Full Judgment
A.K. Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the conviction of the appellants under Sections 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been respectively sentenced to undergo 2 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 10th of February, 1988 at about 4.30p.m. when Smt. Usha Kachhi was in her agricultural field, both the accused persons - Anjani and Pappu misbehaved with her and tried to remove her Sari. As the deceased raised hue and cry, witness Appoo alias Ramprasad Kachbi and Bijju alias Vijay Tiwari reached the spot. On seeing them both the accused persons ran away. In the same evening when parents of Usha Kachhi were not present, she committed suicide by hanging herself owing to humiliation caused to her. The report of the incident was lodged next day in the morning at Police Station Majhgawan by Tanteram, the father of the deceased. Police set in the investigation and found that deceased committed suicide and cause for the same was the act of the accused persons of trying to outrage her modesty, and this is how the accused persons were put to trial. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated.
3. Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that it is a case where no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, hence conviction under Section 306, IPC is not called for. He further submitted that evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for offence under Section 354, IPC. His alternative submission is that as the accused were young at the time of incident, they should be dealt with leniently.
4. Mr. Ajay Raizada, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the conviction and submitted that offences against the women are on the rise and should be dealt with sternly and the accused persons are not entitled to any indulgence in the present appeal.
5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is lack of evidence of abetment to commit suicide as required under Section 306, IPC. The abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC. So as to make-out a case of abetment it is necessary to prove that spurring andgoading to commit suicide, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and State of M.P. v. Premchand, reported in AIR 1989 SC Page 1661. For constituting the abetment the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally' aided the commission of the offence. In the case of Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1996 Cr.L.J. (1) 894, the Apex Court has laid down that abetment means that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased and thus the ingredients of Section 107 should be proved. Merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased conviction of the accused under Section 306, IPC is not sustainable. A person can abet the commission of offence in any of the three grounds set-out in Section 107, IPC. In the present case the act of the accused falls in first category, i.e., instigating a person to do a thing. In such circumstances need to invoke the explanation second does not arise as the explanations are dependent on each other.
6. The attempt in the present case was clearly made by the accused persons to remove the Sari of the deceased. They have clearly committed an offence which falls within the purview of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and that appears to be the cause of suicide by the deceased. There is difference between the motive and the abetment. Ingredients of abetment are something different and require positive act on the part of the accused though it can also not be lost sight of that modesty of a woman in India is the most precious virtue and if it is tried to be outraged, it leaves scar for her entire life. Outraging of modesty of a woman may lead to the commission of suicide in the given set of facts. A woman may choose death instead of living with scar throughout her life. Cause of suicide has been distinguished from its abetment, by this Court in the case of Deepak Raghunathrao Shohle @ Shole v. State of M.P., 1993 MPLJ Page 729. In the said case two accused persons entered the room of a married girl who was with her paramour at late hour of the night, caught hold of her and made overtures for sexual intercourse and when she refused, threatened her that they would defame her and about one hour thereafter she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. Accused were convicted under Section 306, IPC. This Court came to the conclusion that it could not be said that accused persons could have foreseen that such act on their parts may be that it was a serious offence, would necessarily drive that woman to commit suicide. It could also not be said that accused were abettors to the act of commission of suicide by the deceased.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P., reported in 1994 JLJ 758, where the demand of loan advanced, was made. Inthe said case the demand was held not to be sufficient to constitute the abetment for committing suicide.
8. The evidence disclose that Tanteram (P.W. 1) the father of the deceased who has lodged the report deposed that when he reached the house, he found that his daughter Usha had committed suicide by hanging. He has deposed that his another daughter informed him that when Usha was in the field, the accused persons misbehaved with her and because of the disrepute she committed suicide.
9. Sumatri Bai (P.W. 3) mother of the deceased has also supported the version of Tanteram (P.W. 1). Spot witness namely Ramprasad (P.W. 5) has stated that he himself and one Vijay Tiwari were in their fields. They heard hue and cry raised by the deceased and on that they ran towards the spot. They were informed that accused Anjani was misbehaving with her. On seeing these witnesses, accused persons ran away. This witness has deposed that at the relevant time deceased was weeping. They then brought the deceased to the village and left her in the locality, and sometime thereafter they came to know that in the same evening the deceased committed suicide.
10. From the evidence it is established that accused tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased but their act was serious to what extent is not established so as to make-out a case under Section 306, IPC. Though it is true that a woman may commit suicide if her modesty is outraged but for that degree of the act of the accused is required to be established. Unfortunately in this case the other witness examined namely Prabha (P.W. 4) who was with the deceased at the time of incident as per the deposition of Ramprasad also, has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Thus the severity and the degree of the act of the accused is not established. Further it is proved by the deposition of Ramprasad that accused had misbehaved with the deceased and tried to outrage her modesty. But the positive act and severity of their act is missing hence I am of the opinion that offence under Section 306, IPC is not made-out.
11. Thus from the discussion aforesaid it is clear that offence under Section 354, IPC is clearly made-out. Deceased committed suicide immediately after the incident in the same evening and the accused are not entitled for any leniency in the matter of sentence on the ground that they were young at the relevant time. They ought to know in their formative years the consequence of their act. The young age does not give the licence to misbehave with a woman or entitles to be dealt with leniency. Sentence imposed can not be said to be excessive and unjust, in the circumstances of the case. Hence I find no merit in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellants.
12. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction under Section 306, IPC is set-aside. However, conviction under Section 354, IPC and sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment are upheld.
13. Criminal Appeal partly allowed.