Marital discord alone cannot amount to abetment of suicide: U’khand HC

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court (HC), while deciding a 15-year-old criminal appeal against a 2011 sessions court judgment in Udham Singh Nagar, has acquitted a man convicted of abetting his wife's suicide, holding that "marital discord, suspicion and quarrels, while unfortunate, are common in married life," and that "liability under IPC section 306 (abetment of suicide) cannot be established merely because a marriage was strained or a husband suspected his wife's character." The trial court had sentenced the man to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.According to the FIR, the woman died by suicide on Sept 15, 2004, by hanging herself at her in-laws' home in Khatima. The prosecution alleged that "the husband's conduct, including doubting her character and subjecting her to mental harassment, created circumstances that drove her to take the extreme step". Though the trial court acquitted him of dowry charges, it convicted him for abetment of suicide, holding that "his suspicion amounted to mental cruelty". He was later granted bail and challenged the conviction in the HC.His counsel argued that to sustain a conviction under IPC section 306, the prosecution must prove instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding with the requisite criminal intent. He contended that "mere suspicion, strained relations or domestic discord do not amount to incitement in the absence of active provocation or deliberate assistance."The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that "repeated humiliation and mental cruelty created an oppressive environment that drove the woman to suicide." It submitted that "the surrounding circumstances indicate that the husband's behaviour had a direct impact on his wife's mental health, and therefore, the trial court was right in sentencing him under IPC section 306."The single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani of the HC, however, held that "the material on record did not establish the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide" and consequently allowed the appeal. After examining the witness statements, it found that while they referred to suspicion and a troubled marriage, "they did not point to any overt act of incitement or deliberate provocation proximate to the suicide."Citing law established by the Supreme Court, the bench observed that "harassment, domestic quarrels or casual remarks cannot amount to abetment unless accompanied by clear mens rea (criminal intent) and a direct connection with the act of suicide." "It appears that the trial court equated suspicion on character with abetment of suicide. Such an approach expands the scope of IPC section 306 beyond its legal intent," the court said.Setting aside the trial court's conviction, the HC on Wed held that the sentence was "not supported by legally admissible and substantial evidence meeting the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt."