# UDE SINGH & ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA

- **Citation:** [2019] 9 S.C.R. 703
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-07-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ude-singh-ors-v-state-of-haryana-34298
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: s.306 r/w s.34 - Abetment to suicide -
Prosecution case was that parties were closely related to each other
and living in same village and in neighbourhood - Relations between
them were strained and they were engaged in several litigations
including complaint relating to hurt case as lodged by PW-11, mother
of the deceased - Allegation against the accused was that they
abetted commission of suicide by the daughter of the complainant
(PW-1) - Deceased girl was about 18 years of age - Accused Nos.
1 and 2 were uncles in her relation whereas, accused Nos. 3 and 4
were her cousins - The deceased girl had been complaining to her
family about the indecent behaviour of the accused that they
addressed her as "wife", "chachi" (aunt) or "Bohoria" (younger
brother's wife) - The girl was always advised by her family to keep
quiet - On the fateful day, she was found dead, hanging by her
neck - On previous day, the deceased girl had complained to her
mother and uncle about the indecent taunts made by accused and
while crying told them that she would end her life as and when she
would get opportunity to do so - Trial court found appellant-accused
guilty of offence punishable under s.306 r/w s.34 and awarded
four years RI - High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence
to two and a half years RI - On appeal, held: In the given set up
and respective position of the parties, if accused No.1 continuously
addressed or called the deceased girl as his "wife", the utterance
was not merely of teasing but of demeaning and destroying the selfesteem of the young girl whose engagement had broken and whose
uncle was mocking her to join him in matrimony - It was the act of
humiliation of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered
the set-back of broken engagement - The other accused persons
 [2019] 9 S.C.R. 703
703
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
chose to join the accused No. 1 and aggravated the humiliation of
the girl by addressing her as younger brother's wife or aunt -
Accused persons were working with the common intention to harass
and humiliate the girl with reference to her broken engagement -
Such taunting and humiliation of the deceased at the hands of the
accused persons was not a singular event or one-off affair but had
been a continuous feature, as amply established by the prosecution
witnesses - There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW11 that her daughter wept the whole night after the said incident
and on being frustrated and exasperated with such humiliations,
ended her life in the early morning very next day - It is not a case
of a mere eve-teasing, insult or intimidation but the continuous and
repeated acts and utterances of the accused persons were calculated
to destroy her self-esteem aimed at taking her to the brink of
helplessness and to the vanishing point of tolerance - Accused Nos.
1 and 3 were rightly held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide -
Interference with the order of High Court not called for.
Penal Code, 1860: s.306 r/w s.34 - Claim of juvenility by
appellant no.2 - As per matriculation certificate, on the date of
incident, appellant no.2 was 16 years old - He is entitled to benefit
of juvenility.
Words and phrases: Word 'abetment' - Meaning of in the
context of s.107 IPC.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 "Abetment" involves a mental process of
instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing
of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to
complete the abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion
to do anything. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the
commissio

## Text

_Characters 0–39,741 of 72,892. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39741 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
UDE SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010)
JULY 25, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.306 r/w s.34 - Abetment to suicide -
Prosecution case was that parties were closely related to each other
and living in same village and in neighbourhood - Relations between
them were strained and they were engaged in several litigations
including complaint relating to hurt case as lodged by PW-11, mother
of the deceased - Allegation against the accused was that they
abetted commission of suicide by the daughter of the complainant
(PW-1) - Deceased girl was about 18 years of age - Accused Nos.
