The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of cruelty and abetment of his wife’s suicide, holding that matrimonial disputes or discord, without evidence of intentional instigation or assistance, are insufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had reversed the accused’s acquittal and convicted him under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and found that the High Court overturned the trial court’s reasoned decision without recording that the view taken by the Sessions Court was perverse, impossible or unsupported by the evidence.
“In our view, the High Court was in error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant without coming to a finding that the view taken by the Sessions Court in favour of the appellant was either perverse or was impossible in view of the evidence on record,” the Court observed.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Compilation – August 2026
The appellant married the deceased in January 2008. According to the prosecution, the deceased was subsequently harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law on various grounds.
It was alleged that her relatives noticed instances of harassment when they visited her matrimonial home. The prosecution also claimed that an argument took place between the appellant and the deceased when they visited her parental home for her father’s death anniversary in May 2008.
The deceased gave birth to a daughter in July 2009. The prosecution alleged that the harassment continued even after the delivery and that she was not provided proper food.
On November 16, 2009, the deceased consumed a poisonous substance and was taken to hospital. She died during treatment. A forensic examination detected traces of the insecticide Endosulfan.
Following an investigation, the appellant, his mother and his two sisters were charged under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including members of the deceased’s family, a neighbour, a medical officer, a pharmacist, a Gram Panchayat secretary and the investigating officer.
After evaluating the evidence, the Sessions Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish either an unlawful demand for dowry or specific acts of cruelty.
The trial court found that much of the prosecution evidence was hearsay and expressed only in general terms. No injuries were found on the deceased’s body, and no earlier complaint alleging physical torture had been made before any authority.
It also found that the allegations concerning demands for money or pressure on the deceased to obtain a loan appeared to be afterthoughts. No witness had testified that the deceased had been threatened with any particular consequences.
The Sessions Court accordingly acquitted all four accused on June 10, 2010.
The Himachal Pradesh government challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
Although the High Court maintained the acquittal of the appellant’s mother and sisters, it concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges against the husband beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court held that the deceased had been subjected to torture and abuse which drove her to commit suicide within a relatively short period of the marriage.
It sentenced the appellant to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for abetment of suicide under Section 306. For the offence of cruelty under Section 498A, he was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. The prison sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution witnesses had made general allegations without describing any specific incident involving torture, harassment or a dowry demand.
The deceased’s mother testified that her daughter would call and complain about being tortured and kept hungry. However, she admitted that she had not reported the alleged torture to any authority. She also acknowledged that the deceased and the appellant appeared happy whenever they visited the parental home.
Several omissions in the mother’s police statement were also brought out during cross-examination. These included the alleged incident in which the appellant had slapped the deceased in her presence and a purported telephone call in which the deceased complained about torture.
The deceased’s sisters and cousin similarly made allegations of a general nature. The sisters admitted that whenever they visited the matrimonial home, they were received and treated properly.
The Supreme Court noted that these witnesses did not provide particulars of any definite act of torture or harassment.
The Court also referred to the evidence of a woman living near the deceased’s matrimonial home. She testified that the accused enjoyed a good social reputation and that she had never heard about any dispute between the deceased and her husband.
The neighbour further stated that the appellant had made every possible effort to save his wife and that, according to her, the deceased had consumed poison by mistake.
A pharmacist testified that the appellant came to his shop on the morning of the incident and informed him that his wife was unwell. The appellant requested him to accompany him and provide medicine.
After reaching the house, the pharmacist administered an injection to the deceased. She reportedly informed him that she had consumed something from a bottle, believing it to be medicine. On examining the empty bottle, the pharmacist discovered that it contained poison and advised the appellant to take her to hospital immediately.
The appellant promptly arranged a vehicle and shifted his wife to the hospital. The post-mortem examination did not reveal any injury on her body.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to closely examine the detailed reasons given by the Sessions Court.
Its discussion was confined to two paragraphs in which it concluded that the deceased had been physically and mentally harassed. The High Court also stated that the appellant had abused and dragged the deceased in the presence of her mother and sisters.
The Supreme Court, however, said that it could not find such evidence on record. The witnesses themselves had admitted during cross-examination that they had not made such statements before the police.
The High Court’s conclusion was therefore “totally unsustainable” and based on material that was not available on record, the Supreme Court held.
Explaining the principles applicable to an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court said an appellate court possesses the power to reconsider the evidence. That power must, however, be exercised while giving due weight to the trial judge’s assessment of witnesses and the continuing presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
The presumption of innocence is not weakened when the accused has already been acquitted by the trial court. If two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the view favouring the accused must ordinarily be adopted.
The appellate court must also remember that the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of witnesses while their evidence was being recorded.
Before disturbing an acquittal, the appellate court must therefore explain why the trial court misread the evidence or reached a conclusion that was perverse or impossible. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had recorded no such finding in the present case.
The Supreme Court separately examined whether the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide had been established.
It reiterated that a conviction under Section 306 must satisfy the requirements of abetment contained in Section 107 of the IPC. There must be evidence of a specific act of aid, instigation or intentional assistance by the accused, accompanied by the necessary intention to drive the deceased to suicide.
The Court observed that there may have been some disputes or discord in the matrimonial relationship. Such discord, however, could not by itself constitute abetment of suicide.
“There is no evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment by the appellant,” the Bench held.
The appellant’s conduct immediately after discovering that his wife had consumed the substance also weighed with the Court. The evidence established that he sought medical assistance and shifted her to hospital without delay.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Sessions Court had correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
