Abetment Of Suicide Offence Not Attracted Merely Because Husband Harboured Doubts About Wife’s Character: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court was considering a criminal appeal assailing the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the Appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
While acquitting a man who was convicted under Section 306 of IPC in his wife’s suicide case, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that criminal liability under Section 306 cannot be fastened merely because the relationship between spouses was strained or because the accused harboured doubts about the character of the deceased.
The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of the Sessions Judge whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani stated, “Matrimonial discord, suspicion, and quarrels, though unfortunate, are not uncommon in marital life. Criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot be fastened merely because the relationship between spouses was strained or because the accused harboured doubts about the character of the deceased.”
“Equally important is the requirement of proximity. The law requires a live and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. The evidence on record does not establish any such proximate act occurring immediately prior to the suicide”, it added.
Advocate Siddharth Sah represented the Appellant, while Brief Holder Vijay Khanduri represented the State.
Factual Background
The deceased, who was the legally wedded wife of the Appellant, committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. It was alleged that the Appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased and, on that account, subjected her to mental harassment and humiliation.
The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There was no allegation of homicidal violence. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, holding that the ingredients of dowry death and cruelty in connection with dowry were not established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 306 IPC, observing that the conduct of the Appellant in suspecting the character of his wife amounted to abetment of suicide.
Reasoning
Considering that the post-mortem report clearly indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, the Bench held that the foundational fact of suicide stood established.
Coming to the aspect of abetment to suicide, the Bench reaffirmed the Apex Court’s view that mere harassment, ordinary domestic discord, or casual remarks cannot amount to instigation unless there is clear mens rea and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. “Instigation, in the legal sense, connotes active suggestion or stimulation of the mind of the victim to commit suicide. It must be shown that the accused had the intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide or had knowledge that his conduct was likely to result in such consequence”, it added.
It was noticed by the Bench that the entire case was based on the allegation that the Appellant used to suspect the character of his wife and allegedly subjected her to mental harassment on that basis. On a scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Bench noted that the allegations against the Appellant were general and omnibus in nature. The witnesses deposed about suspicion and strained relations, but had not attributed any specific overt act of instigation, provocation, or intentional aiding immediately preceding the suicide.
“The learned trial court, in convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC, appears to have equated suspicion of character with abetment of suicide. Such an approach dilutes the stringent requirements of Section 107 IPC and expands the scope of Section 306 IPC beyond its legislative intent”, it stated.
The Bench noted that the evidence on record did not demonstrate any act of instigation, intentional aiding, or proximate conduct on the part of the Appellant which could legally amount to abetment of suicide. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court was not supported by legally admissible and cogent evidence satisfying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine.
Cause Title: Sunil Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:1053)