REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2010

UDE SINGH & ORS.                    ….APPELLANT(S)

VS

STATE OF HARYANA          ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT  

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order

dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 1997 whereby, the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while upholding the conviction of

accused-appellants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of

the  Indian  Penal  Code  ('IPC'),  has  modified  the  sentence  of  four  years’

rigorous  imprisonment  and  fine  of  Rs.  300/-  with  default  stipulation,  as

awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No. 23

of 1997, to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.

2. The relevant  background aspects  of  the  matter  could  be  noticed,  in

brief, as follows:

2.1 The appellants  Ude Singh,  Manoj  Kumar and Daulat  Ram (accused

Nos.  2  to  4)  and  one  Hem  Karan  alias  Hemla  (accused  No.  1-  since

1

deceased)  were  tried  for  the  offence  under  Section  306/34  IPC  on  the

allegations that they had abetted commission of suicide by the daughter of the

complainant  Pohap  Singh  (PW-1).  The  parties  involved  in  this  matter  are

closely related to each other. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been brothers

and the complainant is their cousin. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 Manoj and

Daulat  Ram are the sons of  accused No. 2 Ude Singh.  The witness Smt.

Krishna (PW-11) is the mother of deceased girl whereas another witness Jai

Narain (PW-2) is also the cousin of the complainant and the accused Nos. 1

and 2. The parties lived in the same village Shahadatnagar (Haryana) and in

the neighbourhood. However, the relations of parties were too strained and

they  were  engaged  in  several  litigations  against  each  other,  including  the

complaint relating to a hurt case, as lodged by PW-11 Smt. Krishna(wife of the

present complainant) against Hem Karan alias Hemla and Ude Singh that was

pending trial at the relevant time.

2.2 The  case  of  prosecution  in  the  present  matter  has  been  that  the

accused persons,  Hem Karan alias  Hemla,  Ude Singh,  Manoj  and Daulat

Ram,  were  taunting  the  unmarried  daughter  (the  deceased  girl)  of  the

complainant  by  addressing  her  as  "wife",  "Chachi"  (aunt)  and  "Bohoria"

(younger brother's wife); and the deceased girl had been complaining to her

family about the indecent behaviour of the accused. It  was alleged that on

15.04.1996, when the wife of complainant and other witnesses returned to the

village after completing their evidence in the criminal case against Hem Karan

and Ude Singh, Hem Karan caught hold of the daughter of the complainant;

2

dragged her into his house; pushed her;  and verbally  abused her and her

family members.  On returning home, daughter  of  the complainant  narrated

this incident to her mother and stated that she was unable to tolerate such

continuous insults. It was also alleged that on the advice of village elders, no

report of this incident was made, as it concerned the future and honour of an

unmarried girl; however, the accused persons continued to taunt the girl on

daily basis and, at all the times, the girl was only advised by her family to keep

quiet.

2.3. It was further alleged that on 05.05.1996, on sighting the daughter of

the complainant, who was returning after throwing garbage, Ude Singh said,

"see my Bohoria is coming"; Daulat Ram and Manoj said, "she is our Chachi";

and Hem Karan alias Hemla exclaimed, "she is my wife". Having heard all

these taunts, daughter of the complainant became very upset and entered into

altercation with the men. This incident was allegedly witnessed by Jai Narain

(PW-2).  The  victim  girl  once  again  complained  to  her  mother  and  the

complainant's elder brother Raj Kumar about the incident and while crying,

stated that she had no right to live and would end her life as and when she

would get the opportunity to do so. Upon hearing this, the wife and the elder

brother of the complainant tried to pacify the girl and also told her that they

would inform the complainant (who was posted as Head Constable at Police

Station Beri, District Rohtak). They also advised her not to be troubled by such

taunts as the prestige of  the family  was in her hands and she was to be

married soon. However, the very next day, i.e., on 06.05.1996 at about 9:00

3

a.m., daughter of the complainant was found dead, hanging by her neck. Her

mother was the first to see her dead. The complainant, who was on duty, was

informed through his nephew about his daughter's demise.

2.4.  After  noticing  the  unnatural  death  of  his  daughter,  the  complainant

lodged  the  report  and  made  his  statement  whereupon  FIR  No.  93  dated

06.05.1996  was  registered  at  Police  Station,  Jatusana;  investigation  was

carried out; and ultimately, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the

offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.  

3. In trial,  the prosecution examined several  witnesses in support  of  its

case  that  the  accused  persons  were  guilty  of  abetment  of  suicide  by  the

daughter of the complainant. In view of the questions involved in this appeal,

we may briefly take note of the statements of relevant witnesses,  being PW-1

Pohap  Singh  (the  complainant-  father  of  the  deceased);  PW-2  Jai  Narain

(brother of the complainant); and PW-11 Smt. Krishna (wife of the complainant

– mother of the deceased).

