Delhi High Court: Mere Suspicion Of Extramarital Affair Or Even Strained Relations Without More Isn't Enough To Invoke Abetment Of Suicide Charge

The Delhi High Court has held that mere suspicion of an affair or even strained relations, without more, isn't enough to invoke charge of abetment to suicide.

The Court was considering a Bail Application wherein the Petitioner was seeking regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, "....with respect to the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC, the law requires a clearly discernible act of instigation, provocation, or intentional omission. Mere suspicion of an affair or even strained relations, without more, does not meet this threshold. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that, for a charge under Section 306 IPC to be sustained, the accused must have instigated, provoked, or engaged in facilitating or encouraging the commission of suicide."

The Applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla.

Facts of the Case

The deceased herein had died by hanging herself in her matrimonial house after seven years of marriage and a ligature and vegetable cutting knife were recovered from the scene and seized. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was informed of the death telephonically in compliance with Section 174 of the CrPC. Statements of the deceased’s father, mother, and sister were recorded who alleged that the deceased had, during telephonic conversations, disclosed that the Applicant was having an extra-marital affair with his office colleague. It was stated that when confronted, the Applicant allegedly began physically abusing the deceased. It was further claimed that, in the year preceding her death, she had been regularly subjected to domestic violence. They also alleged that the Applicant, having purchased a car, repeatedly pressured the deceased to secure EMI payments from her family, and that he had threatened to kill her if the money was not arranged.

During the investigation, the Complainant submitted photographs, chat transcripts, and two video recordings, allegedly showing the Applicant’s relationship with the Colleague in question. One of the videos also purportedly captured the Applicant verbally abusing and physically assaulting the deceased. Senior Counsel for the Applicant, contended that the Applicant was falsely implicated and the case of prosecution, rests largely on uncorroborated allegations made by the deceased’s family.

It was submitted that the marriage between the Applicant and the deceased was a love marriage, solemnized after a period of mutual acquaintance during college, and with the consent of both families. It was further submitted that at no point, there was any demand for dowry, either directly or indirectly, by the Applicant or his relatives. The contention thus was that the essential ingredients for invoking Section 304B IPC are plainly absent. It was stated that as per the charge sheet, in his statement recorded during investigation, the Complainant himself admitted that no dowry was ever demanded by the Applicant’s family members.

With respect to the video, the Counsel argued that the video is over a year old and lacks contextual relevance. Inter-alia, it was averred that even if the Applicant is assumed to have maintained a relationship with one of the colleague, such a relationship, by itself, would not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC. In the absence of any cogent evidence showing that this alleged affair was pursued with the intent to torment the deceased or drive her to suicide, the Counsel thus argued that the essential ingredient of mens rea is absent as such invocation of Section 498A IPC, it was contended, is legally untenable.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the view that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not automatic and it is contingent upon the establishment of foundational facts, particularly that the alleged cruelty was both linked to a dowry demand and temporally proximate to the death. At the stage of bail, the Court stated that it is not to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence or return conclusive findings. However, a prima facie assessment is warranted to determine whether continued incarceration is justified

Noting that the first two limbs of Section 304B IPC are met, the Court was of the view that the question that remains for its consideration is as to whether the remaining ingredients, particularly dowry-related harassment or cruelty “soon before her death” are supported by credible material, so as to deny bail to the Applicant.

With respect to the video in which the Applicant is allegedly seen beating the deceased, it was emphasised that for Section 304B IPC to be invoked, such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry.

"The video in question is said to be over a year old, and whether it indicates that the alleged harassment was indeed connected to a dowry demand is also a matter that must be examined at trial," the Court observed.

It went on to state the settled position of law that an extramarital affair, per se, does not amount to not, cruelty under Section 498A IPC or abetment under Section 306 IPC, unless it is shown that the relationship was pursued in a manner calculated to harass or torment the deceased.

"In the present case, prima facie, there is no indication of affirmative acts, whether by commission or omission, that drove the deceased to a state of desperation immediately preceding her death. Consequently, the statutory threshold for invoking Section 306 IPC prima facie remains unsatisfied. The existence and fulfilment of such ingredients are issues to be adjudicated after conclusion of the trial," the Court stated.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Anshul vs. The State of NCT of Delhi

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, Advocate M. Begum, Advocate Shailendra Singh, Advocate Harsh Chaudhary, Advocate Ishaan Jain, Advocate Avneet Kaur, Advocate Sumit Singh, Advocate Surya Pratap

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla, Advocate M.N. Jha, Advocate Sarvesh Kumar, Advocate Meenakshi

Click here to read/ download Order