1 and 2 were uncles in her relation whereas, accused Nos. 3 and 4
were her cousins - The deceased girl had been complaining to her
family about the indecent behaviour of the accused that they
addressed her as "wife", "chachi" (aunt) or "Bohoria" (younger
brother's wife) - The girl was always advised by her family to keep
quiet - On the fateful day, she was found dead, hanging by her
neck - On previous day, the deceased girl had complained to her
mother and uncle about the indecent taunts made by accused and
while crying told them that she would end her life as and when she
would get opportunity to do so - Trial court found appellant-accused
guilty of offence punishable under s.306 r/w s.34 and awarded
four years RI - High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence
to two and a half years RI - On appeal, held: In the given set up
and respective position of the parties, if accused No.1 continuously
addressed or called the deceased girl as his "wife", the utterance
was not merely of teasing but of demeaning and destroying the selfesteem of the young girl whose engagement had broken and whose
uncle was mocking her to join him in matrimony - It was the act of
humiliation of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered
the set-back of broken engagement - The other accused persons
 [2019] 9 S.C.R. 703
703
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
chose to join the accused No. 1 and aggravated the humiliation of
the girl by addressing her as younger brother's wife or aunt -
Accused persons were working with the common intention to harass
and humiliate the girl with reference to her broken engagement -
Such taunting and humiliation of the deceased at the hands of the
accused persons was not a singular event or one-off affair but had
been a continuous feature, as amply established by the prosecution
witnesses - There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW11 that her daughter wept the whole night after the said incident
and on being frustrated and exasperated with such humiliations,
ended her life in the early morning very next day - It is not a case
of a mere eve-teasing, insult or intimidation but the continuous and
repeated acts and utterances of the accused persons were calculated
to destroy her self-esteem aimed at taking her to the brink of
helplessness and to the vanishing point of tolerance - Accused Nos.
1 and 3 were rightly held guilty of offence of abetment of suicide -
Interference with the order of High Court not called for.
Penal Code, 1860: s.306 r/w s.34 - Claim of juvenility by
appellant no.2 - As per matriculation certificate, on the date of
incident, appellant no.2 was 16 years old - He is entitled to benefit
of juvenility.
Words and phrases: Word 'abetment' - Meaning of in the
context of s.107 IPC.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 "Abetment" involves a mental process of
instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing
of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to
complete the abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion
to do anything. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the
commission of suicide. In the case of accusation for abetment of
suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing
proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
by another person would not suffice unless there be such action
on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 15, 16]
[729-A-E]
1.2 If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the selfesteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws
the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide. [Para 16.1]
[729-G-H; 730-A-B]
2. The complainant (father of the deceased) and the accused
persons, residing in the same village in the State of Haryana,
were closely related as cousins but were estranged in relations;
and were involved in several civil and criminal cases against each
other. The deceased girl was about 18 years of age; she had failed
to clear her 10th standard examination and was practically a drop
out from her studies; and she was engaged for the purpose of
marriage but, six months before the incident in question, her
engagement had broken. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were uncles
in her relation whereas, the accused Nos. 3 and 4 were her
cousins. In the given set up and the respective position of the
parties, if accused No. 1 continuously addressed or called the
deceased girl as his "wife", the utterance was not merely of
teasing but of demeaning and destroying the self-esteem of the
young girl whose engagement had broken and whose uncle was
mocking her to join him in matrimony. It was the act of humiliation
of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered the setback of broken engagement, apart that she was unable to clear
even 10th standard examination. Obviously, she was being
ridiculed and taunted for her broken engagement. The other
accused persons chose to join the accused No. 1 and aggravated
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
the humiliation of the girl by addressing her as younger brother's
wife or aunt. There remains nothing to doubt that the accused
persons were working with the common intention to harass and
humiliate the girl with reference to her broken engagement. The
significant part of the matter is that such taunting and humiliation
of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons had not been
a singular event or one-off affair but had been a continuous
feature, as amply established by the prosecution witnesses.
