Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court has highlighted the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and clarified that the mere commission of suicide by a married woman is insufficient to invoke the presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, delivered the judgment stating that “It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.”

The case originated from a complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, alleging that her daughter was subjected to continuous physical and mental torture by her husband, Goutam Dey, and his family, leading to her suicide on October 3, 2007. The victim had married the appellant on August 8, 2001, and the couple had a daughter. The complaint stated that the victim was coerced to obtain money from her mother, which she could not fulfil after her father’s death, resulting in increased torture. The victim was found dead, allegedly having committed suicide by hanging due to the torture inflicted upon her. As a result, the appellant (husband) was initially convicted and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The key question for consideration before the High Court pertained to the applicability of Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 304B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC, and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage due to cruelty.

The court noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the prosecution. It observed that the mother and brother of the victim were not corroborated by other witnesses emphasising the lack of specific and deliberate evidence of torture for dowry. “There can be several reasons and impulses to drive a person to commit suicide. Societal pressure, sensitiveness, intolerance, impatience, lack of logical reasoning and understanding momentary, anger, avarice, jealousy, ego, pride etc with predominate the normal reasoning of human being to fall prey to such vulnerability to recourse to extremities in life being inscrutable and ineffable. Such intangible emotions are enigmatic and uncontrollable,” the court observed.

The court further said “The course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not reveal the circumstances coercing the victim to commit suicide being compelled by any imminent, proximate reason of dowry demand for which the victim had no other option but to self immolate.” The court found that general and casual remarks by the victim's mother and brother, claiming that she was subjected to torture for money, were deemed unacceptable. These claims, according to the court, lacked evidence of specific and deliberate acts by the appellant that would constitute assault or harassment, either over a continuous period or immediately prior to the suicide, to have instigated or abetted the victim in taking her own life.

The court made critical observations regarding the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. “False implications of persons under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unfettered, would result in misuse of the process of law. Misuse of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the increasing tendency of implicating husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes have become rampant,” the court further said.

The court also clarified that the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A is not mandatory but permissive, requiring proof of cruelty by the husband or his relatives, with all circumstances considered before drawing such a presumption. Additionally, the court highlighted the need for specific and deliberate acts of cruelty or harassment to establish the offence under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC, stating that general and casual remarks without substantial evidence are insufficient.

Conclusively, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC.

 

Cause Title: Goutam Dey Vs The State of West Bengal [C.R.A. 505 of 2009]