LexKISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 672 A KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI • v. ST ATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 200!:J) B JANUARY 28, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANG UL Y, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss.306, 498A, 109 - Dowry c Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.3 - Abetment of suicide, dowry demand - Torture for not bringing sufficient dowry - Letters on record written by husband demanding money- Trial Court convicted accused on the ground that letters established demand of dowry and that suicide was abetted by acts and D conduct of accused - Held: In view of background facts, conviction under s.306 cannot be sustained- However, letters demonstrate commission of offence under ss.498A and s.3 of DP Act - Conviction thereunder sustained - However, sentence in respect of s. 3 of DP Act reduced to 3 years - E Crime against women. Words and phrases: 'abtetment' - Meaning of - Discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.109. Prosecution case was that the accused was married F to the deceased. Soon after two years of marriage, accused started ihflicting mental and physical torture on her for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage. He even wrote letters to parents of deceased and demanded Rs.40,000 for purchasing a house. All this prompted the G deceased to commit suicide by burning herself. The trial court found that the letters written by the accused clearly established the demand of dowry and further the suicide was clearly abetted by the acts and conduct of the appellant. The conviction was recorded under ss.306 and H 672 KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF 673 GUJARAT · --.. 498A IPC and s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and A sentences of 3 years, 10 years and 5 years were imposed. High Court upheld the conviction and sentences. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 8 letters whereby the alleged demand of dowry was made were not signed by him and even were not addressed to anyone; that there was no material to show that the appellant subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment so as to instigate her to commit suicide; and C that the evidence on record showed that the appellant maintained good relations with the deceased and purchased valuable silver ornaments for her and she was shown to be his nominee in his insurance policy. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A person, abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of s.107 IPC. S.109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offences. 'Abetted' in s.109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the D E F G H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [Paras 11 and 12) [678-D-H; 679-A) B Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) AIR SCW 4570, relied on. State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal AIR (1994) SC 1418, referred, to. 2. The conviction so far as it relates to s.306 IPC, cannot be sustained in view of the background facts and c is set aside. But the materials on record particularly the letters on which specific emphasis has been led by the trial Court and the High Court amply demonstrate the commission of offences punishable under s.498-A IPC and s.3 of DP Act. The convictions are sustained. But the 0 sentence in respect of s.3 of DP Act is reduced to three years. [Para 14) [679-C-D] Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797; Randhir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 and Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008(5) SCR 1200, E relied on. Case Law Re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.