Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8667 of 2016)

RAJESH                                                            .... Appellant(s)                                                                                    

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA                                      ….Respondent(s)                                               

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The Appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”)

and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High

Court.  Hence, this appeal.  

2. According to the complaint filed by Bharat Singh (PW-1),

his  son  Arvind  was  married  to  Manju,  daughter  of  Laxmi

Narayan on 07.11.2000.   Indera is the sister-in-law of Arvind

and  the  Appellant  Rajesh  is  his  brother-in-law.   Arvind

committed  suicide  on  23.02.2002  by  consuming  Sulfas

tablets.  On 01.03.2002 when Bharat Singh and other family

1

members  entered  into  the  room  of  Arvind  to  sprinkle

Gangajal,  they  found  a  suicide  note  on  the  bed  of  the

deceased.  It was stated that Arvind committed suicide due to

the behavior of the Appellant, Laxmi Narayan and Indera who

made false allegations against deceased regarding demand of

dowry.   A Panchayat was held in the village at the instance of

the  accused  during  which  the  Appellant  slapped  the

deceased.   The  Appellant  and  his  sister  Indera  used  to

threaten the deceased on telephone at the instance of their

father Laxmi Narayan.   

3. In  the  suicide  note,  the  deceased  Arvind  stated  that

false allegations of demand of dowry were made against him

and that a Panchayat was also conducted in which there was

an attempt to assault  him.  There were continuous threats

from  his  father-in-law  (Laxmi  Narayan),  his  brother-in-law

(Appellant)  and  the  sister-in-law  (Indera)  that  his  family

members will also be implicated in a criminal case.  Unable to

withstand the harassment,  the  deceased took the extreme

step  of  committing  suicide  and  held  his  father-in-law,  the

Appellant and his sister-in-law responsible for his death.   

4. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

under  Section  306  IPC.   12  witnesses  were  examined  on

2

behalf  of  the prosecution and Manju,  wife of  the deceased

was examined as DW-1.   On a consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence, the Trial Court held the Appellant, his

father  and  sister  guilty  of  committing  the  offence  under

Section 306 IPC.  The Appellant and his father Laxmi Narayan

were  sentenced  to  imprisonment  of  five  years.    Accused

Indera was sentenced to three years imprisonment on being

convicted for committing of an offence under Section 306 IPC.

The Trial Court took note of the Panchayat that was held in

September, 2001 which was five months prior to 23.02.2002

on which date Arvind committed suicide.   Reference was also

made to the evidence of PW-1 (Bharat Singh) who stated that

he and his  son Arvind (deceased)  had forgotten about  the

Panchayat episode in view of the apology tendered by the

accused.  However, the Trial Court observed that continuous

threats held out by the accused to implicate the deceased

and  his  family  members  in  a  false  dowry  case  assume

importance.   The Trial Court also relied upon the suicide note

to  hold  the  accused  guilty  of  the  offence  of  abetment  to

suicide.  The version of the defence that Arvind committed

suicide due to his depression, due to unemployment and lack

of income, was rejected.                  

3

5. The appeal  filed by the Appellant was dismissed by

the  High  Court.   The  conviction  and  sentence  of  Laxmi

Narayan and Indera were set aside by the High Court by

the same judgment.   The High Court referred to the suicide

note  Exhibit  ‘PA’  to  conclude  that  there  was  no  error

committed by the Trial  Court in convicting the Appellant.

The High Court also relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and

PW-5 who spoke about the convening of the Panchayat by

the  accused  in  September,  2001  during  which  false

allegations  were  made against  the  deceased.   The  High

Court  upheld  the  conviction  of  the  Appellant  while

acquitting his father and sister, only on the ground that the

Appellant slapped Arvind during the Panchayat which was

conducted in September, 2001.  

6. It is no doubt true that Arvind committed suicide on

23.02.2002.  He left a suicide note which was found by his

family members on 01.03.2002.  There is also no dispute

that Arvind blamed his father-in-law (Laxmi Narayan), his

sister-in-law (Indera) and the Appellant for harassment and

threats  that  he  would  be  implicated  in  a  false  case  of

demand of dowry.   Admittedly, a Panchayat was held in

4

September,  2001  during  which  the  accused  leveled

allegations of demand of dowry by Arvind.  More than five

months  thereafter,  Arvind  committed  suicide  on

23.02.2002.   In  the  meanwhile,  according  to  the

prosecution, Arvind was being threatened by the accused

through telephone conversations.  The point that arises for

our  consideration  is  whether  the  Appellant  can  be  held

guilty for committing an offence under Section 306 IPC in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. It is necessary to refer to Section 306 IPC and Section

107 IPC which reads as under:

“306.  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.

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 thing.”

5

8. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on

the  allegation  of  harassment  without  there  being  any

positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the

part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to

commit suicide.  In order to bring a case within the purview

of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in

the commission of the said offence, the person who is said

to  have  abetted  the  commission  of  suicide  must  have

played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing

certain  act  to  facilitate  the  commission  of  suicide.

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with

the said offence must be proved and established by the

prosecution  before  he  could  be  convicted  under  Section

306 IPC. (See  Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West

Bengal1).          

9. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been

explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT

of Delhi2) as follows:

“16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001)  9  SCC  618  :  2002  SCC  (Cri)  1088]  ,  R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do

1 (2010) 1 SCC 707 2 (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367

6

“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect  or  what  constitutes  “instigation”  must  necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable  certainty  to  incite  the  consequence must  be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts  or  omission  or  by  a  continued  course  of  conduct, created  such  circumstances  that  the  deceased  was  left with no other option except  to commit suicide,  in which case,  an  “instigation”  may  have  to  be  inferred.  A  word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences  to  actually  follow,  cannot  be  said  to  be instigation.

17. Thus,  to  constitute  “instigation”,  a  person  who instigates  another  has  to  provoke,  incite,  urge  or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging  forward”.  The  dictionary  meaning  of  the  word “goad” is  “a  thing  that  stimulates  someone  into  action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”

10. Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any

intention  cannot  be  termed  as  instigation.  (See  Praveen

Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal3).

11. We are  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence  on  record

does not warrant conviction of the Appellant under Section

306 IPC.    There is  no proximity between the Panchayat

held  in  September,  2001  and  the  suicide  committed  by

Arvind  on  23.02.2002.   The  incident  of  slapping  by  the

Appellant in September, 2001 cannot be the sole ground to

hold him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit 3 (2012) 9 SCC 734

7

suicide.  As the allegations against all the three accused are

similar,  the  High  Court  ought  not  to  have convicted  the

Appellant after acquitting the other two accused.  

12. We are not in agreement with the findings of the Trial

Court that the deceased (Arvind) committed suicide in view

of  the  continuous  threats  by  the  accused  regarding  his

being implicated in a false case of demand of dowry.  The

evidence does not disclose that the Appellant instigated the

deceased  to  commit  suicide.   There  was  neither  a

provocation  nor  encouragement  by  the  Appellant  to  the

deceased  to  commit  an  act  of  suicide.   Therefore,  the

Appellant cannot be held guilty of abetting the suicide by

the deceased.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed

and  the  conviction  and sentence of  the  Appellant  is  set

aside.  His bail bonds stands discharged.

                   ..…..................................J                                                     [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                   ..…................................J                                        [M.R.SHAH]

New Delhi, January 18,  2019.   

8