3.1. PW-1 Pohap Singh stated that on a previous occasion, Hem Karan and

others had assaulted his wife and criminal proceedings were pending in that

regard. He also narrated about the incidents that had allegedly taken place on

15.04.1996  and  on  05.05.1996.  In  his  cross-examination,  the  complainant

admitted  the  relationship  of  parties;  and  also  admitted  that  his  deceased

daughter, 18 years of age, could not qualify her 10th standard examination and

had dropped her studies. The complainant PW-1 stated further that he was

4

aware of the insults his daughter had faced at the hands of accused; that he

had not witnessed the incident in question himself but was made aware of the

same by his wife, his brother and Jai Narain; and that his nephew Naresh had

informed him about the demise of his daughter. In his cross-examination, the

complainant further stated that no panchayat was ever convened to resolve

the issue of harassment of his daughter as it was believed that such a step

would eventually affect the marriage prospects of the girl.  The complainant

also admitted a previous land dispute with the accused that had commenced

in the year 1988 and was ultimately compromised. He also admitted that a

case  was  registered  by  Hem  Karan  under  Section  307  IPC  against  him

wherein his brother Raj Kumar and the witness Jai Narain were also named

as accused.  

3.2. PW-2 Jai Narain testified to the occurance of 05.05.1996 as also the

conduct  and  behaviour  of  the  accused  persons.   This  witness  specifically

stated that he was standing at a plot with Ram Kumar and Virender when

daughter of the complainant came there to throw garbage and when she was

going back, the utterances were made by the accused with Hem Karan calling

her as his wife; Ude Singh calling her as Bohoria and Daulat and Manoj calling

her as Chachi. This witness also stated that the daughter of the complainant

started crying and also rebuked the accused for their behaviour; and that she

was consoled by him and other persons and they walked down with her to the

house and left  her there.  Even while disputing some part  of  his  statement

made during investigation, this witness stated that:  “All the four accused are

5

rouges and as such we could not  dare to rebuff  or  rebuke them for  their

indecent behaviour. It is incorrect that all the four accused are decent person.”

3.3. PW-11 Krishna, wife of the complainant and mother of the deceased girl

stated that even during the pendency of land dispute between the parties, the

deceased  was  teased  by  the  accused  and  she  was  taunted  with  the

expressions like "Chachi" and "Bohoria" etc.; that even during that time, none

of the elders of the panchayat controlled the behaviour of the accused; and

that the accused were eve-teasers and might have victimised other girls of the

village as well. She also deposed that she had brought the repeated indecent

behaviour with her daughter to the notice of the wives of the accused persons.

3.3.1. PW-11 further deposed that 3 years prior to the incident, Hem Karan

had inflicted head injury on her by using a  gandasa and that he was facing

trial  before  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Rewari  and,  therefore,  her

daughter was targeted regularly by the accused persons. She also deposed

that on the date of evidence in the hurt case i.e., on 15.04.1996, Hem Karan

dragged her daughter into his house and insulted her but, in order to protect

the honour of unmarried girl,  the male members of the family were against

reporting the matter to the police.  

3.3.2.  PW-11 also deposed that on 05.05.1996, when her daughter had gone

to throw garbage, she was intercepted by the accused and was again teased

by all of them. PW-11 stated that her daughter was exhausted and disgusted

of all the taunts and remarks she had to bear; and throughout the night, she

6

kept on weeping and did not have even a wink of sleep. The witness deposed

that on 06.05.1996, that is the very next day, her daughter ended her life by

hanging as a result of continuous indecent behaviour of accused towards her;

and she was the one who found her daughter hanging by the neck. PW-11

also stated that her daughter was previously engaged but the engagement

was called off six months before the incident.  

3.3.3. For their relevance, the material parts of the deposition of PW-11 are

extracted as under:

" …On 5.5.96 Meena had gone to dung garbage on a Kurhi in the plot at about 5.30 p.m.  As she returned from the plot, she was intercepted by accused Hem Karan,  Daulat,  Manoj  and Udey Singh. Daulat and Manoj teased her by addressing her as `Chachi’.   Uday  Singh  accused  addressed  her  as  `Bohoria’ (younger  brother’s  wife).   Accused  Hemla  alias  Hem Karan addressed her as ‘wife’.  She then returned to her house and wept bitterly in my presence.  She told me that Virender, Jai Narain and Ram Kumar had seen he untoward behavior of all the  accused.   Meena  had  told  me  that  she  was  totally exhausted and disgusted from all the tautns and remarks given occasionally to her by the accused and that she would end her life.

On 6.5.96 my daughter  ended her life  by hanging as a result  of  the  continuous  indecent  behavior  of  the  accused towards her…."

xxx Cross-examination

"…Approximately 8/9 years back there was dispute in regards to  landed  property  between  our  family  and  the  accused. However,  it  was settled.   Even during that  land dispute,  the accused used to tease and taunt her.  They used to address Meena in these very words like Chachi and Bohdia etc. even then.  It had become an every day affair with the accused. The entire village community  knew about  the indecent  utterances towards Meena.  We always tried to overlook the matter as the honour of an unmarried girl was involved. No elected member of the panchayat of the village or any other respectable of the

7

society rebuked the accused against their behavior as they are all  anti-social  elements  and  no  respectable  wants  to  take cudgels with them.  I would not know if more cases are pending against  the  accused  other  than  the  two  cases  involving  us. Volunteered they are eve-teasers and have borrowed money from different people and quite possible that they have many more cases pertaining to  these occurrence pending with  the police  or  in  the courts  but  I  have no  definite  information.   I would  not  know the names of  the girls  or  their  parents  who have been the targets of the behavior of the accused.  May be they are involving the teasing of 10/11 girls in the village.  We may have told the police about those incidents.

