- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kishori Lal v. State Of M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was married to Rajkumari (“the deceased”). On 31 August 1982 she was found dead by hanging inside the matrimonial home. The appellant, who had discovered the locked room after returning from work, reported the matter to the police. An investigation followed, culminating in a charge-sheet alleging that he had abetted her suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The trial court convicted him, primarily relying on the testimony of PWs 8, 10 and 11 (the deceased’s brothers and mother), and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. The present decision resolves the appellant’s further appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence on record proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant abetted the deceased’s suicide within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
- Whether the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 could be invoked when the marriage was more than a decade old at the time of the incident.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The relationship, though strained at times, had resumed cohabitation about a month before the incident; no proximate act of cruelty or incitement was proved.
- Alleged acts of “torture” cited by PW 11 pertained to events 4–5 years earlier and were too remote to constitute abetment.
- The post-mortem disclosed no recent injuries indicative of violence; any marks were old and not linked to the appellant.
State’s Arguments
- Section 113-A of the Evidence Act permits a presumption of abetment of suicide by a husband; this presumption should operate in favour of the prosecution.
- The testimony of the deceased’s close relatives (PWs 8, 10, 11) was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731; 1995 AIR SCW 4570 | Mere harassment or cruelty, without direct or proximate incitement, is inadequate to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. | The Court relied on this authority to hold that the prosecution’s evidence of past differences and alleged cruelty did not amount to the instigation or intentional aid required for abetment of suicide. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court restated the statutory elements of abetment under Sections 107 and 109 IPC, emphasising that conviction under Section 306 requires proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid leading to suicide. It observed that:
- Evidence from PWs 8, 10 and 11 showed only past marital differences and the deceased’s distress over her inability to conceive; none of these facts demonstrated proximate incitement by the appellant.
- The alleged acts of cruelty were remote—occurring several years earlier—and could not establish a causal link to the suicide.
- The statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was inapplicable because the marriage had subsisted for more than ten years, exceeding the seven-year threshold specified in the provision.
- No medical evidence indicated recent violence; the post-mortem findings did not support the prosecution’s theory of ongoing cruelty.
Given the absence of proof satisfying the legal definition of abetment, the Court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
The immediate consequence is the discharge of the appellant’s bail bonds executed on 6 September 1999. The judgment reinforces the principle that, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a clear nexus between the accused’s conduct and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide; mere evidence of past marital discord or cruelty is insufficient. No new legal precedent was created, but the decision reiterates existing standards for proving abetment of suicide.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years.
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant was married to Rajkumari (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). On 31-8-1982 she committed suicide. On the basis of information lodged by the accused, investigation was undertaken. The accused was arrested for allegedly having abetted the deceased to commit suicide on 31-8-1982. According to the prosecution in the evening of 31-8-1982 the accused left for his duty leaving the deceased in the house. In the evening when he reached the house the room was found closed from inside and the deceased did not respond to his call for opening the door. Apprehending that there was something wrong, he went to police station and lodged the report. The police went with him and with the help of persons of the locality broke open the door and found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging from the roof. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed and the accused pleaded innocence.
3. Primarily relying on the evidence of PWs 8, 10 and 11 the trial court came to hold that the accused had abetted suicide. Accordingly the conviction was recorded and sentence was imposed. Appeal before the High Court did not bring any relief to the appellant.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses PWs 8, 10 and 11 who are the brothers and the mother of the deceased clearly stated that after living together for long years some differences cropped up between the deceased and the accused and, therefore, she started living in the house of the parents. On the persuasion of the father-in-law and the brother-in-law she came to the accused's house about a month before the date of occurrence. There was no evidence led to show that the accused was in any manner responsible for suicide. The so-called alleged torture done by the accused as spoken by the mother of the deceased related to the alleged incident about 4-5 years prior to the occurrence. The post-mortem also did not reveal any mark of violence. In fact, the so-called marks were stated to be several days old and there was no evidence to conclude that those injuries were inflicted by the accused.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the presumption available under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) can be pressed into service. He, however, fairly conceded that the marriage was more than a decade old when the alleged occurrence took place.
6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.
7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. (See Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, 1995 AIR SCW 4570) Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs 8, 10 and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.
8. If the background facts are analysed it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct.
9*. The bail bonds of the accused executed for bail on 6-9-1999 shall stand discharged. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Shankar Divate, learned amicus curiae.
Alert