Women More Resilient In Addressing Issues Involving Allegations Of Inability To Conceive: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal In Wife Suicide Case

The High Court was considering a criminal acquittal appeal directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court), whereby the respondents, who were facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), were acquitted.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar held, “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. Domestic discords and differences are common in marital relationships. The inability to conceive may arise from various causes, and individuals react differently to emotional stress. It often happens that temporary disputes or misunderstandings make a spouse feel uncomfortable within the matrimonial setting. 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.”

AAG Ravinder Gupta represented the Appellant, while Advocate G. S. Thakur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The father of the deceased lodged a written report alleging that his daughter, who had been married to the first respondent about five years prior, was being subjected to continuous harassment and taunts by her husband and in-laws for her inability to conceive and bear a child. The complainant alleged that due to this persistent harassment, the deceased became distraught, and on the fateful day, after a quarrel with the respondent husband, she ended her life by committing suicide. Based on the said report, an FIR came to be registered under Section 306 RPC. During the investigation, it was found that the deceased had committed suicide by tying a cloth (chunni) around her neck, leading to asphyxia and death due to strangulation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all three respondents. Consequently, the Trial Court held that there was insufficient material to convict the accused of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide and acquitted them of the charge.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that while exercising appellate jurisdiction, possesses full power to review, re-appreciate, and reconsider the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. “The law does not restrict such power. However, judicial discipline and established precedents have consistently held that in the case of an acquittal, a “double presumption” operates in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and secondly, the reinforcement of that presumption by virtue of the acquittal rendered by a competent court. It is equally well settled that if two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence available on record, the appellate court should refrain from disturbing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court”, it added.

The Bench noted that the evidence merely established that the respondent husband was a habitual consumer of liquor; however, it held that 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”, it stated.

The Bench noticed the allegation that the deceased had failed to conceive a child even after five years of marriage and that she was subjected to taunts and harassment by the respondents on that account. “Though this allegation is serious in nature, a scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim that the deceased was harassed or humiliated by her in-laws or husband for her inability to bear a child”, it held.

The Bench stated, “Section 306 RPC requires the presence of acts 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, nor 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 a heart attack has also not been substantiated by credible evidence.”

The Bench found that none of the witnesses had deposed any specific instance or occasion when such taunts or acts of cruelty were made, thereby rendering this allegation unproven. As per the Bench, the prosecution witnesses also made general accusations that the deceased was being tortured by her in-laws; their testimonies failed to find any corroboration from independent or consistent evidence on record.

It was noticed that there was no tangible material to suggest that the respondents, in any manner, abetted the deceased to commit suicide. No evidence existed indicating their active participation as abettors in the commission of suicide by the deceased. Noting that the case did not qualify as one warranting conviction under Section 306 RPC, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: State of J&K v. Sanjay Singh (Case No.: CrlA (AD) No. 7/2020)

Click here to read/download Order