Mere Allegations of Harassment Over Dowry and Childlessness Not Sufficient for Proving Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Mother-in-Law
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Kirti Singh has held that mere allegations of harassment cannot, by themselves, constitute the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court acquitted the mother-in-law of the deceased, who had been convicted by the trial court for allegedly abetting her daughter-in-law’s suicide on claims of dowry-related harassment and pressure over the non-birth of a child. Finding no evidence of instigation, intention, or any proximate act linking the accused to the suicide, the Bench set aside the conviction and directed her acquittal.
The case arose from the death of a woman in her matrimonial home in April 2004, approximately nine years after her marriage to the son of the appellant. The complaint was lodged by the deceased’s brother, alleging that the deceased had been subjected to persistent harassment by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law for insufficient dowry and for not bearing a child. It was stated that the deceased had earlier been unwell and left at her parental home, later taken back after recovery, and that she continued to report maltreatment by her in-laws. On receiving information that the deceased was unwell, her parents reached her matrimonial home and found her dead. The police were informed the same day, and a case was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, including family members and police officials, to substantiate allegations of cruelty and abetment. The defence examined one witness and denied all allegations, asserting that the accused, an elderly mother-in-law, was falsely implicated. It was argued that the deceased, a well-educated teacher, had been suffering from depression due to childlessness and that her relationship with her in-laws was cordial. The defence also pointed out alleged inconsistencies in witness statements, a delay in lodging the FIR, and the non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.
The State contended that the harassment and maltreatment by the accused led the deceased to commit suicide and that the conviction under Section 306 IPC was justified. The trial court convicted the mother-in-law while acquitting the co-accused, holding her responsible for abetting the suicide. The conviction and sentence were subsequently challenged before the High Court by the appellant.
The Court observed that “Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients — first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to commit the said act by another person.” It was further recorded that to sustain a charge, “it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has conspired to and aided or instigated such commission by the deceased by way of some direct or indirect act.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679), the Court quoted: “The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation.” The Court also quoted: “Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life.”
The Court drew attention to another recent Supreme Court judgment in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which held that “a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide.” Citing Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Justice Singh reproduced that “a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
Justice Singh further quoted the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, stating that “mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” The judgment also cited S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, where it was held that “in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
The Court observed that “the prosecution has failed to prove in the present case any circumstances, which the appellant had created or contributed towards that had driven the deceased to put an end to her life.” Justice Singh noted that “there are glaring inconsistencies and material contradictions in the deposition of PW-4 Bishan Dass,” who was confronted with his earlier statement admitting that his daughter was under depression for want of a child and that her life at her in-laws’ house was cordial. The Court further recorded that the prosecution did not examine the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, which was a significant omission.
In her assessment, Justice Singh stated that “the prosecution was unable to point out or prove any active role on the part of the appellant to instigate or aid in commission of suicide by the deceased.” The Court added that in such cases, “there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide,” and that “mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide.”
Justice Kirti Singh held that “it is not even prima facie established that the appellant had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt a young woman has lost her life in an unfortunate incident, however, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellant had intended by her words or actions to push the deceased into such a position where she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would result in an abuse of process of law.”
“The impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant, as recorded by the learned Court concerned, are quashed and set aside. Appellant Parkash Kaur @ Parkash Rani is acquitted of the charges framed against her. The personal and surety bonds of the accused shall stand forthwith cancelled and discharged.” The Court added that if the appellant was in custody and not required in any other case, she should be released immediately.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, Ms. Komal Parveen Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, and Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the complainant.
Case Title: Parkash Kaur @ Parkash Rani v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:141794
Case Number: CRA-S-1168-SB-2006 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Kirti Singh