It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely against the accused or that they have never been involved in any illegal activity in the village.

The accused and my husband are cousins.  The wives of Hem Karan and Uday are my ‘Jethani and Devrani’ (Sisters-in-law). I had complained to those ladies about the misbehavior of the accused.  I  had complained to them repeatedly.   I  would  not know the result of my complaints to them.  Our men folk had also brought the incident to the notice of our neighbours and Mohalla-wala.

My daughter had told me that she would end her life as she was fed up of the in decent behavior of the accused towards her and also because of our inaction against them.  She wanted us  to  report  the  matter  to  the  police  for  action  against  the accused."

xxx  xxx  xxx

"My daughter had returned home all alone after the dragging incident  on  5.5.96.   It  is  incorrect  that  accused  Manoj  and Daulat was not present in the village on 5.5.96 or that they were in the native village of their maternal uncle called Jainabad. I had  not  sent  any  person  to  call  my  husband  after  Meena narrated all the happenings of 5.5.96 to me. Meena had slept besides me on that night. She kept on weeping throughout the night and did not have a pill of sleep.  In the morning at about 8.00 a.m. I had given her a piece of bread (Roti) and a cup of tea. I had then gone to place fodder before the bullocks.  Even at that time she was mentally disturbed. I returned to the house after just 10 minutes and found Meena hanging by rope. I had gone  at  about  9.00  a.m.  to  look  after  the  bullock  and  had returned in 10 minutes time. I had not gone to the fields (Khet) on the day but I had gone to the plot in the Abadi where the

8

bullocks were tied.  I had risen on that day at about 6.00 a.m.  It is  incorrect  that  the  entire  story  is  a  pure  concoction  with nothing true in it.  It is incorrect that my daughter had ended her life or she was killed by my man on the night intervening 5/6 May, 1996.  It is also incorrect that my daughter may have died even at about 4.20 p.m. on 5.5.96.  It is incorrect that a totally false story was coined by my husband Pohap Singh, a police man, and all the accused were falsely implicated in this case."

4. In defence, the accused examined 11 witnesses, essentially to suggest

that on 04.05.1996,  accused Nos.  3 and 4,  Manoj and Daulat,  had visited

Jainabad and were falsely implicated in this case; and in this connection, an

application dated 05.06.1996 was sent to DIG Rohtak. The witnesses also

suggested that daughter of the complainant was under depression after her

engagement got broken; and she committed suicide for this reason.  

5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment and order

dated  28.11.1997,  observed that  minor  discrepancies  in  the  statements  of

witnesses could not be the reason to discard the case of the prosecution nor

could the case of the prosecution be said to be doubtful for their failure to

examine all the witnesses. The Trial Court rejected the suggestions made by

way of  defence evidence and found that  the case of  the prosecution was

proved against all the accused; and that the acts and deeds of the accused

had been that of abetment of suicide. Accordingly, the accused  were held

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC

and each one was awarded the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a

period of four years and fine of Rs. 300/- with default stipulations.  

9

6. In  appeal  by  the  accused,  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana

observed that  the  incident  of  05.05.1996 was  not  a  solitary  one; that  the

incident that had occurred on 15.04.1996 was enough to malign the village

girl; that the deceased was teased and harassed by the accused persons on

several occasions; and that there was a consistent attempt on the part of the

accused  to  hurt  the  girl  of  marriageable  age. The  High  Court,  inter  alia,

observed and held as under:

"In the present case, there is not a solitary instance of 5 th May, 1996  which  resulted  into  commission  of  suicide  on  6th May, 1996,  but  prior  thereto  also,  witnesses  have  stated  that accused  were  eve-teasing  Meena.  On  15th April,  1996  also, when Krishana had returned from Court,  Meena was caught hold  of  one  and  she  was  dragged.  Therefore  in  the  whole village, where great value is attached to the honour of the girl, where  girls  are  kept  inside  houses  and  are  not  allowed  to mingle in the society, the incident dated 15th April,  1996 was sufficient to malign a girl.  Furthermore, each day attempt was made by the accused to browbeat, humiliate and insult the girl only to assert that registration of a criminal case at the instance of her mother had no effect, and they are superior in muscle power and they intended to belittle the girl in the village. In our society,  to  assert  'might  is  right'  is  not  acceptable.  Chain  of circumstances reveal that there was a consistent attempt on the part  of  the  accused  to  hurt  the  girl  of  marriageable  age. Therefore, abetment on their part to cause suicide of Meena is complete and they are held guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC…."

6.1. With  the  findings  aforesaid,  the  High  Court  upheld  the  order  of

conviction but reduced the sentence to that of imprisonment for a period of two

and half years on the ground that the accused had already faced 12 years of

protracted trial.

10

7.  It may be pointed out that on 22.07.2009, while entertaining the petition

for  Special  Leave to  Appeal  in  this  matter  and while  issuing notice  to  the

respondent, this Court also issued notice to the petitioners-appellants as to

why,  in  the  event,  if  sufficient  evidence  is  found  acceptable,  they  be  not

suitably punished under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, even

if they may not be held guilty for commission of offence under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. We shall examine hereafter a little later the questions

as to whether the accused are guilty of the acts and utterances attributed for

them; and if so, they are liable for the offence of abetment of suicide or if they

are guilty of any other offence under the Indian Penal Code.  

