1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  1606  of 2009

SIDDALING                                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE, THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION         Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

(1) The appellant, accused-husband, has been convicted under

Section 498-A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo

rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years  and  five  years

respectively.

(2) Marriage of the appellant-Siddaling was solemnized with

the deceased-Kavitha on 6th May, 2002.  Within four months of

the marriage, on 17th September, 2002, Kavitha committed suicide

by jumping into a well of the village.  Reason for such extreme

step, taken by Kavitha, is stated to be the harassment due to

the alleged dowry demand and also cruelty meted out to the

deceased-Kavitha,  as  the  appellant  was  having  illicit

relationship with one woman.

(3) The trial court convicted the appellant-accused and also

his father under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C. and

Sections 306 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.  

2

(4) The High Court partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the

appellant’s father of all the charges/offences.  So far as the

appellant  is  concerned,  the  High  Court  maintained  the

conviction  under  Sections  498-A  I.P.C.  and  306  I.P.C.;  but

acquitted the appellant for the other offences.

(5) We have heard Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel

appearing  for  the  appellant,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Aristotle  S.,

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

(6) The facts in a nutshell are as follows.  The appellant was

having illicit relationship with one woman which fact has been

proved by the prosecution by the evidence of PW-1, Shankar s/o

Harishchandar, father of the deceased; PW-10, Jamakibai, mother

of the deceased; PW-6, Sevu and PW-22, Hemla both brothers of

the deceased.  The prosecution has additionally adduced the

documentary  evidence  viz.  Agreement  dated  22nd June,  2002,

executed before the  Panchayat thus whereof the appellant has

admitted to be living with another woman and that was seen by

his wife-Kavitha.  In the said panchayat it was agreed that the

appellant  will  sever  his  relation  with  the  said  woman  and

agreed to live with his wife in the house of his wife-Kavitha.

It  has  been  brought  in  evidence  by  the  evidence  of  the

prosecution  witnesses,  mentioned  above,  that  the  appellant

continued  his  relation  with  another  woman  which  definitely

caused mental agony to his wife-Kavitha.   

(7) Mr. Ananthamurthy has submitted that there has to be a

mens rea to commit the offence punishable under Section 306

I.P.C. and that there ought to be active or direct act leading

3

to the deceased to commit suicide, which is lacking in the

present case.  In support of his contention, learned counsel

placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Gurucharan Singh

v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.

(8) As held in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC

129  vide  para  12,  abetment  involves  a  mental  process  of

instigating a person or in any manner aiding that person in

doing of the thing.  Courts should carefully assess the facts

of each case before deciding whether the cruelty meted out to

the victim which induces her to commit suicide.

(9) In the case case in hand, the witnesses - PW-1, PW-6, PW-

10 and PW-22 have clearly in their statement stated that the

appellant  continued  his  relation  with  another  woman.   The

appellant’s  illicit  relation  with  another  woman  would  have

definitely created the psychological imbalance to the deceased

which led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide.

It cannot be said that the appellant’s act of having illicit

relationship  with  another  woman  would  not  have  affected  to

negate the ingredients of Sections 306 I.P.C.   

(10) In our considered view, based upon the evidence and also

Agreement dated 22nd June, 2002, the High Court has rightly

maintained the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A

and 306 I.P.C.   

(11) Insofar  as  the  submission  of  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant, praying for leniency in the quantum of sentence, we

are unable to accept the same.  Keeping in view the fact that

within four months of her marriage, the deceased-Kavitha has

4

taken the extreme step of putting an end of her life and also

within three months of convening the panchayat, the deceased-

Kavitha has committed suicide, showing any leniency would be a

misplaced one.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the

present case, in our view, this is not a fit case for reducing

the quantum of sentence of the appellant.

(12) The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (VINEET SARAN)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 9, 2018.