[Paras 20, 21] [731-E-F; 732-A-E]
3. The intention of the accused had only been to drive the
deceased to the brink of helplessness and intolerance; they in
fact succeeded in doing so on 05.05.1996, when the girl rebuked
them for their utterances. However, the victim girl found no way
out because the humiliation at the hands of accused had been
everyday affair; and, in the given set up of the society she belonged
to, any action against the accused by her family was being avoided
for the sake of her honour. The present case indeed represents
a sordid state of affairs in relation to the young girl in the rural
setting, whose honour and self-esteem got brutally violated by
none other but her own relatives, who found her to be the softtarget to settle their scores with her parents. The accused rather
exhibited their denigrating mentality while targeting the young
girl, who was otherwise required to be treated by them with
affection and respect, for being their niece and their cousin. The
facts of this case lead only to the conclusion that the accused
persons had intentionally, with their incessant acts and
utterances, goaded the victim girl to commit suicide. She indeed
committed suicide within few hours of her last and unbearable
encounter with the accused. The acts and deeds of the accused
in the evening of 05.05.1996 had been too proximate to the event
of suicide by 9 a.m. in the morning of 06.05.1996. As testified by
PW-11,her daughter cried the whole night for being unable to
bear the daily humiliation at the hands of the accused; and ended
her life in the morning. [Paras 23, 24] [733-C-G]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 ; Madan Mohan Singh
v. State of Gujarat & Another (2010) 8 SCC 628 : [2010]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
10 SCR 351 ; Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780 : [2017] 3 SCR 458 ; S. S.
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Ors. (2010) 12
SCC 190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 ; Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 :
[2009] 13 SCR 230 ; Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.
(2010) 1 SCC 707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836 - relied on.
4. So far the appellant No. 2 (accused No. 3) is concerned,
he is entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the proceedings qua him
are required to be terminated. The matriculation certificate
issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Haryana dated
24.06.1994 in relation to the appellant No. 2 is placed on record
and therein, his date of birth is distinctly recorded as
"20.04.1980". This certificate has not been disputed on behalf of
the respondents and in the given set of circumstances, we find
neither any reason to doubt the correctness and veracity of the
same nor there appears any reason to hold further enquiry in the
matter. [Paras 10, 11] [717-C-E]
5. The daughter of the complainant was found dead on
06.05.1996 after committing suicide and the cause for her taking
such extreme step is said to be the continuous humiliation and
harassment by the accused; the last such incident being of
05.05.1996. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant No. 2 was
about 16 years of age as on the date/s of incident/s. Though this
fact was not placed for consideration before the Trial Court and
the High Court but, in the light of the law declared by this Court
in the case of Raju v. State of Haryana, he is entitled to raise this
plea even in this appeal. In view of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read
with Section 20 of the Act of 2000, the appellant No. 2, being a
juvenile who had not completed 18 years of age on the date of
commission of the offence, remains entitled to the benefit of
juvenility. [Para 11.1] [717-F-H]
Raju v. State of Haryana 2019 (4) SCALE 398 - relied
on.
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247
relied on
Para 8
[2010] 10 SCR 351
relied on
Para 8
[2017] 3 SCR 458
relied on
Para 8
2019 (4) SCALE 398
relied on
Para 11.1
[2010] 9 SCR 1111
relied on
Para 14.5
[2009] 13 SCR 230
relied on
Para 14.6
[2009] 15 SCR 836
relied on
Para 14.7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 233 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 964-SB/97.
Rishi Malhotra and Utkarsh Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rakesh Mudgal, Kailash C. Mudgal and Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment
and order dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 1997
whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while
upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for the offence under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has
modified the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 300/- with default stipulation, as awarded by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1997, to that of rigorous
imprisonment for two and half years.
2. The relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed,
in brief, as follows:
2.1 The appellants Ude Singh, Manoj Kumar and Daulat Ram
(accused Nos. 2 to 4) and one Hem Karan alias Hemla (accused No. 1since deceased) were tried for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC on
the allegations that they had abetted commission of suicide by the daughter
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
of the complainant Pohap Singh (PW-1). The parties involved in this
matter are closely related to each other. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had
been brothers and the complainant is their cousin. The accused Nos. 3
and 4 Manoj and Daulat Ram are the sons of accused No. 2 Ude Singh.
