Instigation Or Incitement Should Reveal Clear Mens Rea: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits In-Laws In Abetment Of Suicide Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted in-laws who were accused of committing abetment of suicide of a woman.
The Court reiterated that instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 1020) in which it was observed, “Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.”
The Bench said that the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
Advocate Rajesh Mandhotra appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Accused, while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Jitender Kumar Sharma appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
The police presented a challan against the Appellants-accused before the Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was asserted that the informant was the brother of the deceased woman who was married to the accused Ram Pal in 2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. She was kept properly for about one month after her marriage. Thereafter, accused Ram Pal, Meenki Devi, and Sanjeev Kumar allegedly started beating and harassing the deceased.
It was alleged that they used to demand dowry and money and she used to leave her matrimonial home. One daughter was also born to the deceased and her husband. Nobody talked to the deceased after her return to her matrimonial home; rather, the accused allegedly taunted her. The deceased consumed some insecticide in 2008 and hence, the matter was reported to the police. Subsequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the accused persons approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Learned Trial Court was impressed by the fact that witnesses had made consistent statements regarding the apologies, which showed that the prosecution’s case was true; otherwise, the accused had no reason to apologize for their conduct. However, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no satisfactory evidence of this fact.”
The Court referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Others v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 322) wherein it was held that abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing and without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
“The witnesses who claimed to be present on the spot at the time of the apology were never examined, and the prosecution relied upon the statements of the related witnesses. Therefore, this fact by itself was not sufficient to record the conviction of the accused”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. It directed the accused persons to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court/Trial Court within four weeks.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused persons.
Cause Title- Meenki Devi v. State of H.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:6)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Rajesh Mandhotra and Kanta Thakur.
Respondent: AAG Jitender Kumar Sharma
