New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man under section 306 IPC (Abetment to Suicide), stating that inference without any material support cannot be basis for sustaining conviction under the said section.
A three-judge Bench of Justices N. V. Ramana, Surya Kant & Hrishikesh Roy has held that the trial court and the High Court speculated on the natural death and without any evidence concluded, only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.
“In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the trial court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support. Therefore, the same cannot be basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC,” said the apex court.
The Court was hearing the appeal filed by man convicted by the trial court under section 306 IPC and sentenced to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 5,000 which was later upheld by the State High Court.
Originally, the appellant along with his parents was charged under sections 304B (Dowry Death) and 498A (Cruelty) read with section 34 of the IPC. The trial court had acquitted the parents. However, even while declaring that there is insufficient material to convict anyone under those sections, the trial court had opined that although no charge of abetment was framed against the husband, he can be convicted for abetting suicide of his wife, under 306 IPC.
The apex court noted in its order that as in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. There has to be something on record to established to show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the Suicide of the deceased wife.
The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed, said the Supreme Court.
Read the judgment here;
Gurcharan-Singh-ILNS