The witness Smt. Krishna (PW-11) is the mother of deceased girl whereas
another witness Jai Narain (PW-2) is also the cousin of the complainant
and the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The parties lived in the same village
Shahadatnagar (Haryana) and in the neighbourhood. However, the
relations of parties were too strained and they were engaged in several
litigations against each other, including the complaint relating to a hurt
case, as lodged by PW-11 Smt. Krishna(wife of the present complainant)
against Hem Karan alias Hemla and Ude Singh that was pending trial at
the relevant time.
2.2 The case of prosecution in the present matter has been that
the accused persons, Hem Karan alias Hemla, Ude Singh, Manoj and
Daulat Ram, were taunting the unmarried daughter (the deceased girl)
of the complainant by addressing her as "wife", "Chachi" (aunt) and
"Bohoria" (younger brother's wife); and the deceased girl had been
complaining to her family about the indecent behaviour of the accused.
It was alleged that on 15.04.1996, when the wife of complainant and
other witnesses returned to the village after completing their evidence in
the criminal case against Hem Karan and Ude Singh, Hem Karan caught
hold of the daughter of the complainant; dragged her into his house;
pushed her; and verbally abused her and her family members. On
returning home, daughter of the complainant narrated this incident to her
mother and stated that she was unable to tolerate such continuous insults.
It was also alleged that on the advice of village elders, no report of this
incident was made, as it concerned the future and honour of an unmarried
girl; however, the accused persons continued to taunt the girl on daily
basis and, at all the times, the girl was only advised by her family to keep
quiet.
2.3. It was further alleged that on 05.05.1996, on sighting the
daughter of the complainant, who was returning after throwing garbage,
Ude Singh said, "see my Bohoria is coming"; Daulat Ram and Manoj
said, "she is our Chachi"; and Hem Karan alias Hemla exclaimed, "she
is my wife". Having heard all these taunts, daughter of the complainant
became very upset and entered into altercation with the men. This incident
was allegedly witnessed by Jai Narain (PW-2). The victim girl once
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
again complained to her mother and the complainant's elder brother Raj
Kumar about the incident and while crying, stated that she had no right
to live and would end her life as and when she would get the opportunity
to do so. Upon hearing this, the wife and the elder brother of the
complainant tried to pacify the girl and also told her that they would
inform the complainant (who was posted as Head Constable at Police
Station Beri, District Rohtak). They also advised her not to be troubled
by such taunts as the prestige of the family was in her hands and she
was to be married soon. However, the very next day, i.e., on 06.05.1996
at about 9:00 a.m., daughter of the complainant was found dead, hanging
by her neck. Her mother was the first to see her dead. The complainant,
who was on duty, was informed through his nephew about his daughter's
demise.
2.4.After noticing the unnatural death of his daughter, the
complainant lodged the report and made his statement whereupon FIR
No. 93 dated 06.05.1996 was registered at Police Station, Jatusana;
investigation was carried out; and ultimately, the accused persons were
charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34
IPC.
3. In trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses in support
of its case that the accused persons were guilty of abetment of suicide
by the daughter of the complainant. In view of the questions involved in
this appeal, we may briefly take note of the statements of relevant
witnesses, being PW-1 Pohap Singh (the complainant- father of the
deceased); PW-2 Jai Narain (brother of the complainant); and PW-11
Smt. Krishna (wife of the complainant - mother of the deceased).
3.1. PW-1 Pohap Singh stated that on a previous occasion, Hem
Karan and others had assaulted his wife and criminal proceedings were
pending in that regard. He also narrated about the incidents that had
allegedly taken place on 15.04.1996 and on 05.05.1996. In his crossexamination, the complainant admitted the relationship of parties; and
also admitted that his deceased daughter, 18 years of age, could not
qualify her 10th standard examination and had dropped her studies. The
complainant PW-1 stated further that he was aware of the insults his
daughter had faced at the hands of accused; that he had not witnessed
the incident in question himself but was made aware of the same by his
wife, his brother and Jai Narain; and that his nephew Naresh had informed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
him about the demise of his daughter. In his cross-examination, the
complainant further stated that no panchayat was ever convened to
resolve the issue of harassment of his daughter as it was believed that
such a step would eventually affect the marriage prospects of the girl.
