Appeal Summary
Parties and Impugned Order
The criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant-convict, Sanjay Kumar (accused no. 1), challenging the final judgment and order dated August 17, 2016, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2010, whereby the High Court overturned his acquittal by the trial court and convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while maintaining the acquittal of his co-accused mother and sisters. [Paras 1, 3]
Factual Matrix
The appellant solemnized marriage with the victim, Lata, in January 2008, following which omnibus allegations were made by the victim’s family that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty over dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. The victim gave birth to a daughter in July 2009, and the prosecution alleged continued ill-treatment, starvation, and physical harassment at the matrimonial home. On November 16, 2009, the victim consumed an organophosphorus insecticide (Endosulfan) at the matrimonial residence and was immediately rushed by the appellant to a local pharmacist and subsequently shifted to the hospital, where she succumbed during medical treatment, prompting the registration of FIR No. 202 of 2009 and the subsequent charge-sheeting of the appellant and his relatives under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code. [Paras 2, 4–6]
Trial and Appellate courts ‘ Verdicts and Core Submissions
The Sessions Judge acquitted all accused on June 10, 2010, holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or unlawful dowry demands beyond reasonable doubt, as evidence was predominantly general, uncorroborated, and based on hearsay, while no external physical injuries were found and independent witnesses testified to cordiality and prompt medical intervention by the husband. On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant alone, holding that the testimony of the victim’s relatives established relentless harassment driving her to suicide, thereby sentencing him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 and two years under Section 498-A IPC. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that the High Court exceeded appellate jurisdiction by disturbing a plausible acquittal without finding perversity, relying on material improvements, omissions, and unproved accusations, whereas the State contended that minor contradictions did not vitiate the cogent testimony of cruelty and that the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was fully attracted. [Paras 3, 7–9]
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate court exercising powers against an order of acquittal cannot overturn the verdict of the trial court merely because an alternative view is plausible, but must record an unequivocal finding that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was perverse, palpably erroneous, or impossible on record. Furthermore, ordinary matrimonial friction or domestic discord per se does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code; the prosecution must establish direct, positive acts of instigation, aid, or intentional proximate inducement by the accused that left the deceased with no option but to end their life. [Paras 10–14, 15]
PW.1 admitted that she did not inform to anyone about her daughter’s being cruelly treated by the accused
8. When the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is examined in detail, it reveals that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in general terms without referring to any specific incident of either torture or harassment or demand of dowry from the victim. PW1-Kamla Devi, the mother of the victim, deposed that she used to receive telephone calls from her daughter in which she used to state that she was being tortured by the accused. She also stated that her daughter used to be kept hungry for days together by the accused. In her examination-in-chief itself, she admitted that she did not inform any authority about the torture of her daughter. In her cross-examination, she admitted that whenever her daughter and the appellant used to visit them, they were seen to be happy. At the matrimonial house, only her daughter and her mother-in-law were residing while other family members used to go out for their education and employment. Various omissions in her cross-examination were brought out by the defence. These included the incident of the victim being slapped by the appellant in her presence and a telephone call from the victim regarding her torture. She also admitted that the victim had called her husband to take her to her matrimonial house and after that she had gone back with the appellant.
Other relatives testimonies are general in nature and various omission were brought in cross
9. Other relatives of the victim who were examined were PW4- Manju, her elder sister, PW5-Jaidev, her cousin, PW7-Mamta, her younger sister and PW8-Diksha, her other younger sister. Their depositions are also of a general nature and various omissions were also brought out in their cross-examination. In fact, the victim’s sisters stated that whenever they used to visit the victim’s matrimonial home, they were well received and were treated properly. There is nothing specific deposed by them about any incident of torture or harassment.
Mere harassment by itself could not be treated to be cruelty
11. The Sessions Court considered all this evidence in detail. It noted that the allegations of demand of money or asking the victim to take loan were afterthought allegations. It noted that no witness had deposed that the victim was ever threatened with any consequences, whatsoever. There was no evidence at all of any unlawful demand. Mere harassment by itself could not be treated to be cruelty. In fact, it was noted that the victim was treated affectionately by the accused when she was pregnant and also after delivering a child. On that basis, the Sessions Court proceeded to acquit all the accused from the aforesaid charges. It is to be noted that the learned Judge had the occasion to note the demeanour of all the witnesses while recording their evidence.
Witnesses admitted in cross that the had not made such statements before the police
12. The acquittal of all the accused was challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court indicates that it failed to come to close quarters with reasons assigned by the Sessions Court. In its short discussion spreading over only two paragraphs, the acquittal of the appellant was reversed by holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim had been harassed mentally and physically by the appellant. It observed that the appellant had abused and dragged the victim in the presence of her mother and sisters. We, however, do not find any such evidence on record. In fact, these witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that they had not made such statements before the police authorities. In our view, it was necessary for the High Court, as an appellate Court, while considering an appeal against acquittal, to record a finding that the Sessions Court had either misread the entire evidence to arrive at a perverse conclusion or that its conclusion could not be supported by the evidence on record. However, no such finding has been recorded in the impugned judgment.
Section 306 Ingredients
13. At this stage, it would be necessary to bear in mind the legal principles to be applied when an appellate Court is confronted with a judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. The Privy Council in Sheo Swarup and others and The King-Emperor, highlighted the material factors to be borne in mind by an appellate Court while considering an appeal against acquittal.
14. When the impugned judgment of the High Court is examined in the aforesaid backdrop, it is seen that its conclusion is totally unsustainable and based on material not available on record. The appellant having been charged under Section 306 of the Penal Code, the aspect of abetment as contemplated in Section 107 of the Penal Code would also be material. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations in Madan Mohan Singh (supra):
“…In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC…”
15. It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim. That, however, would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code. In fact, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment by the appellant. On the contrary, it has been brought on record that the appellant, on realising that the victim had ingested some liquid thinking it to be a medicine, had immediately sought medical aid from PW10. He also shifted the victim immediately to the hospital.
16. Thus, on considering the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the Sessions Court was justified in arriving at the correct conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court committed an error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant. Its judgment is, thus, liable to be set aside.
Cited Judgments
- Sheo Swarup and others v. King-Emperor (AIR 1934 PC 227 / 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42): Laid down the foundational principles governing the scope of appellate jurisdiction while interfering with an order of acquittal, emphasizing that proper weight must be accorded to the trial judge’s assessment and the reinforced presumption of innocence.
- Bhubneshwar Mandal and others v. State of Bihar ((1997) 10 SCC 439): Reaffirmed the rule formulated in Sheo Swarup regarding the limits of appellate power in reversing an acquittal.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Dass ((1972) 3 SCC 201): Reiterated the cardinal rules in appeals against acquittal, notably that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be taken.
- Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another ((2010) 10 SCC 624): Held that to sustain an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, specific instigation or aid with the requisite intention to drive the person to suicide as required under Section 107 IPC is essential.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 498-A, Section 306, and Section 107
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Sections 417, 418, and 423 (as referenced via cited precedents)
Party
Sanjay Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2016 (arising out of Diary Number 31331 / 2016) - 2026 INSC 948 - 03-Sep-2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, J. and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, J.