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has strenuously argued that

there is want of direct and cogent proof of the fact that the accused abetted the

suicide in question; that there is no evidence to show that the deceased ended

her life for the words or actions attributed to the accused; and that there are no

eye-witnesses  to  the  incident  and the  depositions  of  the  witnesses  are  all

nothing but hearsay. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased was

obviously depressed on account of dropping out of her studies as she had

failed  to  clear  her  10th standard  examination  as  also  on  account  of  her

engagement having been called off  a few months prior to the incident and

these being the real causes of her committing suicide, the appellants cannot

be held responsible therefor. The learned counsel would submit that there had

been previous litigations including criminal cases between the parties and the

accused appellants have unnecessarily been implicated in this case because

11

of previous enmity. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the

decisions in  Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618,

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Another: (2010) 8 SCC 628 and

Pawan  Kumar  v.  State  of  Himachal  Pradesh:  (2017)  7  SCC  780.  The

learned counsel has also argued in the alternative that even if the evidence of

the prosecution is taken on its face value, the offence against the appellants

cannot  travel  beyond  that  of  insulting  the  modesty  of  a  woman  by  some

utterances; and in that event too, the appellants could only be held guilty of the

offence under Section 509 but not for abetment of suicide under Section 306

IPC. The learned counsel has also argued for appellant No. 2 that as on the

day of incident i.e., 05.05.1996, the appellant No. 2 was a minor, being around

16  years  of  age with  his  date  of  birth  as  20.04.1980 and  hence,  he  was

required to be treated as a juvenile and could not have been sentenced in this

trial.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has duly opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the appellants with reference to the evidence

on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. The

learned  counsel  would  submit  that  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses,

particularly  those  of  PW-2  and  PW-11,  establish  beyond  doubt  that  the

accused persons had insulted, humiliated and harassed the victim, a young

girl 18 years of age, on continuous basis and their actions led to the girl ending

her life by committing suicide. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the

appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

12

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the

record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that so

far the appellant  No. 2 (accused No. 3)  is concerned, he is entitled to the

benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [‘the Act

of 2000’] and the proceedings qua him are required to be terminated.

11. The  matriculation  certificate  issued  by  the  Board  of  Secondary

Education,  Haryana dated  24.06.1994 in  relation  to  the  appellant  No.  2  is

placed  on  record  and  therein,  his  date  of  birth  is  distinctly  recorded  as

"20.04.1980".  This  certificate  has  not  been  disputed  on  behalf  of  the

respondents and in the given set of circumstances, we find neither any reason

to  doubt  the  correctness  and veracity  of  the  same nor  there  appears  any

reason to hold further enquiry in the matter.  

11.1. The daughter of the complainant was found dead on 06.05.1996 after

committing suicide and the cause for her taking such extreme step is said to

be the continuous humiliation and harassment by the accused; the last such

incident being of 05.05.1996. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant No. 2

was about 16 years of age as on the date/s of incident/s. Though this fact was

not placed for consideration before the Trial Court and the High Court but, in

the light of the law declared by this Court in the case of  Raju v.  State of

Haryana: 2019 (4) SCALE 398,  he is entitled to raise this plea even in this

appeal. In view of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the Act of

2000, the appellant No. 2, being a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of

13

age on the date of commission of the offence, remains entitled to the benefit of

juvenility. In Raju's case (supra) this Court has observed and held as under:

"9. It is by now well-settled, as was held in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, that in light of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended in 2006, a juvenile who had not  completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act (also see Mohan Mali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 669;  Daya  Nand  v.  State  of  Haryana,  (2011)  2  SCC  224; Dharambir  v.  State  (NCT)  of  Delhi  (supra);  Jitendra  Singh  @ Babboo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 193). It is equally well-settled that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any Court by an accused, including this Court, even after the final disposal of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act (see Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489; Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of UP, (supra); Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637).

10.  In  light  of  the  above  legal  position,  it  is  evident  that  the Appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act if his age is determined to be below 18 years on the date of commission of the  offence.  Moreover,  it  would  be  irrelevant  that  the  plea  of juvenility was not raised before the Trial Court, in light of Section 7A. As per the report of the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, in this case, the Appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. The only question before us that needs to be determined is whether such report may be given precedence over the contrary view taken by the High Court, so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to the Appellant.

    xxx    xxx   xxx   xxx

25. Criminal Appeal hereby stands allowed and the order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is set aside. Seeing that the Appellant has already spent 6 years in imprisonment, whereas the maximum period for which a juvenile may be sent to a special home is only 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act. We direct that the Appellant be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case.’’

14

11.2. In  view  of  the  above  and  in  view  of  the  indisputable  fact  that  the

appellant No. 2 was below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of

offence, the appeal in his relation deserves to be allowed.  