The complainant also admitted a previous land dispute with the accused
that had commenced in the year 1988 and was ultimately compromised.
He also admitted that a case was registered by Hem Karan under Section
307 IPC against him wherein his brother Raj Kumar and the witness Jai
Narain were also named as accused.
3.2. PW-2 Jai Narain testified to the occurance of 05.05.1996 as
also the conduct and behaviour of the accused persons. This witness
specifically stated that he was standing at a plot with Ram Kumar and
Virender when daughter of the complainant came there to throw garbage
and when she was going back, the utterances were made by the accused
with Hem Karan calling her as his wife; Ude Singh calling her as Bohoria
and Daulat and Manoj calling her as Chachi. This witness also stated
that the daughter of the complainant started crying and also rebuked the
accused for their behaviour; and that she was consoled by him and other
persons and they walked down with her to the house and left her there.
Even while disputing some part of his statement made during investigation,
this witness stated that: "All the four accused are rouges and as such
we could not dare to rebuff or rebuke them for their indecent
behaviour. It is incorrect that all the four accused are decent person."
3.3. PW-11 Krishna, wife of the complainant and mother of the
deceased girl stated that even during the pendency of land dispute between
the parties, the deceased was teased by the accused and she was taunted
with the expressions like "Chachi" and "Bohoria" etc.; that even during
that time, none of the elders of the panchayat controlled the behaviour
of the accused; and that the accused were eve-teasers and might have
victimised other girls of the village as well. She also deposed that she
had brought the repeated indecent behaviour with her daughter to the
notice of the wives of the accused persons.
3.3.1. PW-11 further deposed that 3 years prior to the incident,
Hem Karan had inflicted head injury on her by using a gandasa and that
he was facing trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and,
therefore, her daughter was targeted regularly by the accused persons.
She also deposed that on the date of evidence in the hurt case i.e., on
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
15.04.1996, Hem Karan dragged her daughter into his house and insulted
her but, in order to protect the honour of unmarried girl, the male members
of the family were against reporting the matter to the police.
3.3.2. PW-11 also deposed that on 05.05.1996, when her daughter
had gone to throw garbage, she was intercepted by the accused and
was again teased by all of them. PW-11 stated that her daughter was
exhausted and disgusted of all the taunts and remarks she had to bear;
and throughout the night, she kept on weeping and did not have even a
wink of sleep. The witness deposed that on 06.05.1996, that is the very
next day, her daughter ended her life by hanging as a result of continuous
indecent behaviour of accused towards her; and she was the one who
found her daughter hanging by the neck. PW-11 also stated that her
daughter was previously engaged but the engagement was called off six
months before the incident.
3.3.3. For their relevance, the material parts of the deposition of
PW-11 are extracted as under:
" ...On 5.5.96 Meena had gone to dung garbage on a Kurhi
in the plot at about 5.30 p.m. As she returned from the plot,
she was intercepted by accused Hem Karan, Daulat, Manoj
and Udey Singh. Daulat and Manoj teased her by addressing
her as `Chachi'. Uday Singh accused addressed her as
`Bohoria' (younger brother's wife). Accused Hemla alias Hem
Karan addressed her as 'wife'. She then returned to her house
and wept bitterly in my presence. She told me that Virender,
Jai Narain and Ram Kumar had seen he untoward behavior
of all the accused. Meena had told me that she was totally
exhausted and disgusted from all the tautns and remarks given
occasionally to her by the accused and that she would end
her life.
On 6.5.96 my daughter ended her life by hanging as a result
of the continuous indecent behavior of the accused towards
her...."
xxx Cross-examination
"...Approximately 8/9 years back there was dispute in regards
to landed property between our family and the accused.
