NARESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

NARESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband subjected the deceased to cruelty or incessant harassment constituting abetment; the presumption under Section 113A is discretionary and not automatic; demand of money and the fact of suicide within seven years alone were insufficient to establish mens rea and proximate incitement to suicide, therefore conviction under Section 306 IPC was unsustainable and appellant must be acquitted.

Parties
Appellant: Naresh Kumar; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Topics
Abetment of Suicide, Section 306 IPC, Section 113 a Evidence Act, Presumption of Abetment by Husband, Mens Rea, Cruelty and Harassment, Assessment of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Abetment of Suicide Section 306 IPC Section 113 a Evidence Act Presumption of Abetment by Husband Mens Rea Cruelty and Harassment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naresh Kumar

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide was justified
  2. 2 Whether presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act, applies and whether it is mandatory or discretionary
  3. 3 Whether evidence established cruelty or incessant harassment and the requisite mens rea to abet suicide

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband subjected the deceased to cruelty or incessant harassment constituting abetment; the presumption under Section 113A is discretionary and not automatic; demand of money and the fact of suicide within seven years alone were insufficient to establish mens rea and proximate incitement to suicide, therefore conviction under Section 306 IPC was unsustainable and appellant must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court set aside
  • Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC