LexGURCHARAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 741 GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of2016) DECEMBER 02, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.306134 - Abetment to suicide - Suicide A B c by consuming pesticide by mother and two daughters - Suicide note attributing harassment to the appellant and other in-laws family members - Prosecution case was that the deceased-mother was deprived of share in the in-laws property and was ill treated, harassed and intimidated by them after disappearance of her husband - Trial court held the appellant and one of the co-accused guilty - High Court affirmed the same - On appeal, Held: The basic ingredients of s.306 are suicidal death and the abetment thereof - To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of D accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative - In the instant case, there was neither any proximate nor remote act of omission or commission on the part of the appellant and his family members to be a direct or indirect cause compelling the deceased- mot her and her daughters to take the extreme step of self- elimination - In the suicide note, there was no reference of any specific incident in support of the allegation - The materials on record 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 - The ingredients of the offence of s.306 having not been proved, appellant is entitled to acquittal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The evidence on record, does not substantiate the imputation that deceased-S and her daughters had been deprived wholly of their shares in the joint family property of her husband/father. Admittedly, there was no proof of any threat being extended by the appellant or anyone of the in-laws of deceased-S so as to reduce them to destitutes in a petrified state. The disappearance of husband of deceased-S had occurred about two years prior to the incident. Neither the appellant nor her in-laws have any role in this regard. The absence of any complaint or 741 E F G H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A civil litigation also permits an inference against the denial of the share in the family property to deceased-S and her daughters or of any ill-treatment, torture, oppression meted out to them. [Para 18) (748-F-H) 2. A plain perusal of the suicide note also revealed that 8 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 divulged her ownership of lands and house which per se belied the charge that she had been denied the share of her husband in the family C 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 deceased-S who identified the contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation. The basic 0 ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. 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 E omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. [Paras 20, 22) [749-H; 750-A-B, D, E-F] F G H 3. 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 exphlnation to this Section exposits "cruelty" to have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section 498A IPC. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful cond net actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or dan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.