However, it was settled. Even during that land dispute, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
accused used to tease and taunt her. They used to address
Meena in these very words like Chachi and Bohdia etc. even
then. It had become an every day affair with the accused.
The entire village community knew about the indecent
utterances towards Meena. We always tried to overlook the
matter as the honour of an unmarried girl was involved. No
elected member of the panchayat of the village or any other
respectable of the society rebuked the accused against their
behavior as they are all anti-social elements and no
respectable wants to take cudgels with them. I would not
know if more cases are pending against the accused other
than the two cases involving us. Volunteered they are eveteasers and have borrowed money from different people and
quite possible that they have many more cases pertaining to
these occurrence pending with the police or in the courts but
I have no definite information. I would not know the names
of the girls or their parents who have been the targets of the
behavior of the accused. May be they are involving the
teasing of 10/11 girls in the village. We may have told the
police about those incidents.
It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely against the accused
or that they have never been involved in any illegal activity
in the village.
The accused and my husband are cousins. The wives of Hem
Karan and Uday are my 'Jethani and Devrani' (Sisters-inlaw). I had complained to those ladies about the misbehavior
of the accused. I had complained to them repeatedly. I would
not know the result of my complaints to them. Our men folk
had also brought the incident to the notice of our neighbours
and Mohalla-wala.
My daughter had told me that she would end her life as she
was fed up of the in decent behavior of the accused towards
her and also because of our inaction against them. She
wanted us to report the matter to the police for action against
the accused."
xxx
 xxx
 xxx
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
"My daughter had returned home all alone after the dragging
incident on 5.5.96. It is incorrect that accused Manoj and
Daulat was not present in the village on 5.5.96 or that they
were in the native village of their maternal uncle called
Jainabad. I had not sent any person to call my husband after
Meena narrated all the happenings of 5.5.96 to me. Meena
had slept besides me on that night. She kept on weeping
throughout the night and did not have a pill of sleep. In the
morning at about 8.00 a.m. I had given her a piece of bread
(Roti) and a cup of tea. I had then gone to place fodder before
the bullocks. Even at that time she was mentally disturbed. I
returned to the house after just 10 minutes and found Meena
hanging by rope. I had gone at about 9.00 a.m. to look after
the bullock and had returned in 10 minutes time. I had not
gone to the fields (Khet) on the day but I had gone to the plot
in the Abadi where the bullocks were tied. I had risen on that
day at about 6.00 a.m. It is incorrect that the entire story is a
pure concoction with nothing true in it. It is incorrect that my
daughter had ended her life or she was killed by my man on
the night intervening 5/6 May, 1996. It is also incorrect that
my daughter may have died even at about 4.20 p.m. on 5.5.96.
It is incorrect that a totally false story was coined by my
husband Pohap Singh, a police man, and all the accused were
falsely implicated in this case."
4. In defence, the accused examined 11 witnesses, essentially to
suggest that on 04.05.1996, accused Nos. 3 and 4, Manoj and Daulat,
had visited Jainabad and were falsely implicated in this case; and in this
connection, an application dated 05.06.1996 was sent to DIG Rohtak.
The witnesses also suggested that daughter of the complainant was under
depression after her engagement got broken; and she committed suicide
for this reason.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment
and order dated 28.11.1997, observed that minor discrepancies in the
statements of witnesses could not be the reason to discard the case of
the prosecution nor could the case of the prosecution be said to be doubtful
for their failure to examine all the witnesses. The Trial Court rejected
the suggestions made by way of defence evidence and found that the
case of the prosecution was proved against all the accused; and that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
acts and deeds of the accused had been that of abetment of suicide.
Accordingly, the accused were held guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and each one was awarded
the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and
fine of Rs. 300/- with default stipulations.
6. In appeal by the accused, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
observed that the incident of 05.05.1996 was not a solitary one; that the
incident that had occurred on 15.04.1996 was enough to malign the village
girl; that the deceased was teased and harassed by the accused persons
on several occasions; and that there was a consistent attempt on the
part of the accused to hurt the girl of marriageable age. The High Court,
inter alia, observed and held as under:
"In the present case, there is not a solitary instance of 5th
May, 1996 which resulted into commission of suicide on 6th
May, 1996, but prior thereto also, witnesses have stated that
accused were eve-teasing Meena. On 15th April, 1996 also,
when Krishana had returned from Court, Meena was caught
hold of one and she was dragged. Therefore in the whole
village, where great value is attached to the honour of the
girl, where girls are kept inside houses and are not allowed
to mingle in the society, the incident dated 15th April, 1996
was sufficient to malign a girl. Furthermore, each day attempt
was made by the accused to browbeat, humiliate and insult
the girl only to assert that registration of a criminal case at
the instance of her mother had no effect, and they are superior
in muscle power and they intended to belittle the girl in the
village. In our society, to assert 'might is right' is not
acceptable. Chain of circumstances reveal that there was a
consistent attempt on the part of the accused to hurt the girl
of marriageable age. Therefore, abetment on their part to
cause suicide of Meena is complete and they are held guilty
of offence under Section 306 IPC...."
6.1. With the findings aforesaid, the High Court upheld the order
of conviction but reduced the sentence to that of imprisonment for a
period of two and half years on the ground that the accused had already
faced 12 years of protracted trial.
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
7. It may be pointed out that on 22.07.2009, while entertaining the
petition for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter and while issuing
notice to the respondent, this Court also issued notice to the petitionersappellants as to why, in the event, if sufficient evidence is found acceptable,
they be not suitably punished under appropriate provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, even if they may not be held guilty for commission of offence
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. We shall examine hereafter
a little later the questions as to whether the accused are guilty of the
acts and utterances attributed for them; and if so, they are liable for the
offence of abetment of suicide or if they are guilty of any other offence
under the Indian Penal Code.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has strenuously
argued that there is want of direct and cogent proof of the fact that the
accused abetted the suicide in question; that there is no evidence to
show that the deceased ended her life for the words or actions attributed
to the accused; and that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and
the depositions of the witnesses are all nothing but hearsay. Learned
counsel would submit that the deceased was obviously depressed on
account of dropping out of her studies as she had failed to clear her 10th
standard examination as also on account of her engagement having been
called off a few months prior to the incident and these being the real
causes of her committing suicide, the appellants cannot be held responsible
therefor. The learned counsel would submit that there had been previous
litigations including criminal cases between the parties and the accused
appellants have unnecessarily been implicated in this case because of
previous enmity. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the
decisions in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC
618, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Another: (2010) 8
SCC 628 and Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh: (2017)
7 SCC 780. The learned counsel has also argued in the alternative that
even if the evidence of the prosecution is taken on its face value, the
offence against the appellants cannot travel beyond that of insulting the
modesty of a woman by some utterances; and in that event too, the
appellants could only be held guilty of the offence under Section 509 but
not for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel
has also argued for appellant No. 2 that as on the day of incident i.e.,
05.05.1996, the appellant No. 2 was a minor, being around 16 years of
age with his date of birth as 20.04.1980 and hence, he was required to
be treated as a juvenile and could not have been sentenced in this trial.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has duly opposed
the submissions made on behalf of the appellants with reference to the
evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the
High Court. The learned counsel would submit that the depositions of
the witnesses, particularly those of PW-2 and PW-11, establish beyond
doubt that the accused persons had insulted, humiliated and harassed
the victim, a young girl 18 years of age, on continuous basis and their
actions led to the girl ending her life by committing suicide. Hence,
according to the learned counsel, the appellants have rightly been
convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
examined the record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly
of the view that so far the appellant No. 2 (accused No. 3) is concerned,
he is entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 ['the Act of 2000'] and the proceedings qua him
are required to be terminated.
