{"id":178102,"date":"2001-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001"},"modified":"2016-09-08T00:07:41","modified_gmt":"2016-09-07T18:37:41","slug":"ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. A.S. C.J., R.C. Lahoti, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  617 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAMESH KUMAR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND C.J. & R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2001 Supp(4) SCR 247<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
R.C. LAHOTI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against con-
\nviction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-appellant, on charges under Sections
\n306 and 498-A IPC. He was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
\nunder Section 306 IPC and to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section
\n498-A IPC, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The
\nconviction along with sentences has been maintained by the High Court. His
\nfather Shiv Kumar, mother Gargi Devi and brother Mahesh were also tried for
\noffences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The Trial Court found them “not
\nguilty” and “innocent” and hence acquitted the three of them of both the
\ncharges. That acquittal has achieved a finality as not challenged by any
\none.\n<\/p>\n
Seema Devi, daughter of Sohan Lal Sharma (PW16) and Smt. Prabhawati Devi
\n(PW19) was married with accused-appellant on 23.6.1985. On 17.6.1986,
\nwithin one year of marriage, Seema died of suicide. On 16.6.1986, she
\npoured kerosene on herself and set herself to fire. Before committing
\nsuicide she wrote a suicide note and a letter to her husband in a diary
\n(Article ‘A’) on pages 11 and 12 thereof. Her dying-declaration (Exbt.
\nP\/10) was recorded on 16.6.1986 by PW13, Parmeshwar Dayal, Tehsildar and
\nExecutive Magistrate. Sohan Lal Sharma is a resident of Raipur, Madhya
\nPradesh. The accused-appellant was residing in Shantinagar locality of
\nRaipur. Seema’s elder sister Shalini (PW5) married with Dr. Ramadhar Sharma
\n(PW6) is also residing in Raipur. Thus, the three families, i.e., the
\nfamily of father of Seema, the family of her elder sister Shalini. and the
\nfamily of the accused-appellant are all residents of Raipur though residing
\nin different localities at reasonable distances from each other.
\nNevertheless the three families were on visiting terms as admitted by
\nalmost all the witnesses. The finding of guilt as recorded by the Trial
\nCourt and the High Court rests on the testimony of five witnesses, namely,
\nAtul Kumar (PW4), brother of the deceased, Shalini and Dr. Ramadhar Sharma
\n(PW5 and PW6), respectively the sister and sister’s husband of the
\ndeceased, Sohan Lal Sharma and Prabhawati Devi (PW16 and PW19), parents of
\nthe deceased. In addition, there is a very pertinent evidence – a document,
\nExbt. P\/13 which is an undated letter written by the deceased and managed
\nby her to be sent to her father. We will briefly discuss this evidence.\n<\/p>\n
According to Sohan Lal (PW16) marriage of Seema with the accused-appellant
\nwas performed in a cordial manner. Dowry, as the parents wished, was given
\nto Seema. Seema and Ramesh were quite often coming to meet with them.
\nHowever, Sohan Lal did make a general statement that at one point of time
\nwhen he had gone to see his daughter Seema in the house of the accused-
\nappellant, Seema had told him that the accused was complaining that the
\nitems given in dowry were of inferior quality. However, this statement is
\nbelied and cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, such a material
\nfact though in his knowledge was not disclosed by him to the police; on the
\ncontrary his statement to the police was that Seema never told him of
\nanything about her in-laws’ house. Prabhawati Devi admits that the
\nbehaviour of the accused-appellant towards her was good and he always
\ntreated her with respect and reciprocal affection. She also admitted that
\nher husband, i.e., Sohan Lal. PW16 never complained about the behaviour of
\nthe accused-appellant towards him. She very clearly stated that the
\naccused-appellant had never asked her anything about dowry. If only Seema’s
\nfather would have been told by Seema that the accused-appellant had ever
\ndemanded dowry from her or was harassing her for dowry then such fact in
\nordinary course of things would have been told by him to his wife, i.e.,
\nthe mother of Seema and would also have been disclosed by him to the
\npolice.\n<\/p>\n
Atul Kumar, PW4 is younger brother of late Seema. According to him, he was
\ntold by his parents that the accused was teasing Seema. He visited Seema
\nand her in-laws about 15 to 20 times but Seema never told him anything.
\nHowever, according to Atul Kumar, ‘her face was tense and terrorized and
\nshe had asked me to go back’. Immediately we may observe that Atul Kumar’s
\ntestimony suffers from exaggeration because both his parents, examined in
\nthe Court, do not depose that the accused had started teasing Seema soon
\nafter the marriage. If Atul Kumar had seen Seema tense and terrorized, he
\nmust have told this fact in the ordinary course of things to his parents.
\nBut the parents do not say so. During cross examination, Atul Kumar
\nadmitted that between him and accused Ramesh there were ‘good relations’.
\nHe never asked Ramesh whether and why the accused was teasing or harassing
\nhis sister. He could not give any explanation why such a natural query he
\ndid not put across to Ramesh inspite of there being good relations between
\nthe two. He further admitted that accused Ramesh and Seema often used to
\nvisit him and his parents specially on the festival days. During less than
\na year of marriage, Seema twice stayed with her parents for about four days
\neach. When Shalini gave birth to a child, Seema stayed at her parents house
\nfor two days and afterwards also kept on coming to her parents and visiting
\nhospital where Shalini was admitted. Atul Kumar specifically stated –
\n“Seema had good terms with her in-laws and brothers-in-law”. The testimony
\nof Atul Kumar spells out that Seema’s move-ments were not restricted by the
\naccused; she was liberally allowed to see her parents and other relations
\nand she never complained of any dowry demands or any serious problem being
\nfaced by her from the accused or her in-laws. Atul Kumar felt that Seema
\nwas ‘tense and terrorised’ is his own impression and certainly no cause is
\ndiscernible for such an impression from his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
A very material piece of evidence is an undated letter, Exbt. P\/13 which
\nfrom the evidence adduced appears to have been written by the deceased
\nSeema at about 3 or 4 months before her death. Desh Bandhu Sathe (PW9) was
\nworking as a Technical Officer in State Bank of India, Regional Office
\nwhile Sohan Lal was working in Branch Office of the same bank and therefore
\nthey knew each other. Desh Bandhu Sathe (PW9) stated that at about 3 to 4
\nmonths before the death of Seema, his wife gave the letter, Exbt. P\/13 to
\nhim stating that the letter was given to her by Seema with a request to
\nhave it delivered to her father. Although the authenticity of this letter
\nwas vehemently disputed by the defence alleging it to be fabricated,
\nhowever, the Trial Court and the High Court have on an evaluation of
\nevidence believed the same. The finding that the letter was written by
\ndeceased Seema is based on the testimony of handwriting expert. There is no
\nreason to disbelieve the statement of Desh Bandhu Sathe that the letter was
\nin existence about 3 to 4 months before Seema’s death. What is material are
\nthe contents of the letter. The letter (English translation, as filed) is
\nreproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“Respected Babu Ji,<\/p>\n
Sadar Parnam,<\/p>\n
Babuji, I am writing this letter in very helplessness (constraint) and this
\nshould not be known to any one that I have written this letter. If my
\nBangles (chudi) and Mangalsutra-payal etc. ornaments all have been repaired
\nor get them repaired in any way and you yourself come bringing them
\nimmediately today or tomorrow by remembrance. Do not sent Atul and Sudhir
\nand no body should come to meet me. You understand this much only that
\nSeema is not existing. Yesterday Shalini had come then we people were not
\nin the house. Why I do not remember that thing, saying so I was pushed and
\nturned out from the house. I alone had come out to come to Brahmanpara. He
\nhimself came behind me and we both had gone upto house. Then he conciliated
\n(persuaded) and bring me to home back and after coming in the house he
\nstarted marpit (beating) with me from 9 O’clock in the night which
\ncontinued till 21\/2 O’clock in the night. Then he again started marpit
\n(beating) in the morning and his mind is still bad. You send the ornaments
\nimmediately and now you yourself come and do not tell the thing of letter
\nand marpit. Tell Atul and Sudhir not to come at all. I will not come in
\nHoli. But you come to take me and take sofa and give another. Enough,<\/p>\n
Seema.”\n<\/p>\n
The author of the abovesaid letter is not alive. There is no one else in
\nwhose presence the letter was written. We cannot therefore read anything in
\nthe letter which it is not there. The letter has to be read as it is and
\ninferences have to be drawn therefrom based on the expressions employed
\ntherein and in the light of other evidence adduced in the case.\n<\/p>\n
The letter nowhere indicates any demand of dowry having been made by the
\naccused or the deceased having been pressurized by the accused for bringing
\nmore dowry. The first thing the letter states is a request to her father to
\nreturn some of her ornaments. Sohan Lal (PW16) has himself admitted that
\nhis daughter had given some of her ornaments to him for the purpose of
\nbeing repaired. There is nothing wrong, unusual or abnormal in Seema
\nreminding her father to bring back the ornaments “if they have been
\nrepaired” or “to get them repaired” if not already done. The second thing
\nwhich the letter suggests is of her having been beaten by her husband and
\nher having been pushed out of the house by the accused and when she wanted
\nto go away from the house then she having been persuaded by her husband to
\nreturn to house. The accused had also tried to conciliate. Further on
\nSeema’s return the accused gave her a beating. Why this happened is
\nslightly indicated in the letter and narrated by Shalini (PW5) and her
\nhusband (PW6). Seema had invited her sister and sister’s husband for taking
\nfood with them in her house but after extending invitation she forgot about
\nit and went out of the house with her husband. Her sister and sister’s
\nhusband came to her house but there was no one and therefore they went
\nback. This enraged the accused and he chastised his wife Seema for her
\nforgetfulness which in his opinion was an act devoid of etiquettes and
\ncourtesy – extending an invitation to relatives and then forgetting about
\nit and being not available to receive and entertain them. Yet another fact
\ndisclosed by Shalini and Ramadhar is that Seema had told them that the
