The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that derogatory remarks by husband in matrimonial life alone cannot be considered sufficient to the extent to constitute abetment unless something extra-ordinary has been shown on or just before the date of incident.

An appeal was filed against the order of the trial court convicting and sentencing husband and father-in-law under Sections 306/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

A Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Derogatory remark or quarrel by husband in matrimonial life alone cannot be considered sufficient to the extent to constitute abetment unless something extra-ordinary, more than normal wear and tear of married life, is shown on or just before the date of incident…The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.”

Advocate Anuja Sharma represented the Appellants, while Advocate R.C.S Deo represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The case of Prosecution is that the Appellants are husband and father-in-law of the deceased, who burnt herself by pouring kerosene on herself as she was being taunted by them. Accordingly, after investigation, the Police registered a crime against the husband and father-in-law under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was contended that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled, as there appears to be no provocation or instigative act in close temporal proximity to the incident. Further, the language employed in the dying declaration does not reflect any direct inducement that left the deceased-wife with no other recourse but to take such an extreme step.

Court’s Analysis

While referring to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court opined that there is no direct evidence adduced by the Prosecution against the husband and father-in-law having abetted the deceased into committing suicide.

“In the instant case, all of the above witnesses have stated in their statements that the marriage between the appellant and the Deceased was solemnized 12 years ago and they had two children. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence that 12 years of marriage has passed and no any previous report was lodged regarding any harassment or instigation by the Deceased. Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide that the suicide has been committed within 7 years from the date of her marriage was not proved”, the Court added.

Further, the Court emphasised that after twelve years of marriage, the only allegation against the husband and father-in-law was that they chanted the deceased ‘चरकट’, when she offered food to a mason and as such, she committed suicide.

The Court observed, “I find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.”

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set-aside.

Cause Title: Kamal Kumar Sahu V. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:28241)

Click here to read/download Judgment


Chhattisgarh High CourtJustice Bibhu Datta Guru

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.