11. The matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary
Education, Haryana dated 24.06.1994 in relation to the appellant No. 2
is placed on record and therein, his date of birth is distinctly recorded as
"20.04.1980". This certificate has not been disputed on behalf of the
respondents and in the given set of circumstances, we find neither any
reason to doubt the correctness and veracity of the same nor there
appears any reason to hold further enquiry in the matter.
11.1. The daughter of the complainant was found dead on
06.05.1996 after committing suicide and the cause for her taking such
extreme step is said to be the continuous humiliation and harassment by
the accused; the last such incident being of 05.05.1996. It is, therefore,
evident that the appellant No. 2 was about 16 years of age as on the
date/s of incident/s. Though this fact was not placed for consideration
before the Trial Court and the High Court but, in the light of the law
declared by this Court in the case of Raju v. State of Haryana: 2019
(4) SCALE 398, he is entitled to raise this plea even in this appeal. In
view of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the Act of 2000,
the appellant No. 2, being a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of
age on the date of commission of the offence, remains entitled to the
benefit of juvenility. In Raju's case (supra) this Court has observed and
held as under:
UDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
"9. It is by now well-settled, as was held in Hari Ram v. State
of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, that in light of Sections
2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended
in 2006, a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on
the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit
of the 2000 Act (also see Mohan Mali v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 669; Daya Nand v. State of Haryana,
(2011) 2 SCC 224; Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi (supra);
Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2013) 11 SCC 193). It is equally well-settled that the claim
of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any Court by
an accused, including this Court, even after the final disposal
of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act (see
Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Abuzar Hossain
v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489; Jitendra Singh
@ Babboo Singh v. State of UP, (supra); Abdul Razzaq v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637).
10. In light of the above legal position, it is evident that the
Appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act if
his age is determined to be below 18 years on the date of
commission of the offence. Moreover, it would be irrelevant
that the plea of juvenility was not raised before the Trial Court,
in light of Section 7A. As per the report of the inquiry
conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, in this
case, the Appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of
commission of the offence. The only question before us that
needs to be determined is whether such report may be given
precedence over the contrary view taken by the High Court,
so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to the
Appellant.
xxx
 xxx
 xxx
 xxx
25. Criminal Appeal hereby stands allowed and the order of
the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the
Appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is set aside.
Seeing that the Appellant has already spent 6 years in
imprisonment, whereas the maximum period for which a
juvenile may be sent to a special home is only 3 years as per
Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act. We direct that the Appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required to be
detained in connection with any other case.''
11.2. In view of the above and in view of the indisputable fact that
the appellant No. 2 was below the age of 18 years on the date of
commission of offence, the appeal in his relation deserves to be allowed.
12. Taking up the case of other appellants, as noticed, while
entertaining the petition for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter, this
Court also issued notice to the appellants as to why they be not suitably
punished under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, even if
they were not held guilty for commission of offence under Section 306
IPC with reference to the evidence on record. Apparently, this notice
was issued to the appellants with reference to the offence specified in
Section 509 IPC, being of "word, gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman". Obviously, this Court had pondered over the
broad features of this case while entertaining the prayer for leave to
appeal and it was prima facie indicated that even if the acts and actions
of the accused in this case fall short of making out a case of abetment of
suicide under Section 306 IPC, they might, nevertheless, remain liable
under Section 509 IPC for insulting the modesty of a woman. Even
during the course of hearing of this matter, we have heard learned counsel
for the parties at sufficient length on this question, of the offence in the
alternative. However, having scanned through the entire record with
reference to the law applicable, we have no hesitation in concluding that
the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 IPC and
the appellants have rightly been held guilty thereunder.
13. The offence of abetment of suicide is specified in Section 306
IPC as under:
"306. 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."
13.1. The expression "abetment" within the meaning of Indian
Penal Code is defined as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a
thing, whoUDE SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
First. - 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.
Explanation 1.