thereafter
informed. According to this witness, even after this incident, none of the accused persons or the
in-laws of Surjit did come to inquire about the same.

14. In cross-examination, the witness mentioned that all the three deceased used to remain
dejected and depressed. They however, often visited the parents and the brothers of Surjit. He
disclosed that Surjit had a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time, Surjit and her
daughters did complain to him about any threat extended by the accused persons. The witness
disclosed that though Surjit had expended substantial amount on the coaching of her daughter,
she failed in the examination, for which she was morose and anguished. The witness opined that
Surjit and her daughters had committed suicide out of grief for their missing husband/father.
According to him, the accused persons were not in any manner responsible for their death.

15. PW4 Dr. Kalra, who had performed the post-mortem examination of Preet Bahul, testified on
the basis of the report of the chemical analysis of her viscera that death was due to consumption
of aluminum phosphide which was sufficient to cause death in due course of time. To the same
effect, is the evidence of PW11 Dr. Thakral vis-a-vis Surjit and her daughter Geet.

16. PW5 and PW6 Gurjit and Gaganjit, the brothers of Surjit Kaur did depose in similar lines.
They stated that at the time of their death, Geet and Preet were aged 22 years and 18 years
respectively. They reiterated the version narrated in the FIR pertaining to the sudden
disappearance of their brother-in-law Dr. Jaspal Singh, husband of Surjit, he having suffered
losses in business. They also mentioned that, at that time, Dr. Jaspal Singh had heavy
outstanding dues qua the bank. They disclosed as well that after the death of Jaktar Singh, the
father of Dr. Jaspal, their brother- in-law along with his brothers inherited the joint property.
They also reiterated the narration of the facts preceding the discovery of the dead bodies as
recited by PW3. They confirmed the recovery and seizure of, amongst others the diary
containing the suicide note. They identified the text of the suicide note in the hand of their sister
Surjit. They identified the signature of Preet also thereon. These witnesses in their examination-
in-chief, though alleged that their sister and nieces had committed suicide because they were
deprived of their share in the joint properties, and for which they suffered from sustained
depression, in cross- examination, they acknowledged a sale deed executed by the appellant
Gurucharan in favour of Surjit regarding half share in the house at Abohar, which was also a
segment of the family property. They conceded as well that Satnam Kaur, the mother-in-law of
Surjit might have issued a cheque of Rs.68,650/- in her name and that she had opened an account
therewith in the name of her brother Gagandeep. They admitted that there was a parcel of land in
the name of deceased Surjit at Muktsar. When confronted with the statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C., they admitted of not having disclosed to the Investigating Officer, that the share in land
of Dr. Jaspal Singh had not been given to Surjit Kaur. They accepted that the main reason for the
depression of the deceased was the absence of near and close relatives. They conceded that
neither Surjit nor they had ever lodged any complaint with the police against the accused person
for the ill-treatment meted out to her or for denying her entitlements in the joint property. They
admitted as well that no civil suit had been filed in that regard.

17. PW6, in addition admitted his signature on the sale deed executed by appellant Gurucharan
in favour of Surjit. According to PW6, the sale deed was executed in a family settlement after
Jaspal Singh had gone missing. This witness disclosed as well that the appellant and the other
family members were ready to transfer the share of his brother-in-law to his sister.

18. The evidence on record, to start with, in our estimate, does not substantiate the imputation
that Surjit and her daughters had been deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property
as the heirs of Dr. Jaspal Singh. Admittedly, there is no proof of any threat being extended by the
appellant or anyone of the in-laws of Surjit so as to reduce them to destitutes in a petrified state.
The disappearance of Dr. Jaspal Singh, the husband of Surjit, father of Preet and Geet though
unfortunate, the event had occurred about two years prior to the incident. Neither the appellant
nor the in-laws of Surjit did have any role in this regard. The absence of any complaint or civil
litigation also permits an inference against the denial of the share in the family property to Surjit
and her daughters or of any ill-treatment, torture, oppression meted out to them. There is thus
neither any proximate nor remote acts of omission or commission on the part of the appellant and
his family members that can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor
compelling Surjit and her daughters to take the extreme step of self-elimination.

19. The suicide note which transpires to be the sheet anchor of the prosecution case needs
extraction for reference as hereunder. “The whole of my land and property should be given to
National Defence Fund. The family of my in-laws especially my mother-in-law, Jeth Master
Gurcharan Singh, his wife Ajit Kaur and his son Goldy are responsible for our death. My
younger daughter is still minor.

My husband was also to die by them. Now how can we live when our living is more than a hell. I
pleaded before the Prime Minister, President and Chief Minister but there is no one for me in this
society. I also filed a case before the Human Rights Commission. This is our cultured and
democratic society. I struggled continuously for 1 ½ years but now no more. My daughters are so
intelligent that one is doing pre-medical test and the second is doing Master of Computer
Applications. This is the reason that I bore all such pains but still remain alive. If there is any
justice in this cultured and democratic society then at least my in-laws should be punished after
our death and every common man should get justice.

My two biggas land of Diwan Khera, 4 ½ biggas land of Sajrana and 4/5 kanals land at Muktsar
should go to Mission Hospital, Muktsar. No body is entitled for my two plots in Bharat Colony
Bathinda and my house in Anand Nagri, Abohar. All the sale deeds of the land are lying by my
side. Suicide note of my husband is also lying here which I was forced not to hand over to the
police on 22 March 1999 and assurance that I and my children would be looked after in a very
good manner.

Sd/ Surjit Kaur” This is however the translated version of the original which is in Hindi script.

20. A plain perusal of the above quote also reveals that apart from an omnibus grievance against
her in-laws to be responsible for their death, for which according to her, they ought to be
punished, there is no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof. The
suicide note divulges her ownership of lands and house which per se belies the charge that she
had been denied the share of her husband in the family property. Noticeably, no attempt was
made by the prosecution to prove the author of the text through an expert and both the courts
below solely based their conclusion, in this regard on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the brothers
of Surjit, who identified the contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation.

21. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed
thus:

“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.”

22. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of
suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment
being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death
and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused
to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of
this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or
omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well
of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC.
Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the
concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for
suicide.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:

“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 doing.

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.”

23. Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in
combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable
facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.

24. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption as to the abetment of
suicide by a married woman by her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had
committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of his had subjected her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section
exposits “cruelty” to have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section 498A
IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as
well. “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. In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A of the Code also demand
extraction.

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

26. This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the husband of a woman or the
relative of his, punishable thereby with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and also fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The explanation thereto defining
“cruelty” enfolds:

any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or harassment of the woman, where it is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her, to meet such demand.

27. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise
germane, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for
entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.

28. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out
hereunder.

“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that
person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of
entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. 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 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the
victim 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 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.”
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal
(supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had
induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim
committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused
charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal
@ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.

30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306
IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or
direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been
propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.

31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with
reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal
law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of
saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or
his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions
permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution.
That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had
committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was
emphasised.

32. The assessment of the evidence on record as above, in our considered opinion, does not
demonstrate with unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the appellant or the other
implicated in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as contemplated by the above provisions so as to
return an unassailable finding of their culpability under Section 306 IPC. The materials on
record, to reiterate, do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or
inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being
left with no other alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his
family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is
discernible to even infer that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such
a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a
practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries.

33. In the wake up of the above determination, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the
ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant
deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be
sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved.
The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is
not required in connection with any other case.

.............................................J.
(DIPAK MISRA) …...........................................J.

(AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 2, 2016.