This Court has
held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one
should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved.
The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption,
because of the words 'may presume'. It must take into account all the circumstances
of the case which is an additional safeguard. In the absence of any cogent
evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the
offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code by raising presumption
under Section 113A.100
Before we part
with this matter, we may only observe that the criminal justice system
of ours can itself be120 a punishment. It is exactly what has happened in this case.
It did not take more than 10 minutes for this Court to arrive at an inevitable
conclusion that the conviction of the appellant-convict for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable
in law. The ordeal for the appellant started sometime in 1993 and is coming to
the end in 2024, almost after a period200 of 30 years of suffering.
At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that a young woman died
leaving behind her 6 months old infant. No crime should go unpunished.
But at the same time, the guilt240 of the accused has to be determined in accordance with
law. To put it in other words, the guilt of the accused has to be
determined on the basis of legal evidence on record. The question is: why
and where did the two courts falter? In our opinion, the two courts faltered
as they failed to apply the correct300 principles of law to the evidence on record on the subject of
abetment of suicide.
The two courts got
enamoured by just three things. First, the deceased committed suicide
within seven years of marriage; second, the accused was demanding money from
the parents of the deceased for starting some business, and third, the
deceased used to remain tense. We do360 not say that these are irrelevant considerations. All the three
aspects are relevant. But there are settled principles of law to be made
applicable to the matters of the present type. In the case of accusation
for abetment of suicide,400 the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act
of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action
should be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Appreciation of
evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating
the evidence in cases of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, it is more arduous. The court must remain
very careful and vigilant in480 applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of
abetment of suicide while appreciating the evidence on record. Otherwise,500 it may give an impression that the
conviction is not legal but rather moral.
For all the above
reasons, we have arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been
able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is, hereby, allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the
High Court is, hereby, set aside.
Having heard the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused and having gone through
the600 impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, more particularly, the observations made in
paragraph 42, we are of the opinion that the observations made by the High
Court in paragraph 42 are absolutely unwarranted and against the judicial
discipline and propriety. When this Court earlier confirmed the
conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code
and that too after hearing learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
accused, thereafter, it was not open for the High Court to make comments
upon the investigation and on merits of the700 case.
The High Court
also ought not to have made observations in paragraph 42 that certain
aspects were not720 brought to the notice of this Court and no assistance was
provided to the accused to prefer an appeal before this Court and that the
conviction was upheld without hearing the side of the accused-respondent
herein. However, it is required to be noted that when this Court passed the
order remanding the matter for sentence and confirmed the conviction, this
Court heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
accused.
Therefore, the
High Court is not right800 even factually in observing that this Court confirmed the
conviction without hearing the side of the accused on merits. Judicial
discipline requires that once the conviction was confirmed by this Court,
that too after hearing the accused, the High Court840 should not have thereafter
made any comment on the merits of the case, more particularly, when the
conviction was specifically confirmed by this Court and the matter was
remitted to the High Court only for the purpose of considering the
sentence, namely, whether death penalty or life sentence or any other
appropriate sentence.
Even the learned
Senior Advocate appearing on900 behalf of the accused in the present
case has also fairly conceded and stated that the observations made in
paragraph 42 are absolutely unwarranted and are unsustainable. Leaving
the matter there, we set aside the observations made by the High Court
made in paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment and order. Now so far as the
impugned judgment960 and order passed by the High Court commuting the death penalty to
life imprisonment is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the
same, more particularly, when the High Court after considering the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances has commuted1000 the death penalty to life
imprisonment.
APSARA STENO PENCIL (PACK OF 20)
STENO NOTEBOOK (PACK OF 10)
