Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused husband from the charge of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that mere allegations of an extramarital affair, even if assumed to be true, do not by themselves constitute abetment, unless there is clear, proximate, and intentional instigation compelling the deceased to take her life. Finding no perversity in the Trial Court’s assessment, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment and that continuation of criminal liability would be legally unsustainable .
Facts
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 30 October 2010, when the wife of the accused was brought to AIIMS in a gasping condition with an alleged history of attempted hanging. She remained unconscious throughout her hospitalisation and succumbed nearly a month later, on 30 November 2010. The post-mortem attributed the cause of death to septicaemic shock resulting from prolonged illness following asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.
The marriage between the deceased and the accused had taken place in April 2004, and the couple had two children. According to the deceased’s mother, while the couple lived harmoniously for several years, disputes arose in the last two years of marriage when the accused allegedly expressed his intention to marry another woman from the same locality. Allegations were made that the accused beat his wife, threatened her, and offered her money to free him from marital obligations. On this basis, the parents alleged that the deceased had been driven to death due to cruelty.
Based on statements recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after the death, an FIR was registered. The police, however, found no sufficient material against the parents of the accused and charge-sheeted only the husband. The Trial Court framed a charge solely under Section 306 IPC, holding that no case of dowry death was made out. After trial, the accused was acquitted, leading to the present appeal by the State.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence on record established abetment to suicide within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 IPC. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether allegations of an extramarital affair and matrimonial discord, without proof of direct or proximate instigation, could sustain a conviction for abetment to suicide.
Appellant’s arguments
The State contended that the Trial Court erred in discarding the consistent testimonies of the deceased’s parents and brother, which pointed towards cruelty arising from the accused’s extramarital involvement. It was argued that the accused’s conduct, including threats and monetary offers to dissolve the marriage, amounted to mental cruelty sufficient to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The State further submitted that the Trial Court incorrectly diluted criminal culpability by observing that the accused’s religion permitted polygamy, thereby failing to appreciate the gravity of mental trauma inflicted on the deceased.
Respondent’s arguments
The accused opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution had failed to establish any act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as required under Section 107 IPC. It was argued that there was no suicide note, no contemporaneous complaint by the deceased, and no evidence of any immediate or proximate act compelling her to take her life. The defence highlighted material inconsistencies and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and contended that, at best, the allegations disclosed a matrimonial dispute, not a criminal offence under Section 306 IPC.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that abetment is the sine qua non of Section 306 IPC, and the prosecution must establish a clear nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. Mere harassment or marital discord is insufficient unless accompanied by intentional acts of instigation or conduct so grave that the victim is left with no reasonable option but to end life.
Relying on Section 107 IPC, the Court emphasised that instigation must reflect a clear mens rea and must be in close proximity to the suicide. The standard is stringent, particularly because the victim is no longer available to explain the circumstances, placing a higher burden on courts to scrutinise evidence cautiously.
Precedent analysis
The High Court relied extensively on Supreme Court jurisprudence. It referred to Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, where it was held that an extramarital relationship, by itself, does not constitute cruelty of such a nature as to drive a spouse to suicide. The Court also relied on K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka and Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, which clarified that while extramarital relationships may be immoral or a ground for matrimonial relief, they do not automatically attract criminal liability under Section 306 IPC unless additional elements of abetment are proved. These principles were applied squarely to the facts of the present case.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that there was no suicide note and no evidence of any recent provocation or immediate conduct linking the accused’s behaviour to the act of suicide. The alleged extramarital affair had been known to the deceased and her parents for nearly two years, negating the theory of a sudden triggering event. Witnesses relied upon by the prosecution admitted that their knowledge of the alleged relationship was largely hearsay, and the woman allegedly involved was neither examined nor investigated.
The Court further found material improvements in the testimony of the deceased’s mother, particularly regarding alleged monetary demands, which were absent in her original statement. The medical evidence conclusively ruled out homicide and confirmed death due to hanging. In the absence of evidence showing direct instigation, intentional aid, or conduct in close proximity to the suicide, the Court held that criminal culpability could not be inferred.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt. Holding that mere existence of an extramarital affair, without proof of proximate instigation, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the strict evidentiary threshold required for offences under Section 306 IPC. It clarifies that courts will not criminalise matrimonial discord or alleged moral lapses in the absence of clear proof of abetment. The ruling serves as a significant precedent cautioning against the tendency to convert failed marriages into criminal prosecutions without satisfying statutory requirements of mens rea and proximate causation.
Case law references
- Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat – Held that an extramarital relationship alone does not amount to cruelty sufficient for abetment to suicide.
- K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka – Clarified that extramarital affairs may give rise to matrimonial remedies but not automatic criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.
- Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat – Reiterated that illicit relationships, even if proved, do not by themselves establish abetment.
- Prakash v. State of Maharashtra – Emphasised proximity and mens rea as essential elements of abetment to suicide.
FAQs
1. Does an extramarital affair amount to abetment to suicide?
No. Courts require proof of direct or proximate instigation; an affair alone is insufficient.
2. Is harassment enough to attract Section 306 IPC?
No. Harassment must be accompanied by intentional acts of instigation or aid leading to suicide.
3. Can Section 306 IPC apply without a suicide note?
Yes, but only if other strong evidence establishes abetment beyond reasonable doubt.