Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D. K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-06-19
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed (conviction under s.306 IPC set aside; bail bonds discharged).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kishori Lal

Respondents

State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shankar Divate (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Merusagar Samantarary
• Vairagya Vardhan
• C.D. Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal against the conviction of the husband under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, reversing the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s affirmation of his conviction. The casualty was Kishori Lal, accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, who died on 31 August 1982. The trial court convicted, and the High Court dismissed the appeal. In the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that there was no evidence of direct or indirect incitement or instigation by him to commit suicide; the alleged torture referred to incidents several years prior; post-mortem showed no marks of violence; and PWs 8, 10, and 11 (brothers and mother of the deceased) testified to marital differences and that the deceased was distressed more due to not bearing a child than due to the appellant’s acts. The Court clarified that abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC, and Section 109 links abetment to the punishment of the actual offence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect incitement; mere cruelty is not enough to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Court cited Mahinder Singh v. State of MP to illustrate this principle. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside, with bail bonds discharged.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 306 IPCSection 107 IPCSection 109 IPCSection 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abetment defined under Section 107 IPC: instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid
Instigate means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion
Abetted means the specific offence abetted; abetment is linked to the proved offence
In abetment of suicide, proof of direct or indirect incitement is required; mere cruelty is not sufficient

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the available witnesses (PWs 8, 10, and 11) were relatives who testified to differences between the deceased and the accused. The evidence showed the deceased moved to her parents’ house, and upon persuasion by the father-in-law and brother-in-law, she stayed with the accused about a month before the incident. There was no evidence linking the accused to suicide; the alleged torture occurred 4–5 years earlier, and post-mortem showed no violence. Hence, no credible incitement by the accused to commit suicide; conviction under Section 306 IPC is unsustainable.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked and that the marriage, being over a decade old, underscores potential incitement or aggravation. It argued that abetment requires incitement or conspiracy; the evidence could support conviction under Section 306 IPC given presumption considerations under 113A and the alleged cruelty.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mahinder Singh v. State of MP	(1995) AIR SCW 4570	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mere cruelty to the spouse is not enough to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide; the decision underscores the necessity of proof of incitement or instigation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

' KISHORI LAL -.,, _v._ STA TE OF M.P. ## JUNE 19, 2007 ' [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ## _Penal Code, I 860:_ _ss. 306 and I 07-Suicide by wife-Conviction of husband for abetment_ c _of suicide-Challenge against-Held: There is no proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide-Evidence show that deceased was disturbed due to her failure to beget a child-Prosecution has failed to establish its case-Conviction set aside._ _-f_ ## _Words and Phrases:_ _'Abetment' and 'instigate'-Meaning of-Discussed._ Deceased had committed suicide. Trial Court convicted appellant husband for abetment of suicide under s.306 IPC. High Court affirmed the conviction. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that there was no evidence led to show that he was in any manner responsible for suicide; that the alleged torture done by the appellant as spoken by the mother of the deceased related to the alleged incident about 4-5 years prior to the occurrence and that the post-mortem did not reveal any mark of violence. E F _) ## Allowing the appeal, the Court -·\ HELD: 1. S.107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. 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 G that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal mission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The wc;rd "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy H 1051 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R. A or intentional aid, as pro,·ided in the three clauses of s.107. S.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 qffender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in s.109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the B abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. I Para 6111053-G, 1054-A, B, CJ 2. 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. Merely C on the allegation of harassment, conviction in terms of s.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 her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this. In the background facts, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. D (Paras 7 and 8) (1054-C, D, E) _Mahinder Singh_ v. _State of MP.,_ (1995) AIR SCW 4570, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1115 of 1999. E From the Final Order and Judgment and dated 06.05.1988 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1984. Shankar Divate, (A.C) for the Appellant. F Merusagar Samantarary, Vairagya Vardhan and C.D. Singh for the Respondent. > The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order G 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 Indian 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: H _I_ 1053 KISHORI LAL v.STATEOFM.P.tPASAYAT.J.) Appellant was married to Rajkumari (hereinafter referred to as the A ·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 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 B 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 C accused pleaded innocence. 3. Primarily relying on the evidence of PWs. 8, I 0 and : I 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. D 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses PWs.8, JO, 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 persuasions of the E 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 _p_ 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 ava;lable under Section I l3A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 G (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 I 07 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment H 1054 12007) 7 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person. abets the doing of a thing when (I) 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 B 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 I 09 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. C '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 D the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See _Mahinder Singh_ v. _State of MP.,_ (1995) AIR SCW 4570]. Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in tenns 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, IO, and 11 E 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. F 9. The bail bonds of the accused executed for bail on 6.1.1999 shall stand discharged. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Shankar Divate, learned _amicus curiae._ D.G. Appeal allowed.