12. Taking up the case of other appellants, as noticed, while entertaining the

petition for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter, this Court also issued notice

to the appellants as to why they be not suitably punished under appropriate

provisions  of  the Indian Penal  Code,  even if  they were  not  held  guilty  for

commission of offence under Section 306 IPC with reference to the evidence

on record. Apparently, this notice was issued to the appellants with reference

to the offence specified in Section 509 IPC, being of "word, gesture or act

intended  to  insult  the  modesty  of  a  woman".  Obviously,  this  Court  had

pondered over the broad features of this case while entertaining the prayer for

leave to appeal  and it  was  prima facie  indicated that  even if  the acts and

actions of the accused in this case fall short of making out a case of abetment

of  suicide  under  Section  306  IPC,  they  might,  nevertheless,  remain  liable

under Section 509 IPC for insulting the modesty of a woman. Even during the

course of hearing of this matter, we have heard learned counsel for the parties

at sufficient length on this question, of the offence in the alternative. However,

having scanned through the entire record with reference to the law applicable,

we have no hesitation in concluding that the present case squarely falls within

the ambit of Section 306 IPC and the appellants have rightly been held guilty

thereunder.

15

13. The offence of abetment of suicide is specified in Section 306 IPC 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."

13.1. The expression “abetment” within the meaning of Indian Penal Code is

defined as follows:

"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.

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 aid the doing of that act."

13.2. The offence relating the words, gestures or acts intended to insult the

modesty of woman is specified in Section 509 IPC as under1:

"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. – Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any

1 Section 509 IPC was amended by Act No. 13 of 2013 in the present form with enhancement of the term of simple imprisonment to three years in place of the earlier term of one year.  

16

woman,  utters  any  word,  makes  any  sound  or  gesture,  or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall  be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished  with  simple  imprisonment  for  a  term  which  may extend to three years, and also with fine."  

14. When the accusation in the present case has its genesis in certain acts

and utterances attributed to the accused,  the meaning and expanse of  the

expression “abetment”, particularly on its operation in relation to the offence of

“abetment of suicide”, is required to be dilated upon. Hence, before proceeding

further,  apposite  it  shall  be  to  take  note  of  the  case  law as  cited  and as

relevant in this matter.  

14.1. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), a three-Judge bench of this Court

held that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not satisfactorily proved so

as to implicate and punish the accused for the same. The facts of the case

leading  to  the  aforementioned  decision  had  been  that  the  deceased  was

married to the accused for about a year. The deceased committed suicide by

pouring kerosene and setting herself  on fire  in  the kitchen.  On the day of

incident, the accused had refused to take the deceased to her sister's house

and in the quarrel that ensued, the accused-husband told the deceased-wife

that  she was free  to  do whatever  she wished to  and to  go  wherever  she

wanted to. The accused attempted to save her by putting a bedsheet around

her body and himself suffered burns consequently. The deceased had written

a letter to her husband-accused in her diary that he had made her free to go

wherever she liked but she was not having any place to go and now she was

17

free of her word not to commit suicide. In her dying declaration too, she stated

that she had a quarrel  with her husband who told her to go wherever she

wanted to and thereafter, she set herself ablaze. The accused-appellant was

convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A

IPC and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. In further appeal, after

examining  the  evidence  led  in  by  the  parties  and  taking  note  of  all  the

surrounding  factors,  this  Court,  while  maintaining  the  conviction  of  the

appellant under Section 498-A IPC, set aside his conviction for offence under

Section 306. This Court observed and held inter alia, as under:

"19. …… Presumably the accused may have said some such thing – you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in  marriage by  her  parents  to  her  husband,  she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had "freed"  her  she thought  impulsively  that  the  only thing which she could do was to kill  herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband's wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the  trial  court  misspelt  out  the  meaning  of  the  expression attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the accused  had  made  her  free  to  commit  suicide.  Making  the deceased free – to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she wished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the accused had made the deceased free "to commit suicide" as held by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.

20. Instigation  is  to  goad,  urge  forward,  provoke,  incite  or encourage to do "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. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion

18

without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.  

21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] , this Court has  cautioned  that  the  court  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."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.2.      In  the  case of  Pawan Kumar  (supra),  the  allegation  against  the

accused was that as he had eloped with the deceased girl, he thought that she

was responsible for the criminal proceedings against him by her family and

hence,  subjected  her  to  abject  teasing  despite  she standing  with  him and

having him acquitted of  the offences imputed.  On one occasion,  while  the

deceased was staying at her parent's home, he threatened to kidnap her and

this led to her pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. In her

dying  declaration,  she  wrote  a  letter  narrating  that  the  accused  was

responsible  for  the  step  that  she  had  taken.  Though  the  Trial  Court  had

acquitted the accused of all charges, on appeal, the order of acquittal was set

aside by the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 306

IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years

together with fine. In further appeal, another three-Judge Bench of this Court

upheld the order of the High Court with reference to the principles relating to

19

the offence of abetment of suicide. This Court referred to several decisions,

including that in the case Ramesh Kumar (supra), and observed, inter alia, as

under:

"34.  The word ‘‘abetment’’ has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context,  the definition of  abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of  suicide of  another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out  by  continuous  conduct  of  the  accused,  involving  his  mental element…….

            xxx xxx xxx

36.   The  word  "instigate"  literally  means  to  goad,  urge  forward, provoke,  incite  or  encourage  to  do  an  act.  A person  is  said  to instigate another  person when he actively  suggests  or  stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes  the  form  of  express  solicitation  or  of  hints,  insinuation  or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or maybe by (implied) conduct.

