Alleged Extramarital Affair Of Husband Insufficient To Constitute Abetment Of Wife's Suicide: Delhi High Court

The High Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of the death of his wife following an alleged suicide attempt.

The matter was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, who observed that “mere existence of extramarital affair is not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC” and found no perversity in the conclusions returned by the Trial Court.

The appellant State was represented by Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor, while the respondent was represented by Advocates Pawan Kumar Mittal.

Background

The case arose from an incident in which the wife of the respondent was brought to AIIMS in a gasping condition with a history of attempted hanging. She remained unconscious during the course of her hospitalisation and eventually succumbed to her injuries about a month later.

Based on statements made by the parents and relatives of the deceased before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an FIR was registered alleging that the respondent had subjected his wife to cruelty on account of an alleged extramarital affair and had abetted her suicide. While the parents of the respondent were named during the investigation, only the respondent was charge-sheeted.

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that no case under Section 304B of the IPC was made out and framed a charge only under Section 306 of the IPC. After the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish abetment to suicide. The State challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court examined the essential ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC and reiterated that abetment, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding of the act of suicide. It emphasised that the prosecution must establish a direct or proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the decision of the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court noted that there was no suicide note and that the deceased remained unconscious throughout her hospitalisation, making it impossible to ascertain her mental state or the reasons which led her to take the extreme step. In such circumstances, the evidentiary burden on the prosecution was held to be particularly onerous.

Addressing the core allegation of an extramarital affair, the Court observed that the prosecution's evidence on this aspect was largely hearsay. The alleged woman was neither examined nor cited as a witness, and even the witnesses examined admitted that they had not personally witnessed any relationship between the accused and the said woman.

The Court relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, and Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, which consistently held that an extramarital relationship, by itself, does not amount to cruelty or abetment unless it is shown to be of such intensity as to drive the spouse to commit suicide.

The Court further observed that the alleged extramarital affair was not a sudden development and that "no other recent act or behaviour, suggesting instigation or abatement, has been established which may indicate criminality on the part of accused", thus concluding that, "in the present factual matrix, even if the extramarital affair is believed to be true, it did not act as a catalyst for committing suicide".

The Court also examined the medical and post-mortem evidence, which conclusively ruled out homicide and confirmed death due to complications arising from antemortem hanging. The prosecution’s own attempt to suggest strangulation was found to be unsupported by medical evidence.

Upon an appreciation of the material on record, the Court concluded that the Trial Court’s findings were based on a correct appreciation of evidence and suffered from no perversity warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Finding no perversity in the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

Cause Title: State (Government of NCT of Delhi) v. Hamid (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11261-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP

Respondent: Pawan Kumar Mittal and Chatiyna Jain, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment