Date:26/06/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/06/26/stories/2007062651511300.htm

National

“Cruelty no abetment to suicide”

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: In cases of abetment to suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. The mere fact that a man was cruel to his deceased wife is not enough to warrant conviction, the Supreme Court has held.

“Merely on the allegation of harassment, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code (If a person commits suicide, whoever abets in it shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and is also be liable to a fine) is not sustainable,” said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain.

“Section 107 IPC defines abetment. A person abets in the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids in the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete the abetment as crime. In cases of alleged abetment to suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough.”

In the instant case, Rajkumari committed suicide in her matrimonial home on August 31, 1982, following harassment by her husband Kishori Lal, according to the prosecution. The trial court sentenced him to five-year imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Allowing his appeal against this judgment, the Bench accepted Lal’s contention that there was no evidence to show that he was in any manner responsible for the suicide by Rajkumari. Further, the allegation of torture made by her mother related to an incident which occurred four-five years prior to the suicide.

“There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she could not give birth to a child. The deceased was upset at this, according to statements by three prosecution witnesses. If the background facts are analysed, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case.” the Bench said and set aside the impugned judgment.