A Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri has held that the mere harassment of a wife by her husband or her in-laws due to matrimonial discord does not constitute the offence of abutment of suicide.

In that context, the Court observed that "There may be various instances of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and at times wife being constantly taunted and subjected to sarcastic remarks in the house of her in-laws may be driven to commit suicide. However, such instances are normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. In my opinion mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks perse does not attract Section 306 RPC. The courts in such circumstances are expected to assess facts and circumstance of the case as also evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial with care and circumspection in order to determine whether cruelty alleged to have been meted out to the wife in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If the present case is approached with this principal in mind, there is absolutely no doubt that unfortunately the deceased took the extreme step to end her life on account of misunderstanding with her husband, the respondent. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence to suggest that respondent ever intended or participated to abet committing of suicide by the deceased."

Dy. AG Dewakar Sharma appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Sidhant Gupta appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the deceased wife had been married to her husband for approximately 2 and a half years but had not been able to conceive a child. They were living separately, and when she called her husband and asked him to come back, he refused and told her to leave. This caused her to pour kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. She stated that her husband was solely responsible for driving her to take such a drastic action, and no one else was involved.

The Trial Court acquitted the husband. The prosecution challenged the acquittal, arguing that the Trial Court failed to properly consider the prosecution's evidence, as the wife set herself on fire in response to her husband's upsetting reaction.

In this case, the question which arose for consideration is whether the respondent was guilty of instigating or engaging with anybody in any conspiracy or intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission, the victim to commit suicide.

On examining the witnesses and the relevant provisions of the law, the Court subsequently observed that "on careful scrutiny and critical examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of legal position of law, there is no evidence or material on record wherefrom an inference of respondent having abetted the commission of offence of committing suicide by the deceased may be drawn. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent ever intended or actively participated to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased, therefore, offence under section 306 IPC is not made out and observation of learned trial court in this regard cannot be faulted with."

Further, the Court also noted that a reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A(a) and the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 RPC. In that context, the Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish any such nexus.

In light of the same, the Court held that it could not find any illegality much less perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: State of J&K vs Tariq Hussain

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Rajesh SekhriAbetment of Suicide

Verdictum News Desk