37.  The  word  "urge  forwards"  means  to  advise  or  try  hard  to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more  quickly  in  the  particular  direction,  specially  by  pushing  or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad"  or  "urge  forward"  the  latter  with  the  intention  to  provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment,  it  must  be  shown that  the  accused  kept  on  urging  or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment".

xxx      xxx xxx

43.  Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it  clearly  stated  that  mere  allegation  of  harassment  without  any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that  led a person to commit  suicide,  a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of  anger  will  not  earn  the  status  of  abetment.  There  has  to  be

20

positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.

44.  In  the instant  case,  the accused had by his  acts  and by his continuous  course  of  conduct  created  such  a  situation  as  a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.  The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material  on record which compels the Court  to conclude that  the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand,  the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark.

45.  As  is  demonstrable,  the  High  Court  has  not  reversed  the judgment of acquittal solely on the basis of the dying declaration. It has placed reliance on the evidence of the parents and also other witnesses.  It  has  also  treated  the  version  of  the  Pradhan of  the Gram Panchayat as credible. All these witnesses have deposed that the accused after his acquittal engaged himself in threatening and teasing the girl. He did not allow her to live in peace.

46.  The  harassment  caused  to  her  had  become  intolerable  and unbearable. The father had deposed that the girl  had told him on number of  occasions and he had complained to the Pradhan.  All these  amount  to  active  part  played  by  the  accused.  It  is  not  a situation where a person is insulted on being asked to pay back a loan.  It  is  not  a  situation  where  someone  feels  humiliated  on  a singular act. It is a different situation altogether. The young girl living in a village was threatened and teased constantly.  She could not bear it any longer. There is evidence that the parents belong to the poor strata of the society. As the materials on record would reflect, the father could not afford her treatment when case of his daughter was referred to the hospital at Chandigarh. The impecuniosity of the family is manifest. It is clearly evident from the materials brought on record that the conduct of the accused was absolutely proactive."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.3 In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), this Court also expressed serious

concern  over  the  menace  of  eve-teasing  and  its  adverse  impact  on  the

civilized  society  while  indicating  the  affirmative  rights  of  a  woman  with

21

reference to Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Constitution of India. This Court referred

to an earlier decision and observed as under: -

"47.  …..We  are  at  pains  to  state  that  in  a  civilised  society  eve teasing is causing harassment  to women in educational institutions, public places, parks, railway stations and other public places which only go to show that requisite sense of respect for women has not been socially cultivated.  A woman has her own space as a man has.   She  enjoys  as  much  equality  under  Article  14  of  the Constitutions  as  a  man  does.   The  right  to  live  with  dignity  as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be violated by indulging in obnoxious act of eve teasing.  It affects the fundamental concept of gender sensitivity and justice and the rights of a woman under Article 14 of the Constitution.  That apart creates an incurable dent in the right of a woman which she has under Article 15 of the Constitution.   One  is  compelled  to  think  and  constrained  to deliberate why the women in this country cannot be allowed to live in peace  and  lead  a  life  that  is  empowered  with  dignity  and freedom…….

48.  In  a  civilised  society  male  chauvinism  has  no  room.  The Constitution of India confers the affirmative rights on women and the said rights are perceptible from Article 15 of the Constitution. When the right is conferred under the Constitution, it has to be understood that there is no condescension. A man should not put his ego or, for that matter, masculinity on a pedestal and abandon the concept of civiliaty. Egoism must succumb to law. Equality has to be regarded as the summum bonum of the constitutional principle in this context. The instant case portrays the deplorable depravity of the appellant that has led to a heart-breaking situation for a young girl who has been compelled to put an end to her life. Therefore, the High Court has  absolutely  correctly  reversed  the  judgment  of  acquittal  and imposed the sentence. It  has appositely exercised the jurisdiction and we concur with the same."

14.4. In the case of  Madan Mohan Singh  (supra), the driver of the accused

had alleged in his suicide note that the accused had driven him to the extent of

committing suicide. However, on evidence, it was found that the deceased had

a grudge against his superior and even though the deceased felt that he was

22

wronged at some point in time, there was nothing available on record to prove

that  the  accused  had  done  anything  to  instigate  the  deceased  to  commit

suicide. Hence, this Court observed as under:

"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment  to  commit  suicide.  In  such  matters  there  must  be  an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide  or  secondly,  had  engaged  with  some  other  person  in  a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. "   

14.5.        We may also refer to the decision in S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan and Ors:  (2010) 12 SCC 190,  where this Court reiterated on the

essentials of the offence under Section 306 IPC as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act  on the part  of  the accused to instigate or aid in committing  suicide,  conviction  cannot  be  sustained.  The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this  Court  is  clear  that in  order  to  convict  a  person  under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.6. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): (2009) 16

SCC 605, this Court referred to the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) and,

while  pointing  out  the  complexities  related  with  the  determination  of  the

23

question as to the cause of suicide, expounded on the relevant principles in

the following:-

"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other  words,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  accused  abetted commission of  suicide by a  person,  it  has to  be established that:   

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful  omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the  deceased  reacted  or  pushed  or  forced  the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and  

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge  or  encourage  the  deceased  to  commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly,  presence  of  mens  rea  is  the necessary concomitant of instigation.

