GURCHARAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 01-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
GURCHARAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011)
OCTOBER 01, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – A young married lady
with two minor children committed suicide – The Trial Court
convicted lady’s husband-appellant u/s. 306 IPC and sentenced him
to 4 years rigorous imprisonment – The conviction u/s. 306 IPC
was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the instant
case, there is no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or
the in-laws – There is nothing on record to show which particular
hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband
– Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant, which
led to the suicidal death – To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified u/s. 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular
crime must be visible, to determine the culpability – The ingredient
of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to
be visible and conspicuous – Both the Trial Court and the High
Court never examined whether appellant-husband had the mens rea
for the crime, he is held to have committed – The conviction by both
the Courts on the theory that the woman with two young kids might
have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced
by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the
evidence in the case – Testimonies of the PWs do not show that
the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced
to take such a step on his account – The Trial Court and the High
Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence
concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of
abetting the suicide of his wife – Therefore, the decisions under
challenge cannot be legally sustained – Consequently, the
appellant’s conviction u/s. 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.
  [2020] 8 S.C.R. 741
741
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Insofar as the possible reason for a young
married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the
absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was
pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere
in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of
expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and
the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any
evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the
husband could not be shown by the prosecution. [Para 11][747-
E-F]
2. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To
prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the
IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be
visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or show that
the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that
state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The
ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly
present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as
well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had
the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The
conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High
Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might
have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment
faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by
the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show
that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was
forced to take such a step on his account. [Para 15][748-C-F]
3. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and
applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is
apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the
appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The
evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced
persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect
is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution
witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only
through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the
suicide of his wife. [Para 19][750-C-D]
SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 ; Ama

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.