The Uttarakhand High Court recently held that suspicion regarding a spouse’s character and strained marital relations alone are insufficient to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Ashish Naithani made the observation while allowing a criminal appeal filed by a husband accused of abetting his wife’s suicide.
The Court underscored that ordinary disputes within a marriage cannot automatically attract criminal liability for abetment of suicide.
“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,” said the Court.
The Court, in the order dated March 22, set aside a 2011 judgment of a Sessions Court in Udham Singh Nagar that had convicted the husband under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The case arose from the death of the man’s wife, who died by suicide in 2004 at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the husband frequently suspected his wife’s character and subjected her to humiliation and mental harassment, which ultimately drove her to take the extreme step.
A post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There were no allegations of homicidal violence.
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the case proceeded to trial. The Sessions Court, while acquitting the husband of charges under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the IPC, convicted him under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) on the ground that his conduct amounted to mental harassment leading to suicide.
Challenging the conviction before the High Court, the husband argued that the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC (instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid) had not been established.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution witnesses had made only broad and unspecific allegations against the accused.
“A careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the allegations against the Appellant (husband) are 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,” the Court noted.
The judge also observed that once the trial court had acquitted the accused of offences relating to dowry death and cruelty, the conviction under Section 306 IPC required clear proof of conduct amounting to abetment.
The High Court emphasised that to establish abetment of suicide, the prosecution had to establish a clear and proximate link between the conduct of the husband and the act of suicide.
In the present case, however, the evidence did not reveal any specific act of instigation or conduct immediately preceding the wife's death that could have pushed her to take the extreme step. It also noted that there was no suicide note or other contemporaneous material indicating that she had blamed her husband for her decision.
In the absence of such evidence showing provocation, intention or a direct nexus with the suicide, the Court held that the charge of abetment could not be sustained.
“While the factum of suicide stands proved, the evidence on record does not demonstrate any act of instigation, intentional aiding, or proximate conduct on the part of the Appellant which could legally amount to abetment of suicide,” held the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the trial court’s judgment convicting the husband for abetment of suicide, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted him of the charge.
Advocate Siddharth Sah appeared for the husband.
Advocate Vijay Khanduri appeared for the State of Uttarakhand.
[Read Order]