20. ………….The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in  human  beings  are  complex  and  multifaceted.  Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting  for  individual  vulnerability  to  suicide.  Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss or self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life,   which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

14.7. In the case  Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.: (2010) 1 SCC 707, this

Court, after reference to several past decisions, held as follows:-

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,

24

the  court  must  scrupulously  examine  the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  and  also  assess  the  evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must  be  proof  of  direct  or  indirect  acts  of  incitement  to  the commission of suicide. Merely 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

(Underling supplied for emphasis)

15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in

doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates

any person to do that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in

any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts

or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to complete

the abetment  as a crime.  The word "instigate"  literally  means to provoke,

incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.  

16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct

or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be

disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of

an  offence  of  abetment  of  suicide,  remains  a  vexed  one,  involving

multifaceted  and  complex  attributes  of  human  behaviour  and

responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the

Court  would  be  looking  for  cogent  and  convincing  proof  of  the  act/s  of

incitement  to  the  commission  of  suicide.  In  the  case  of  suicide,  mere

25

allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice

unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the

person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate

to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission

of  suicide  by  another  or  not,  could  only  be  gathered  from the  facts  and

circumstances of each case.   

16.1  For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of

suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the

act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this

Court  in  the  decisions  above-referred,  instigation  means  to  goad,  urge

forward,  provoke,  incite  or  encourage  to  do  an  act.  If  the  persons  who

committed  suicide  had  been  hypersensitive  and  the  action  of  accused  is

otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person

to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment

of  suicide. But,  on the other hand,  if  the accused by his acts and by his

continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased

perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within

the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in

tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect  of  the victim,  which eventually

draws  the  victim  to  commit  suicide,  the  accused  may  be  held  guilty  of

abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in

such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds

of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the

26

accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a

particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,

if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds

until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of

abetment of  suicide. Such being the matter of  delicate analysis of  human

behaviour,  each case is  required  to  be  examined on  its  own facts,  while

taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and

psyche of the accused and the deceased.  

16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could

react  in  myriad ways;  and impact  of  one's  action on the mind of  another

carries several  imponderables.  Similar actions are dealt  with differently by

different  persons;  and  so  far  a  particular  person’s  reaction  to  any  other

human’s action is  concerned,  there is  no specific  theorem or  yardstick to

estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the

question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age,

personality,  upbringing,  rural  or  urban  set  ups,  education  etc.   Even  the

response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could

also  vary  for  a  variety  of  factors,  including  those  of  background,  self-

confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on

its own facts and circumstances.

17. Having  taken  an  overall  view  of  the  applicable  principles,  we  may

notice that the real questions arising in this appeal are:

27

(i) Whether  the  accused  persons  are  guilty  of  the  acts  and

utterances attributed to them; and (ii) If  the  answer  to  the  question  (i)  is  in  the  affirmative,  as  to

whether  such acts  and utterances  had only  been of  insult  or

intimidation or had been of  instigation; and whether such acts

and utterances amounted to abetment of suicide?

17.1 Before entering into the questions aforesaid, it may be observed that

the fact that the daughter of the complainant indeed committed suicide with

hanging by neck is  not  of  any dispute in  this  appeal.  The fact  has been

established  on  record  and  the  Trial  Court  as  also  the  High  Court  have

concurrently found this fact proved. No further dilation on this aspect of the

matter is requisite. Similarly, a feeble suggestion on behalf of the accused

persons  that  accused  Nos.  3  and  4  were  not  present  in  the  village  on

05.05.1996 does not carry any substance and the finding in that regard is

also not required to be interfered with.  

18. Coming  to  the  material  points  for  determination  in  the  matter,  the

question as to whether the accused persons were guilty of the actions and

utterances imputed on them does not detain us much longer. The fact that

they indeed did so and made such utterances is amply established in the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11,

as noticed above. It is also established beyond doubt that such utterances

were not of a solitary or one-off incident but the accused, working in unison,

had continuously made the imputed utterances towards the daughter of the

28

complainant and continuously taunted the girl,  who committed suicide next

day after her last encounter with the accused. In the given fact situation, the

question  is  as  to  whether  such  actions  and  utterances  of  the  accused

persons lead to the offence of abetment of suicide or only to the offence of

insult and/or intimidation?  

19. Having examined the record in its totality, we are clearly of the view

that  the  actions  and  utterances  of  the  accused,  directed  towards  the

deceased  on  continuous  basis,  had  driven  her  to  suicide;  and  accused

persons are guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide.  

