KISHORI LAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1051 · Decided: 19-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
KISHORI LAL 
A 
-.,, 
v. 
STA TE OF M.P. 
JUNE 19, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
' 
Penal Code, I 860: 
ss. 306 and I 07-Suicide by wife-Conviction of husband for abetment c 
of suicide-Challenge against-Held: There is no proof of direct or indirect 
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide-Evidence show that deceased 
was disturbed due to her failure to beget a child-Prosecution has failed to 
establish its case-Conviction set aside. 
Words and Phrases: 
D 
-f 
'Abetment' and 'instigate'-Meaning of-Discussed. 
Deceased had committed suicide. Trial Court convicted appellant 
husband for abetment of suicide under s.306 IPC. High Court affirmed the 
conviction. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that there was no evidence 
led to show that he was in any manner responsible for suicide; that the alleged 
torture done by the appellant as spoken by the mother of the deceased related 
to the alleged incident about 4-5 years prior to the occurrence and that the 
post-mortem did not reveal any mark of violence. 
F 
_) 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. S.107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. A person, abets the 
doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) 
engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of G 
that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal mission, the doing of 
that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The 
wc;rd "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by 
-·\ 
persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy 
1051 
H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A or intentional aid, as pro,·ided in the three clauses of s.107. 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 qffender is to be 
punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in 
s.109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the 
B abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked 
with the proved offence. I Para 6111053-G, 1054-A, B, CJ 
2. 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 husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. Merely 
C on the allegation of harassment, conviction in terms of s.306 IPC is not 
sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was 
disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 
have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to her failure 
to beget a child and she was upset due to this. In the background facts, it is 
crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. 
D 
(Paras 7 and 8) (1054-C, D, E) 
E 
Mahinder Singh v. State of MP., (1995) AIR SCW 4570, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1115 of 
1999. 
From the Final Order and Judgment and dated 06.05.1988 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1984. 
Shankar Divate, (A.C) for the Appellant. 
F 
Merusagar Samantarary, Vairagya Vardhan and C.D. Singh for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
G passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, 
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction under 
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentencing 
him to undergo RI for five years. 
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
H 
I 
KISHORI LAL v.STATEOFM.P.tPASAYAT.J.) 
1053 
Appellant was married to Rajkumari (hereinafter referred to as the A 
·deceased'). On 31.8.1982 she committed suicide. On the basis of information 
lodged by the accused investigation was undertaken. The accused was 
arrested for allegedly having abetted deceased to commit suicide on 31.8.1982.' 
According to the prosecution in the evening of 31.8.1982 the accused left for 
his duty leaving the deceased in the house. In the evening when he reached B 
the house the room was found closed from inside and the deceased did not 
respond to his call 
for opening the door. Apprehending that there was 
something wrong, he went to Police Station and lodged the report. The p

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