Mens rea cannot be assumed to be present, it has to be visible and proved

Mens rea cannot be assumed to be present, it has to be visible and proved written by Isha Sawant student of Government Law College

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab

Facts:

The appellant-Gurcharan Singh aggrieved by the judgement and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4^thMarch 2010 upholding the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court against the appellant u/s- 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 sentencing him to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000. The appellant was married to Shinder Kaur and they had two children together. Shinder Kaur committed suicide on 12^th August 1997, her father Jail Singh filed an FIR on 13^th August 1997 u/s- 304 B/34 of IPC and u/s- 498 IPC against the appellant and his parents. The prosecution made a case that the deceased was harassed for dowry, a few days before her suicide she was beaten and sent from her matrimonial house to bring Rs. 20,000 from her parents, to purchase a plot. The deceased’s father took her back to the matrimonial home and pleaded that he was unable to meet the cash demand. On 13^th August 1997, the deceased’s father was informed of her suicide committed at about 5:00 PM on the previous day.

The death being unnatural the complainant suspected that the appellant caused his daughter’s death, either by giving her poisonous substance or she ingested such substance due to harassment by the accused. The postmortem report stated that that was due to consumption of aluminum phosphide. The witnesses, PW2- the father, PW3- maternal uncle, PW4- mother, gave evidence before the Court that the accused demanded ₹ 20,000 from them to purchase a plot. As this demand could not be met, Shinder Kaur committed suicide. The appellant is the only son of his parents, they own a big house with a vegetable garden. The appellant and his father were drivers with the Punjab police, and bore the medical expenses when the deceased was admitted to the hospital for 10 to 12 days in November 1996 for her delivery. There was no evidence of dispute relating to dowry demand or maltreatment of the accused during the three years of marriage.

The trial court considering this came to the conclusion that even if Rs. 20,000 was demanded for purchasing a plot three years after marriage, and a few days later unnatural death takes place, it cannot be set to be a dowry death. The Trial Court questioned why would a young mother with two small children commit suicide unless pushed to do so due to circumstances of matrimonial house. They held that if her hopes were frustrated by the willful negligence of the husband, it would constitute abatement u/s-107 of IPC, warranting conviction u/s- 306 of IPC. The appellant and his parents were acquitted for charges u/s- 304B and 498 of IPC, however the appellant was convicted in Section 306 IPC. The appellant filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where they contended that unless there was some evidence to show that the accused’s act pushed the deceased to commit suicide, his conviction cannot be justified. The Appellate Judge on the plea of the cordial relation between the couple, stated that if that was the situation, the family members of the deceased would not have deposed against him, a suggestion that deceased accidentally consumed pesticide was set aside. High Court upheld the Trial Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Issues:

• Whether the deceased committed suicide due to pressure from husband and in-laws for bringing Rs. 20,000 from her parents to purchase a plot.
• Whether the appellant is guilty to creating an atmosphere in the matrimonial home that pushed the deceased to commit suicide.

Legal Provisions:

• 107- Abetment of a thing. 
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 306- Abetment of suicide.  
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 304B- Dowry Death.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498A- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

 Appellant’s contention:

The counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Trial Court’s findings, there is no direct evidence of cruelty by the husband towards the deceased, there is no evidence to show that he willfully neglected his wife or frustrated her, to prove abatement. They stated that the case was based on presumptions and not on substantial evidence. There was found to be no evidence for dowry harassment as the demand for Rs. 20,000 was ruled out as a cause for suicide. They stated that both the courts erred in concluding that the circumstances of the matrimonial house created by the appellant pushed the deceased to commit suicide, and this being nothing but an assumption and so conviction cannot be sustained on that basis alone There was contrary evidence of cordial relations between the deceased, her husband and her in-laws. They also submitted that both children are residing with the appellant, which indicates that he is a caring and responsible person and that he had already undergone two years of sentence.

Respondent’s Contention:

The counsel for the State referred to the evidence given by the deceased’s parents that a week before  the suicide, she was beaten and sent to her maternal home to bring cash for purchase of a plot, and since they were unable to meet the demand, she was driven to commit suicide on the very day he r father dropped her back. They stated if not for the circumstances of the matrimonial house, why would a young mother of two children commit suicide.

Observations of the Court:

The case was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. The court went through the submissions of both parties. It was observed that in order to give finding of abatement u/s-107 of IPC, the accused instigate a person either by an act or omission or commission and only then a case of abatement can be made. It was noted that in the present case there was no direct evidence of cruelty on part of their husband or in-laws, there was a lack of evidence to show willful neglect on part of the husband to which led to the suicidal death. There was, however, contrary evidence which suggested care and treatment given to the disease in the matrimonial house and during the three years of marriage there was no instance of maltreatment or dowry demand. The Trial Court ruled out a demand for Rs. 20,000 after three years of marriage for purchasing a plot. PW2 mentioned that this sum was a ‘cash loan’ asked for buying a plot, thus, a loan may have been sought by the accused which could not be given, but there is nothing to show that she was harassed for this.

On the basis of this evidence, the court found it difficult to conclude that Shinder Kaur was pushed to commit suicide by the circumstances created by the appellant, and in the absence of evidence, presumptions cannot be made that she was pushed to take her life due to circumstances in her matrimonial home. The court observed that since the death of the deceased, the minor children were being brought up by the appellant’s family, and the maternal grandparents despite pointing fingers at the appellant did not raise any issue about their grandchildren being raised in the house in which their daughter died an unnatural death. The court then held that mens rea has to be established to determine culpability to prove an offence u/s- 107 of IPC. To establish mens rea there has to be something on to record to show that appellant had guilty mind, and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. Mens rea cannot be assumed to be present but has to be visible.

The Court noted that the Trial Court and High Court did not examine whether the appellant had mens rea to commit the crime he was convicted of. They based the conviction on the theory that a young woman with two young children might have committed suicide possibly because of harassment faced by her in a matrimonial house, not supported by evidence in the case. The testimonies of the witnesses do not show that the deceased was unhappy because of the appellant and was forced to take such a step on his account. The legislative intent and in the ratio of cases decided by the Supreme Court it is held that to convict a person u/s- 306 IPC, there should be clear mens rea to commit the offence. In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), it was held that on a mere allegation of harassment without evidence of positive act proximate to the time of occurrence on part of the accused which led to person committing suicide, conviction u/s- 306 IPC, is not sustainable.

In the case of Mangal Ram v. State of Haryana (2014), the court rightly observed that a woman suicide due to a variety of reasons- such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, chronic or acute ailments, and so on, and it need not be due to abetment, the reasoning that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is perverse. The court noted that there was case was no overt act or illegal omission from the appellant’s side in taking care of his deceased wife. There is no evidence to show that she faced harassment from her husband, the evidence of the witnesses and her parents too does not mention anything to that effect. The court stated that the Trial Court and High Court suspected an unnatural death and on the basis of assumptions concluded the guilt of the accused in abetting his wife’s suicide. 

Judgement:

the court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased committed suicide due to circumstances of her matrimonial home, and convicted the appellant u/s-306 of IPC, this conviction was found to not be legally sustainable. The court therefore, set aside and quashed the order of conviction of the accused, and the appeal was allowed.