Page 1

1

                        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.

Page 2

2

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,

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

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,

Page 8

8

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

Page 9

9

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

Page 10

10

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

Page 11

11

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

Page 12

12

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

Page 13

13

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

Page 14

14

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

Page 15

15

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.

Page 16

16

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

Page 17

17

fine,  if   they  or  any  one  of  them  subject  her  to  cruelty.   The

explanation thereto defining “cruelty” enfolds:

(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 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

Page 18

18

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

Page 19

19

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

Page 20

20

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

Page 21

21

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.