Vikas Garg vs State of Punjab

By way of aforesaid appeal, a challenge has been laid to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.1.2004 vide which the appellant has been

held guilty under Section 306 IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of

fine, he was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The appellant and his parents were tried for causing the dowry death of Vandana. The prosecution case was that Vandana was married to appellant

on 25.02.2001. The appellant and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry and they consistently harassed and maltreated her for bringing more

dowry. According to prosecution Vandana was found dead in her matrimonial home on 12.06.2001.

The prosecution was launched on the basis of complaint made by Sudarshan Kumar, father of the deceased. The accused were arrested and put to

trial. The brother-in-law was juvenile. He was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial separately.

At the trial, prosecution produced eleven witnesses, including the father and the mother of the deceased as PW6 and PW7 respectively. Both of them

deposed on the lines of prosecution case. The other witnesses were the photographer, the witnesses relating to the investigation of the case and the

medical evidence.

The accused adjured the trial. They took the stand that the deceased was having relations with some boy which she continued even after the

marriage. This fact came in the knowledge of members of in-laws family and she put an end to her life as she had been exposed and felt guilty.

They examined nine witnesses in defence.

After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the parents-in-law and found it not to be a case of dowry death, but held the appellant

guilty under Section 306 IPC for having abetted the suicide and sentenced him in the manner indicated above.

Dis-satisfied with the same, appellant has preferred the instant appeal. The State has chosen not to file any appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the trial Court had erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 306 IPC.

According to him, there was no evidence on record to prove the complicity of the appellant for having abeted the suicide. He had further submitted

that the relatives came to know about the extra marital affairs of the deceased and feeling ashamed she committed suicide and there was no role of

the appellant.

Learned State counsel supported the judgment rendered by the trial Court. According to him, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.

The deceased was married to the appellant on 25.02.2001. She died within four months of the marriage in the matrimonial home. The cause of death

in the post mortem report is asphyxia due to hanging. Her death was unnatural and is not in dispute. The stand taken by the defence is that she

committed suicide as her illicit relations came to the knowledge of in-laws.

In the circumstances, it has to be examined, whether the appellant by his act and conduct drove Vandana to commit suicide.

Section 306 IPC reads as under:

Abetment of suicide If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person

committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an

abetment"" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of ""abetment"" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a

thing. A person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more

other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in

order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

The explanation appended thereto states that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may

also come within the contours of ""abetment"". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in

the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State

(Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446, Hon'ble Apex Court Court while dealing with the term ‘instigation’ held:

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an actâ€. To satisfy the requirement of “instigationâ€, though it is

not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation†must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the

consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission

or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which

case, an “instigation†may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow,

cannot be said to be instigation.

To constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by

“goading†or ‘urging forward’. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad†is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke

to action or reaction…..to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.â€​

The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has

abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of

anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of

Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923.)

From the above, it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid

down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. The case is required to be

considered in the light of aforesaid settled legal propositions

The star witnesses of the prosecution were the parents of the deceased who stepped in the witness box as PW6 and PW7. They had deposed about

the maltreatment and harassment being meted out to the deceased for want of dowry. The trial Court held that giving of gifts on festival and demand

of money due to business losses cannot be termed as dowry. It was held that a young daughter had died and it was obvious for the parents to depose

especially when the relations became strained. In the enquiry by the Senior Police Officer, the allegation of demand of dowry was found not

substantiated. There is no challenge to these findings. But the fact remains that Vandana had died unnatural death and she was married for only three

and a half months.

The trial Court had adverted to the conduct of the appellant which had caused mental cruelty to the deceased which compelled her to end her life. The

evidence led by the defence when read in juxtaposition with the stand taken by them, makes it evident that the appellant was suspecting the fidelity of

the deceased from the beginning. Just twenty days of the marriage, the husband moved an application to the Telephone Department asking them to

put his phone on observation. The relevant observations made by the trial Court in Para No.38 of judgment which clinches the issue and read as

under:-

“38. ... The testimony of this defence witness also tends to prove that accused Vikas Garg was suspecting fidelity of his wife i.e. Vandana

deceased. This conclusion further find corroboration from the testimony of DW2 Harinder Singh SDO Tehelphone, Jagraon. From the statement of

this witness, it is clear that an application dated 16.03.2001 was received in their office on 20.3.2001 for observation on telephone No. 23416 i.e.

Telephone of the accused and the same was put under observation. The marriage took place on 25.02.2001 and whereas application for keeping the

telephone under observation was moved on 16.3.2001 just after about 20 days of the marriage. So, this fact clearly suggests that accused Vikas Garg

was suspecting fidelity of his wife Vandana due to receipt of some telephone calls from one boy. This fact further find corroboration from the

testimony of DW-5 Jyoti Jain and DW-7 Anju Bala Garg. Both these witnesses have deposed about receipt of some suspicious telephone call by

Vandana during Kitty party.

Once it is found that accused Vikas Garg was suspecting the fidelity of his wife Vandana and even got kept the telephone is the house under

observation just 20 days after the marriage it clearly suggest that the relations between them must have become strained. This must have caused

mental cruelty to the deceased forcing her to commit suicide. So, in these circumstances, only Vikas Garg accused is responsible for the suicide of his

wife Vandana.â€​

The above findings leave no manner of doubt that it was the appellant who, by his act and conduct, had caused mental harassment to the deceased

immediately after the marriage and the mental trauma which the deceased underwent before her death can be understood from the fact that she was

left with no other option, except to end her life. Doubting the chastity of a woman without any basis constitutes mental agony and it was enough to

disturb the mental equilibrium of the deceased. The Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 observed that what

constitutes ‘instigation’ must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences

must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other

option but to commit suicide. The trial Court has rightly held him guilty for abetment of suicide by Vandana. There is no scope for interference in the

findings, which are based on evidence on record.

The trial Court has already taken a lenient view while sentencing him to imprisonment for five years. No interference in the matter of sentence is

called for.

For the reasons given above, the appeal merits dismissal. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is affirmed. The appeal

is dismissed. The bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender before the CJM Ludhiana within 30 days from

today to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. In case he fails to surrender before the Court within the stipulated time, the CJM would take

appropriate steps in the matter. A copy of this order be sent to the CJM, Ludhiana for strict compliance.