Mere Derogatory Remarks by Husband Insufficient For Conviction Under Abetment to Suicide: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket noticed that derogatory remarks by husband in matrimonial life alone can’t be thought of adequate to the extent to represent abetment until one thing extra-ordinary has been proven on or simply earlier than the date of incident.
An enchantment was filed towards the order of the trial court docket convicting and sentencing husband and father-in-law underneath Sections 306/34 of the IPC and sentenced to endure Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with effective of Rs. 1000/-.
A Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noticed, “Derogatory comment or quarrel by husband in matrimonial life alone can’t be thought of adequate to the extent to represent abetment until one thing extra-ordinary, greater than regular put on and tear of married life, is proven on or simply earlier than the date of incident…The Hon’ble Supreme Court docket reiterated that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide underneath Part 306 of the IPC, it should be proved by the prosecution that the accused, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no different choice besides to commit suicide.”
Advocate Anuja Sharma represented the Appellants, whereas Advocate R.C.S Deo represented the Respondent.
Case Temporary
The case of Prosecution is that the Appellants are husband and father-in-law of the deceased, who burnt herself by pouring kerosene on herself as she was being taunted by them. Accordingly, after investigation, the Police registered a criminal offense towards the husband and father-in-law underneath Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was contended that the important components of Part 306 IPC usually are not fulfilled, as there seems to be no provocation or instigative act in shut temporal proximity to the incident. Additional, the language employed within the dying declaration doesn’t mirror any direct inducement that left the deceased-wife with no different recourse however to take such an excessive step.
Court docket’s Evaluation
Whereas referring to Part 113A of the Indian Proof Act, the Court docket opined that there is no such thing as a direct proof adduced by the Prosecution towards the husband and father-in-law having abetted the deceased into committing suicide.
“Within the instantaneous case, the entire above witnesses have said of their statements that the wedding between the appellant and the Deceased was solemnized 12 years in the past and so they had two youngsters. Thus, it’s obvious from the proof that 12 years of marriage has handed and no any earlier report was lodged relating to any harassment or instigation by the Deceased. Thus, the components of presumption of abetment of suicide that the suicide has been dedicated inside 7 years from the date of her marriage was not proved”, the Court docket added.
Additional, the Court docket emphasised that after twelve years of marriage, the one allegation towards the husband and father-in-law was that they chanted the deceased ‘चरकट’, when she provided meals to a mason and as such, she dedicated suicide.
The Court docket noticed, “I discover not one of the components required in regulation to make out a case underneath Part 306 IPC to be even remotely talked about within the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the fabric on file. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true can’t be stated to be of such a nature as to go away the deceased with no different various however to place an finish to her life.”
Accordingly, the Attraction was allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set-aside.
Trigger Title: Kamal Kumar Sahu V. State of Chhattisgarh (Impartial Quotation: 2025:CGHC:28241)
