Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Citation	CRIMINAL APPEAL (NO.) 1722 of 2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 8873/2008
Bench	Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Court	Supreme court of India
Appellant	Naresh Kumar
Respondent	Sate of Haryana
Date	24/02/2024

Introduction 

The case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana involves an appeal by a convict accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, Rani. The marriage between Rani and the convict was her second marriage, and they had a daughter together. The prosecution alleged that the convict and his parents demanded money to start a ration shop soon after the marriage, leading to harassment of Rani. Despite the demands for money, the parents of the convict were acquitted by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court found that the oral evidence did not demonstrate incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband that would lead to suicide. The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide to convict under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Facts 

1. The deceased, Rani, was married to the appellant on May 10, 1992, and gave birth to a girl child during this marriage

2. The prosecution alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant and his parents demanded money for starting a ration shop, leading to harassment of Rani

3. Rani’s brother testified that demands for money were made, and the stress from these demands caused Rani to be tense

4. Rani’s father also testified about the demands for money and how Rani felt pressured by them

5. The Supreme Court found that the oral evidence did not show incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband that would lead to suicide

6. Mere demand for money without additional evidence of cruelty or harassment does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

7. The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide to convict under Section 306 IPC

8. The Court highlighted that proving abetment of suicide requires specific actions proximate to the time of occurrence and a visible state of mind to commit the crime

Question of Law

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment?
2. Did the oral evidence presented establish incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband that would lead to suicide?
3. Can mere demand for money without additional evidence of cruelty or harassment constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?
4. What are the specific actions required to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
5. How should the court evaluate evidence in cases of abetment of suicide to ensure the correct application of legal principles?
6. What are the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC, particularly regarding abetment and intention?
7. What level of proof is necessary to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, especially concerning the visible state of mind to commit a particular crime?
8. How does the court determine if a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another based on the facts and circumstances of each case?

Contentions of Appellant 

1. The appellant, through his counsel, argued that the Courts below erred in holding him guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife, emphasizing the lack of evidence suggesting any form of harassment or cruelty by the husband that would lead to suicide.
2. It was contended that the mere demand for money without additional evidence of cruelty or harassment did not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The defense highlighted that the oral evidence presented did not disclose any incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband, indicating that the wife’s suicide was not a result of such behavior.
4. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that to convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide, which was lacking in this case.
5. The defense argued that appreciating evidence in cases of abetment of suicide is a challenging task and requires careful application of legal principles to ensure a fair assessment.
6. It was asserted that without concrete proof of instigation or abetment proximate to the time of occurrence, a conviction under Section 306 IPC would not be legally justified.
7. The appellant sought acquittal based on the insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the absence of actions indicating abetment of suicide

Contentions of Respondents

1. The respondent’s counsel argued that the oral evidence of witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 clearly indicated incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband, leading to the suicide of the deceased.
2. It was contended that there was sufficient evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide to convict under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing the importance of clear proof in cases of abetment of suicide.
3. The respondent’s counsel highlighted the need for careful appreciation of evidence in cases of abetment of suicide to ensure the correct application of legal principles and a fair assessment.
4. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, supporting the contention that the appellant was guilty of abetting the suicide.
5. Reference was made to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which enables raising a presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman, further strengthening the case against the appellant.
6. The respondent’s counsel argued that there was no error in the judgment passed by the Courts below, asserting that they rightly held the appellant guilty of abetting the commission of suicide by his wife.
7. It was asserted that the oral evidence presented by witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 had been well appreciated by the Courts below, leading to a justified conviction of the appellant for abetment of suicide.
8. The respondent’s counsel relied on legal provisions and case law to support their argument that the appellant’s actions constituted abetment under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing the need for a clear mens rea and active instigation or aiding in suicide for conviction.

Judgement 

In the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2024, revolved around the question of whether the High Court had erred in its decision. The appellant, a convict accused, challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which affirmed his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved the appellant’s wife, Rani, who committed suicide within seven years of their marriage. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his parents demanded money from Rani to start a business, leading to her suicide. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the oral evidence presented by witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, who were Rani’s brother and father respectively. The Court found that there was no clear evidence of incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband that would drive Rani to suicide. Mere financial demands without additional evidence did not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be cogent and convincing proof of instigation or aiding in suicide proximate to the time of occurrence. It highlighted the complexity of appreciating evidence in cases of abetment of suicide and stressed the importance of applying correct legal principles to ensure a fair assessment. The judgment underscored that without concrete proof of instigation or abetment leading to suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC would not be legally justified. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant due to insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis report provides a detailed insight into the legal intricacies surrounding abetment of suicide and underscores the critical role of evidence and legal principles in such cases.

Analysis 

The analysis of the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana delves into the intricate legal aspects surrounding abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, the deceased’s brother and father respectively. The Court noted that while there were financial demands made by the appellant for a business venture, there was a lack of evidence indicating incessant cruelty or harassment by the husband that would typically lead to suicide. Mere financial demands without additional evidence did not constitute sufficient grounds for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The judgment emphasized the need for clear proof of instigation or aiding in suicide proximate to the time of occurrence to establish guilt under Section 306 IPC. It highlighted the complexity involved in appreciating evidence in cases of abetment of suicide and stressed the importance of applying correct legal principles to ensure a fair assessment. The Court underscored that without concrete proof of instigation or abetment leading to suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC would not be legally justified.

Furthermore, the analysis referenced legal provisions such as Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for presumptions regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman. The Court’s scrutiny revealed that the evidence did not establish a clear link between the husband’s actions and the wife’s suicide beyond reasonable doubt. This detailed analysis sheds light on the stringent legal requirements for proving abetment of suicide and highlights the critical role of evidence and legal principles in such cases.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana highlights the stringent legal requirements for proving abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the evidence presented by witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, the deceased’s brother and father respectively, to determine whether there was sufficient proof of instigation or aiding in suicide by the husband. The Court found that the mere financial demands made by the appellant for a business venture did not constitute incessant cruelty or harassment that would typically lead to suicide. The judgment underscored the importance of clear evidence proximate to the time of occurrence to establish guilt under Section 306 IPC.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the need for a careful and vigilant application of legal principles when appreciating evidence in cases of abetment of suicide. It highlighted that without concrete proof of instigation or abetment leading to suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC would not be legally justified. The analysis referenced legal provisions such as Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for presumptions regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman, but stressed the necessity for clear and convincing evidence to support such claims.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant due to insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case serves as a significant reminder of the complexities involved in proving abetment of suicide and underscores the critical role of evidence and legal principles in ensuring a just and fair legal outcome.

Refrence 

https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/naresh-kumar-v-state-of-haryana

https://www.freelaw.in/Manage/Index

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17313#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20case%20of,Section%20306%20of%20the%20IPC

https://www.myjudix.com/post/summary-of-naresh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana

This article is written by Harshit Yadav a student of UILS PU Chandigarh intern at Legal Vidhya 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.