Summary
A husband and his parents in Karnataka were convicted under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC after the wife, married about three years, died in 2010 by drowning in an open well; the Karnataka High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the Section 498A conviction on the consistent evidence of dowry demands and harassment, but acquitted the appellants of abetment of suicide: the doctor gave no opinion whether the drowning was suicidal, no witness knew whether she jumped or slipped, the mother admitted being told it was an accidental fall, and there was no evidence of any positive act of instigation or aid under Section 107 IPC; the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is discretionary and does not arise from death within seven years of marriage alone. Having served the two-year sentence, the appellants were set free.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC can be sustained where it is not established that the death by drowning was suicidal and there is no evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused, notwithstanding proof of cruelty under Section 498A and the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Provisions considered
- Section 306 read with Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction requires proof that the death was suicidal and of abetment by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid; following M. Mohan, Ramesh Kumar and Chitresh Kumar Chopra, there must be a positive act and clear mens rea intended to leave the deceased no option but suicide, which was wholly absent. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16)
- Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The presumption that a husband or relative abetted a wife's suicide within seven years of marriage after cruelty is discretionary and depends on all other circumstances; following Mangat Ram and Hans Raj, the mere fact of suicide does not suffice to raise it, and here even suicide was not proved. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Section 498A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and two-year sentence upheld on the consistent evidence of the deceased's parents, uncle, the person who arranged the marriage and neighbours regarding demands for cash and gold and physical and mental harassment. (¶¶ 4, 5, 17)
Held
- The post-mortem doctor opined only that death was due to drowning and was not asked whether it was suicide or accident; the mother, declared hostile, admitted she had not seen the body in the well and that the husband had telephoned to say the deceased slipped and fell, while the father, uncle and matchmaker did not know how she fell. None of the witnesses knew whether she jumped or slipped, and even assuming suicide there was no evidence that any accused instigated or aided it, so both courts gravely erred in convicting under Section 306. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC upheld but the appellants acquitted of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC on benefit of doubt; having already undergone the two-year sentence under Section 498A, the appellants to be set free forthwith.