The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has acquitted a man who had been convicted more than three decades ago for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased had taken place about four years prior to the incident and that a three-year-old child had been born from the wedlock. The post-mortem report confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia and that no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Importantly, the Court observed that there was no medical or forensic evidence suggesting any physical violence or foul play.
The case arose from an incident dated 4 April 1994, when the appellant himself lodged a report at Police Station Guddamalani stating that his wife, Smt. Loonga, had committed suicide at their matrimonial home. Initially, proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated, and an inquest was conducted by the Tehsildar, Chuna Ram, who had been authorised by the District Magistrate. The parents of the deceased participated in the inquest proceedings. Subsequently, on the basis of the inquest report, a regular criminal case was registered, culminating in the filing of a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 306 IPC.
After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, convicted the appellant in December 1994 and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹100. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant approached the High Court. During the hearing of the appeal, the Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the appellant under the free legal aid scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
While the prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, the Court found significant weaknesses in the evidence. The father of the deceased initially went so far as to allege that his daughter had been killed, an allegation which was later negated by the prosecution itself. The testimonies of the parents were found to be inconsistent and contradictory, particularly when compared with the statements made during the inquest proceedings, where no allegations of cruelty, harassment, or dowry demand were raised.
The Court also took note of the admitted existence of a social custom involving a cross-marriage arrangement between the families and the subsequent dispute arising from the discontinuance of a betrothal. These strained family relations, according to the Court, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations made after the death. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint or prior report regarding alleged cruelty further weakened the prosecution case.
The High Court held that even if it were assumed that the deceased was scolded or rebuked by her husband for visiting her parental home, such conduct by itself could not amount to “cruelty” or “abetment” as contemplated under Section 306 IPC.
The Court reiterated that abetment requires clear proof of instigation, intentional aid, or persistent conduct that leaves the victim with no option but to end their life.
The Court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. It cautioned against the mechanical invocation of Section 306 IPC, stressing that courts must carefully examine whether the accused’s conduct had a direct and proximate link with the act of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without cogent evidence of instigation or incitement close in time to the suicide, were held to be insufficient.
The High Court held that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the legal requirements of abetment. The conviction and sentence were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. While discharging his bail bonds, the Court directed the appellant to comply with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. by furnishing bonds to ensure his appearance in the event of any further appeal before the Supreme Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Rupa Ram Versus The State Of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 12/1995
Date: 09/01/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Kusha Sharma (Amicus Curiae)
Counsel For Respondent: Rajesh Bhati, AGA
