Taunting a person for being childless not always ground to attract suicide abetment offence: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that while an occasional taunt over a woman's inability to conceive may be distressing, it cannot by itself constitute the criminal offence of suicide abetment unless such taunts reflect persistent cruelty or an intentional instigation to drive a person to die by suicide [State of J&K v. Sanjay Singh & Ors].Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar made the observation while upholding the acquittal of the husband and parents-in-law of a woman who died by suicide.The prosecution alleged that the woman was harassed and taunted for not conceiving a child and that her husband's drinking habits led to frequent quarrels, ultimately driving her to suicide.The High Court, however, found that there was no reliable evidence to back up these claims. "Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deceased was unable to bear a child and that she was occasionally taunted for it, such an accusation, though distressing, cannot by itself attract the ingredients of Section 306 RPC. Undoubtedly, a woman expects dignity and respect in her matrimonial home, yet, what Section 306 contemplates is intentional instigation or persistent cruelty of such nature as to drive a person to end her life," it added..The Court further noted that domestic discord and differences are common in marriages, that the inability to conceive may arise from various causes, and that individuals may react differently to emotional stress.Temporary disputes or misunderstandings can make a spouse feel uncomfortable within the matrimonial setting, the Court acknowledged.However, ordinarily, people would not take the extreme step of dying by suicide due to such issues, the Court added."However, an ordinary prudent person is expected not to take an extreme step merely on that account. In contemporary times, women are more aware, independent, and resilient in addressing such domestic issues," the November 3 ruling said. .The case concerned a woman who died in 2011 at her matrimonial home. Her father filed a criminal complaint, alleging that she had died by suicide because her husband and parents-in-law continuously harassed her about her alleged inability to bear a child.The husband and his parents were booked in the criminal case registered under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code. In 2016, a trial court in Jammu acquitted all three accused in the case. This led the State to file an appeal before the High Court.The High Court examined various allegations levelled against the accused and ruled out any dowry-related harassment. It also noted that while the accused husband was stated to be a drunkard, there was nothing to suggest that his drunken habits led to his wife's suicide. "His being a drunkard by itself cannot lead to the presumption that such a habit rendered the life of the deceased miserable or drove her to take the extreme step. While consumption of liquor is undoubtedly an undesirable habit, its implications vary from person to person, depending upon the domestic atmosphere and social context, and therefore cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of abetment to suicide," the Court said. .The Court further noted that there was "not an iota of evidence" to prove that the husband and in-laws had harassed the deceased woman about her being childless, as claimed by the prosecution. "Section 306 RPC requires the presence facts or conduct that are sufficiently grave to incite or provoke a person to commit suicide. In the present case, the prosecution's evidence is shaky and unreliable. Neither has it been proved that the deceased was a habitual drinker, not have the allegations of taunting for childlessness been consistently supported by the witnesses. The alleged attempt by the respondents to portray the suicide as a case of heart attack has also not been substantiated by credible evidence", the Court said.It proceeded to dismiss the State's appeal in the matter and uphold the acquittal of the accused..Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta appeared for the State.Advocate GS Thakur appeared for the accused..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.