20. The relevant background aspects of the matter make it clear that the

complainant (father of the deceased) and the accused persons, residing in

the same village in the State of Haryana, were closely related as cousins but

were estranged in relations; and were involved in several civil and criminal

cases against each other. Admittedly, there was a property dispute between

the parties that was later on compromised but, the relations of the parties did

not  improve.  There  was  a  criminal  case  by  the  accused  No.  1  (since

deceased)  against  the  complainant  and  his  brother,  allegedly  involving

offence  under  Section  307  IPC.  Then,  there  was  another  criminal  case

wherein  wife  of  the  complainant  (PW-11  Smt.  Krishna)  alleged  that  the

accused No. 1 of this case had assaulted her with gandasa. The incident of

15.04.1996 (when the deceased girl  was dragged by accused No. 1) had

allegedly taken place after evidence in the said criminal case lodged by the

mother of  the deceased girl.  The parties,  therefore,  were not  standing on

29

good  terms  and  there  had  been  the  elements  of  rather  abject  animosity

towards each other. On the other hand, the position of the deceased girl had

been that she was about 18 years of age; she had failed to clear her 10 th

standard examination and was practically a drop out from her studies; and

she was engaged for the purpose of marriage but,  six months before the

incident in question, her engagement had broken. The accused Nos. 1 and 2

were uncles in her relation whereas, the accused Nos. 3 and 4 were her

cousins.  

21. In the given set up and the respective position of  the parties, if  the

accused No.  1 continuously addressed or  called the deceased girl  as his

“wife”, in our view, the utterance was not merely of teasing but of demeaning

and destroying the self-esteem of  the  young girl  whose engagement  had

broken and whose uncle was mocking her to join him in matrimony. It was the

act of humiliation of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered the

set-back of broken engagement, apart that she was unable to clear even 10 th

standard examination. Obviously, she was being ridiculed and taunted for her

broken engagement. The other accused persons chose to join the accused

No. 1 and aggravated the humiliation of the girl by addressing her as younger

brother's  wife  or  aunt.  There  remains  nothing  to  doubt  that  the  accused

persons were working with the common intention to harass and humiliate the

girl  with  reference to  her  broken engagement.  The significant  part  of  the

matter is that such taunting and humiliation of the deceased at the hands of

the accused persons had not been a singular event or one-off affair but had

30

been  a  continuous  feature,  as  amply  established  by  the  prosecution

witnesses. The incident of 05.05.1996 drew the final straw when the hapless

girl  received  the  same  taunts  from  the  accused  persons  and  she  even

rebuked them. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-2 Jai

Narain as regards the incident of 05.05.1996. Equally, there is no reason to

disbelieve the statement of PW-11 Smt. Krishna that her daughter wept the

whole night after the said incident; and on being frustrated and exasperated

with such humiliations, expressed her intention to end her life. The fact of the

matter remains that the victim girl  ended her life in the early morning very

next day.  

22. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the present

one had not been a case of a mere eve-teasing, insult or intimidation but the

continuous and repeated acts and utterances of the accused persons were

calculated to bring disgrace to the village girl and to destroy her self-esteem;

rather  the  acts  and  utterances  were  aimed  at  taking  her  to  the  brink  of

helplessness and to the vanishing point of tolerance. It had not been a case

of  mere intimidation or  insult.  The incessant  intimidation and insult  of  the

innocent girl had been of instigation; and such instigation clearly answers to

the description of abetment of suicide. Therefore, in our view, the accused

Nos. 1 and 3 have rightly been held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide.  

23. The contention of the appellants that their intention had never been to

make  her  commit  suicide  is  required  to  be  rejected  because,  as  noticed

above,  the  hapless  girl  was  intentionally  chosen  for  humiliation  by  the

31

accused, who were otherwise involved in several litigations with her parents.

The accused persons also knew it that the father of the girl was posted in his

duty outside the village. As noticed, the intention of the accused had only

been to drive the deceased to the brink of helplessness and intolerance; they

in fact succeeded in doing so on 05.05.1996, when the girl rebuked them for

their  utterances.  However,  the  victim  girl  found  no  way  out  because  the

humiliation at the hands of accused had been everyday affair;  and, in the

given set up of the society she belonged to, any action against the accused

by her family was being avoided for the sake of her honour.

24.   The present case indeed represents a sordid state of affairs in relation to

the young girl in the rural setting, whose honour and self-esteem got brutally

violated by none other but her own relatives, who found her to be the soft-

target to settle their scores with her parents. The accused rather exhibited

their denigrating mentality while targeting the young girl, who was otherwise

required to be treated by them with affection and respect, for being their niece

and their cousin. The facts of this case lead only to the conclusion that the

accused persons had intentionally, with their incessant acts and utterances,

goaded the victim girl to commit suicide. She indeed committed suicide within

few hours of her last and unbearable encounter with the accused. The acts

and  deeds  of  the  accused  in  the  evening  of  05.05.1996  had  been  too

proximate to the event of suicide by 9 a.m. in the morning of 06.05.1996. As

testified by PW-11 Smt. Krishna, her daughter cried the whole night for being

32

unable to bear the daily humiliation at the hands of the accused; and ended

her life in the morning.  

25. For what has been discussed hereinabove and having examined the

matter in its totality, we find no reason to consider any interference in the

impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2008 in relation to the appellant

Nos. 1 and 3.  

26. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed to

the extent it relates to the appellant No. 2; the impugned judgment and order

of the High Court affirming his conviction are set-aside; and the proceedings

in his relation stand terminated. However,  the appeal  stands dismissed in

relation  to  the  other  appellants,  who  shall  be  required  to  serve  out  the

remaining part of sentence awarded by the High Court.

 ..................................................J.    (ABHAY MANOHAR  SAPRE)

      ...............................................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI)      1

New Delhi,  Dated: 25th July, 2019.

33

34