In a significant ruling on the scope of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar, has acquitted Ravindra Singh, holding that marital dispute alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide in the absence of a direct act or intention linking the accused to the deceased’s suicide.
Background of the Case
The case arises from the death of Cheta Devi, wife of the appellant, who died from burn injuries on the intervening night of May 15–16, 1997, at her matrimonial home in Pangar, Uttarakhand. On the morning of May 16, her father, Prem Singh (PW-4), was informed of her death by her brother-in-law and an acquaintance. The body was found completely burnt, and a postmortem confirmed death due to ante-mortem burn injuries.
Initially, a complaint was made alleging murder. However, following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide against Ravindra Singh, his brother-in-law Bijendra Singh, mother-in-law Bindra Devi, and sister-in-law Bimla Devi. The Trial Court acquitted the three co-accused but convicted Ravindra Singh and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The High Court affirmed the conviction, prompting the present appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence brought on record did not satisfy the legal requirements of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Reliance was placed on precedents including Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, Velladurai v. State, and Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat.
The State, on the other hand, contended that the appellant had deserted the deceased and was living separately in Nagani with their children and mother. It was alleged that he had an extra-marital relationship with one Bhawani Devi, which caused mental trauma to the deceased, ultimately leading to her suicide.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements of Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment as including instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding of an act. The Court emphasized that:
“A person who abets the commission of suicide must first instigate, conspire, or intentionally aid the doing of that act.”
The Court reviewed the FIR (Exhibit Ka-8), testimonies of PW-2 (mother), PW-3 (brother), and PW-4 (father) of the deceased, as well as documentary evidence (Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3). It noted that although there was conflict between the appellant and the deceased—including allegations of maltreatment and separation—the prosecution failed to present any evidence showing a direct act of instigation or aiding by the appellant.
The Court observed:
“The testimonies of star witnesses on fact of conflict between appellant and deceased is not enough to prove the charge of offence of section 306 IPC.”
It further stated:
“Nothing has been elicited on record to show that the appellant has abetted by either instigating the deceased to commit suicide or by doing any act or illegal omission to intentionally aid at any time just prior to the date of commission of suicide.”
The Court highlighted that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, including the complaint to the school principal and a subsequent police settlement, did not establish the required link between the appellant’s actions and the suicide. Significantly, the Court remarked:
“Merely because there was some dispute between the parties by itself would not establish the act of abetment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased.”
While the prosecution alleged an extra-marital affair, the Court found no corroboration in the testimonies of the witnesses. The postmortem report also showed no external or internal injuries apart from burns.
Decision
The Court held that there was no direct evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the appellant. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Ravindra Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The Court directed that his bail bond be discharged and ordered the return of the original records to the respective courts.
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar
Citation: Ravindra Singh vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1919 of 2013
