A husband cannot be made liable for his wife’s suicide merely because their relationship was strained or he expressed any doubts about her character, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled on Wednesday [Sunil Dutt Pathak v State of Uttarakhand]
Justice Ashish Naithani delivered the verdict while acquitting a man who was convicted in 2011 under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code for his wife’s death in 2004.
“Matrimonial discord, suspicion, and quarrels, though unfortunate, are not uncommon in marital life. Criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot be fastened merely because the relationship between spouses was strained or because the accused harboured doubts about the character of the deceased,” the Court said.
It was the prosecution's case that the husband Sunil Dutt Pathak used to suspect her wife’s character, leading to humiliation and mental harassment.
In 2011, a sessions court acquitted Pathak of dowry death and related cruelty charges under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC but concluded that by suspecting her character, he had driven her to suicide.
Challenging his conviction, Pathak’s counsel argued that there was no evidence of any specific overt act against him. It was also contended suspecting the character of wife would not constitute instigation.
However, the State argued that repeated humiliation and mental cruelty created a hostile and oppressive environment in the matrimonial home, which ultimately drove the victim to commit suicide by hanging herself.
In the judgment dated February 18, High Court noted that Supreme Court has consistently held that mere harassment, ordinary domestic discord or casual remarks cannot amount to instigation unless there is clear mens rea and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
“Instigation, in the legal sense, connotes active suggestion or stimulation of the mind of the victim to commit suicide. It must be shown that the accused had the intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide or had knowledge that his conduct was likely to result in such consequence,” the Bench said.
Considering the evidence against the convict in the present case, the Court opined that the allegations against him were general and omnibus in nature.
“The witnesses have deposed about suspicion and strained relations but have not attributed any specific overt act of instigation, provocation, or intentional aiding immediately preceding the suicide,” it noted.
The Court also noted that the trial judge had not found sufficient evidence to convict him for cruelty related to dowry.
“In such circumstances, the conviction under Section 306 IPC must be supported by clear and cogent evidence demonstrating that the Appellant's conduct amounted to abetment in the strict legal sense. However, the impugned judgment does not identify any distinct act of instigation or intentional aiding beyond the allegation of suspicion regarding the character of the deceased,” it added.
The Court further said that the evidence on record did not establish any proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
It also noted that there was no suicide note from the victim, adding that there was no contemporaneous material showing that the victim blamed him for the extreme step.
“The learned trial court appears to have inferred abetment from the cumulative circumstances of suspicion and alleged mental harassment. However, inference cannot substitute proof,” the Bench said.
Hence, the Court concluded that essential ingredients of abetment, namely, mens rea and active or proximate conduct amounting to instigation or intentional aiding, were conspicuously absent in the case and set aside the conviction.
“The learned trial court, in convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC, appears to have equated suspicion of character with abetment of suicide. Such an approach dilutes the stringent requirements of Section 107 IPC and expands the scope of Section 306 IPC beyond its legislative intent,” it reasoned.
Advocate Siddharth Sah represented the petitioner.
Advocate Vijay Khanduri represented the State.
[Read Judgment]