\naccused was suspicious of Seema having had undue intimacy with co-cds while
\nstudying in college and her continuing undue intimacy with old-time
\nfriends, which was not to the liking of the accused. These were the real
\ncauses for difference between Seema and the accused. If appears that on
\nSeema having committed suicide there was an attempt to give it a twist of
\ndowry death and for that purpose some plea as to demand for dowry was
\nintroduced. The finding as to demand for dowry by accused has been arrived
\nat by the Trial Court and the High Court by placing reliance on stray
\ngeneral allegations occurring here or there in evidence and by ignoring
\nsuch facts as were brought on record through cross-examination of the
\nprosecution witnesses which demolished the theory of there being any demand
\nfor dowry by the accused-appellant. The reading of the entire evidence
\nshows that the present one is a case of marital mal-adjustment between the
\ndeceased and the accused. The accused is a Professor. The deceased did not
\ncome up to the expectations of the accused. She was forgetful and the
\nmanner in which she dealt with the visitors, guests and relations was not
\nto the liking of the accused-appellant. This is also borne out from a few
\nwritings such as Exbts. D\/4 and D\/5 which are in the form of essays written
\nby the deceased which are full of appreciation of the respondent
\nacknowledging the love and affection which the accused-appellant had for
\nher but which also go to state that there was ‘some deficiency’ in her, she
\ndid not have a compromising temperament and therefore accused used to get
\nannoyed and get angry on minor mistakes committed by the deceased. In such
\nwritings, written at different times, she has recalled the sweet memories
\nof her marriage with the appellant, several ceremonies and functions
\nrelated with the marriage which made her feel joyous and how well she was
\nreceived by the accused-appellant and his relations in the matrimonial home
\nafter the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
From an independent evaluation of evidence and having gone through oral
\nevidence adduced and the several documents available on record, mostly the
\nwritings of the deceased we are satisfied that the present one is not a
\ncase of dowry death or the deceased having been instigated into committing
\nsuicide for her failure to satisfy the dowry demands of the accused-
\nappellant. However, teasing by the accused-appellant of the deceased, ill-
\ntreating her for her mis-takes which could have been pardonable and turning
\nher out of the house, also once beating her inside the house at the odd
\nhours of night did amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of
\nIPC and therefore we agree with the Trial Court as also with the High Court
\nthough to some extent at variance with the cause for cruel treatment that
\nthe accused-appellant subjected deceased Seema to cruelty and therefore
\nconviction of the accused-appellant under Section 498-A deserves to be
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, in our
\nopinion, the Trial Court and the High Court have committed gross error of
\nlaw in holding the accused-appellant guilty and therefore conviction under
\nSection 306 IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets
\nthe commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The
\ningredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“707. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-
\nInstigate any person to do that thing; or<\/p>\n
Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
\nconspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
\nplace in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
\nthing; or<\/p>\n
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
\nthat thing.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no direct evidence adduced of the accused-appellant having abetted
\nSeema into committing suicide. The prosecution has relied on Section 113-A
\nof Evidence Act which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.-When the
\nquestion is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
\nby her or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
\ncommitted suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
\nmarriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
\nher to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other
\ncircumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
\nhusband or by such relative of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruetly” shall have the
\nsame meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
This provision was introduced by Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983
\nwith effect from 26.12.1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty
\nof proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to
\ncommit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was
\nusually available within the four-corners of the matrimonial home and hence
\nwas not available to any one outside the occupants of the house. How-ever
\nstill it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to
\noperate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the
\npresumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare
\nreading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicabilty of Section 113-
\nA, it must be shown that (i) woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide
\nhas been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her
\nmarriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected
\nher to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid
\ncircumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by
\nher husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Parliament has chosen
\nto sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it
\nis only permissive as the employment of expression “may presume” suggests.
\nSecondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three
\ncircumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being
\ndrawn; before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have
\nregard to ‘all the other circumstances of the case’. A consideration of all
\nthe other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may
\ndictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the
\npresumption. The expression – ‘The other circumstances of the case’ used in
\nSection 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship
\nbetween the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a
\npresumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable
\none. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in
\ndefence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may
\ndestroy the presumption. The phrase ‘May presume’ used in Section 113-A is
\ndefined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says-‘whenever it is
\nprovided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard
\nsuch fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof
\nof it.’<\/p>\n
The present case is not one which may fall under clauses, secondly and
\nthirdly of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The case has to be decided by
\nreference to the first clause, i.e., whether the accused-appellant abetted
\nthe suicide by instigating her to do so.\n<\/p>\n
It is beyond doubt that Seema did commit a suicide. Undisputedly, such
\nsuicide has been committed within a year of the date of marriage. What
\nhappened on the date of occurrence is very material for the purpose of
\nrecording a finding on the question of abetment. Enough material is
\navailable on record by way oral and documentary evidence with which we
\nshall now deal with. What transpired on the date of the incident is known
\nonly to two persons, namely, the deceased and the accused. The deceased’s
\nversion of that day’s happening constituting the proximate cause provoking
\nher suicide is to be spelled out from what is contained in a diary (Article
\nA) in the handwriting of the deceased herself and in the dying-declaration
\nExbt. P\/10. The deceased wrote on page 11 of diary (Article A):\n<\/p>\n
“1. Smt. Seema Dubey, ashamed of my own faults, am committing suicide.
\nNobody is responsible and none should be harassed for it”.\n<\/p>\n
On page 12 she wrote a letter to her husband as under :-“Dear Raja,<\/p>\n
With all love,<\/p>\n
Raja this is my last love. You have made me free that I may do whatever I
\nwish and go where-ever I like. Raja, after coming in this house now I have
\nno other place to go leaving you. You know, you have now made me free of
\nthe words I had given that I would not<\/p>\n
commit suicide. Now I would die peacefully…………..Raja, this is my<\/p>\n
last word I do love you and you only, not anyone else.\n<\/p>\n
Now I cannot write ‘yours’ SEEMA”\n<\/p>\n
Both the writings as held by the Trial Court are in the hand of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
The dying-declaration Exbt. P\/10 recorded on 16.6.1986 at 3 p.m. by
\nParmeshwar Dayal, Executive Magistrate, PW13 is in question-answer form and
\nreads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“Q. What is your name? What is the name of Husband? Marriage when done.\n<\/p>\n
Ans. Seema Bai, Name of Husband – Ramesh Dubey. Marriage per-formed in
\nJune, 85.\n<\/p>\n
Q.    What happened with you?\n<\/p>\n
Ans. Today in the morning I poured kerosene on me and set fire.\n<\/p>\n
Q.    Why you set fire?\n<\/p>\n
Ans. Today in the morning quarrel had occurred between me and my husband.\n<\/p>\n
Q.    Previously also quarrel had occurred at any time.\n<\/p>\n
Ans. No. From being aggrieved by the quarrel of today. I set fire.\n<\/p>\n
Q.    What happened in to-day’s quarrel?\n<\/p>\n
Ans. In the morning he told me that you are free. You go where ever you
\nwant to go.\n<\/p>\n
Q.    Whether you want to say any thing more? Ans. No.”\n<\/p>\n
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant stated
\nthat he did never ask any dowry nor harassed Seema. On the day of the
\nincident he was preparing to go to his duty but Seema was pressing him to
\nleave her at Shalini’s house in Samta colony. The accused had asked her to
\ngo there alone. When he was getting ready to leave for his duty he heard a
\ncry of Seema from kitchen. He saw her burning. He ran to save her and in
\ndoing so he burnt his hands, legs and chest.\n<\/p>\n
Shashi Gupta, PW3 is a neighbour of the accused. On 16.6.1986 at about 8.30
\na.m. she was outside her house to purchase vegetables. She saw smoke coming
\nout from the house of the accused and soon she heard a cry from inside the
\nhouse. She thought that the house of the accused was on fire. She called
\nher father and younger brother who pushed the door open. They entered the
\nhouse. What was seen is pertinent. Seema Devi was standing and the accused
\nwas putting a bed-sheet around her body. The accused wrapped up Seema with
\nthe bedsheet. Seema was naked and her body was burnt. Shashi Gupta asked
\nher elder brother to bring the jeep and call the driver. Driver of a
\nneighbour brought the jeep. Accused Ramesh and two other persons took Seema
\nto hospital in the jeep.\n<\/p>\n
The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the
\nmaterial available is this. Presumably because of disinclination on the
\npart of the accused to drop the deceased at her sister’s residence the
\ndeceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was overtaken by
\na feeling of shortcomings which she attributed to herself. She was overcome
\nby a forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her
\nhusband she did not deserve to be his life-partner. The accused Ramesh may
\nor must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she liked.
\nMay be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate
\nconvenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister’s
\nresidence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing-
\nyou are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased
\nbeing a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her
\nparents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of
\nher husband and if the husband had “freed” her she thought impulsively that
\nthe only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and
\nthus free herself according to her understanding of the husband’s wish. Can
\nthis be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the Trial Court mis-
\nspelt out the meaning of the expression attributed by the deceased to her
\nhusband as suggesting that the accused had made her free to commit suicide.
\nMaking the deceased free – to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she
\nwished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the accused had
\nmade the deceased free “to commit suicide” as held by the Trial Court and
\nupheld by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
\n“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
\nnecessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes
\ninstigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
\nconsequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
\ncapable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused
\nhad by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created
\nsuch circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except
\nto commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
\nword uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
\nconsequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.\n<\/p>\n
In State of West Bangal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.,<\/a> [ 1994] 1 SCC 73, this
\nCourt has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing
\nthe facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the
\ntrial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the
\nvictim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicde. If it
\ntranspires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive
\nto ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite
\ncommon to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
\ndiscord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
\ncircumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
\nconscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that
\nthe accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found
\nguilty.\n<\/p>\n
Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different
\noffences. Though depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual
\ncase, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section
\n498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is
\nestablished leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide,
\namount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused
\nhas been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not
\nfollow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held
\nguilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned.
\nEvidential value of the two writings contained in diary Article A is that
\nof dying declarations. On the principle underlying admissibility of dying
\ndeclaration in evidence that truth sits on the lips of a dying person and
\nthe Court can convict an accused on the basis of such declaration where it
\ninspires full confidence, there is no reason why the same principle should
\nnot be applied when such a dying declaration speaking of the cause of death
\nexonerates the accused unless there is material available to form an
\nopinion that the deceased while making such statement was trying to conceal
\nthe truth either having been persuaded to do so or because of sentiments
\nfor her husband. The writing on page 11 of diary (Article A) clearly states
\nthat the cause for committing suicide was her own feeling ashamed of her
\nown faults. She categorically declares – none to be held responsible or
\nharassed for her committing suicide. The writing on page 12 of diary
\n(Article A) clearly suggests that some time earlier also she had expressed
\nher wish to commit suicide to her husband and the husband had taken a
\npromise from her that she would not do so. On the date of the incident, the
\nhusband probably told the deceased that she was free to go wherever she
\nwished and wanted to go and this revived the earlier impulse of the
\ndeceased for committing suicide. The dying declaration Exbt. P\/10
\ncorroborates the inference flowing from the two writings contained in the
\ndiary and as stated hereinabove. The conduct of the accused trying to put
\noff the fire and taking his wife to hospital also improbabilises the theory
\nof his having abetted suicide.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion there is no evidence and material available on record
\nwherefrom an inference of the acucsed-appellant having abetted the
\ncommission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. The totality of
\nthe circum-stances discussed hereinabove, especially the dying-declaration
\nand the suicide notes left by the deceased herself, which fall for
\nconsideration within the expression “all the other circumstances of the
\ncase” employed in Section 113-A of Evidence Act, do not permit the
\npresumption thereunder being raised against the accused. The accused-
\nappellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section
\n306 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant under
\nSection 306 IPC and sentence passed thereon are set aside. His convic-tion
\nunder Section 498-A IPC and sentence passed thereon are maintained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 Bench: Dr. A.S. C.J., R.C. Lahoti, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 617 of 2000 PETITIONER: RAMESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE OF CHHATTISGARH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/2001 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND C.J. & R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 Supp(4) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4867,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001"},"wordCount":4867,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001","name":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T18:37:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-17-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}