30 Years After Wife's Suicide, SC Acquits Husband In Abetment Case: What Happened

The Supreme Court acquitted a man of the charges of abetting his wife's suicide, by raising presumptions under Section 113A of the Evidence Act (Presumptions as to abetment of suicide by wife), a husband cannot be found guilty under Section 306 of the IPC (Abetment of suicide). There has to be cogent evidence of cruelty and harassment committed by the husband that led to the suicide of the wife. In simple words, the apex court stated that a husband cannot be punished based on the presumption of his abetment of his wife's suicide unless there is clear evidence of incessant harassment. 

The bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, "Mere than the fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply." The court said that before making presumptions under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must show evidence of harassment to prove Section 306 of the IPC. 

The bench added, "In the case of an accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide, and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence." 

Background of the Case

The man in question married the deceased wife, Rani, in 1992. A year after the marriage, the wife died by suicide. Later, allegations were made against the husband for harassing Rani for money. Consequently, he was booked under Section 306 of the IPC. He appeared before the trial court and was convicted in 1998.

An appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Courts against the order of the Trial Court. However, the high court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial court in 2008. Eventually, the man filed a plea before the Supreme Court, questioning the judgement of the high court. 

The man's counsel submitted that there was no evidence that even remotely suggested that he harassed his wife, Rani. However, the state's counsel said that there was no error of the law and that the wife had died within 7 years of marriage. 

In India, if a woman suffers an unnatural, suspicious, or suicidal death within 7 years of being married, certain sections of the law mandate an inquest into the incident. This section is part of the laws created to protect women from dowry harassment. 

What can and cannot be termed harassment in connection with suicide?

After listening to the testimonies of the deceased woman's father and brother, the court said that the reason behind the woman's suicide is still unclear. The court further said that merely mending money from the woman or her parents, without doing anything more, doesn't fall under "cruelty or harassment."

“It appears from the evidence of both these witnesses that on account of such demand, the deceased used to remain tense…the plain reading of the oral evidence of both these witnesses does not disclose any form of incessant cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband which would in ordinary circumstances drag the wife to commit suicide as if she was left with no other alternative," the judges said.



Referring to a judgement in the case Kashibai& Others v. The State of Karnataka (2023), the court said that in order to prove abetment under Section 107 of the IPC (Abetment of a thing), there has to be evidence for "instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the accused,” and to prove someone guilty under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be cogent evidence for "a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.”

But in the present case, the court said, there was no evidence of incessant harassment or former intentions of the husband that might have led to the woman's suicide. 

The court clearly said that mere harassment is not sufficient to hold a man guilty of abetment. There must be a direct action that led a woman to end her life. "The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.”

The role of Intention in crime

The court further elaborated on the idea of intention and said, "A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both of these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).”

The court also noted the time it took for the appellant man to get over his ordeal. It lamented that the lower courts made the man suffer for 30 years when the apex court solved the matter in less than 10 minutes. “Criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment," the court said.