Safiya Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench of Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, has acquitted a woman who was convicted by the Sessions Court for abetting the suicide of her stepdaughter. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased had in fact committed suicide, and that the sole allegation against the accused — that she told the deceased she could "take poison and die" when the latter complained of her father's misconduct — amounted to nothing more than a stray remark, insufficient in law to constitute abetment.

The case arose from allegations concerning the death of a minor girl who had been residing with her father and stepmother after the death of her biological mother. According to the prosecution, the girl had earlier been raised by her maternal relatives. It was alleged that after the father remarried, the girl began residing with him and the stepmother. On one occasion, the girl allegedly contacted her maternal relatives and informed them that she was under distress and that her father had made immoral advances toward her. She also expressed apprehension regarding danger to her life. The following day, when her maternal relatives reached the village, they were informed that the girl had died and that her body had already been cremated without informing either them or the police.

Also Read: Arbitration | Party's Active Participation And Acquiescence In Proceedings Bars Belated Jurisdictional Challenge After Adverse Award: Supreme Court

A complaint was subsequently submitted to the police, leading to registration of offences under Sections 306, 354 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and charges were framed. During trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the complainant and relatives of the deceased, who deposed about the alleged telephonic disclosure made by the girl. The prosecution also examined formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer and telecommunications officials who were called to establish the alleged calls. Remains recovered from the cremation ground were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

During the pendency of the appeal, one of the accused died and proceedings against him abated. The appeal therefore continued only with respect to the remaining accused. The defence contended that the conviction was unsustainable as no specific act of instigation or intentional aiding had been attributed to the surviving accused. It was further argued that the delay in lodging the complaint, absence of post-mortem examination, and lack of medical evidence regarding cause of death created serious doubt about the prosecution case.

The Court examined the statutory framework relating to abetment of suicide and the evidentiary record in the case. It recorded that the offence under Section 306 IPC requires proof of suicide as well as proof that such suicide was abetted by the accused. The Court stated: “to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish (i) that a person committed suicide and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused.”

Referring to Section 107 IPC, the Court recorded: “A person abets the doing of a thing, who—First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing… or Thirdly. —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

While assessing the prosecution evidence, the Court observed that the foundational element of suicide itself had not been proved. It recorded: “In the present case no post-mortem examination was conducted; the ashes and remains sent to the FSL did not reveal presence of poison… there is no medical or scientific evidence conclusively establishing that the death was suicidal in nature.”

The Court further stated: “In criminal jurisprudence, the foundational fact of suicide cannot be presumed. In the absence of medical evidence or cogent material, it cannot be conclusively held that the deceased committed suicide.”

Even assuming the death to be suicidal, the Court examined whether abetment was established. It recorded: “the only allegation against the appellant… is that when Sushma complained about her father's conduct, the appellant allegedly told her that if she was ashamed, she could take poison and die.” The Court observed that “the alleged statement, even if accepted as true, at the most appears to be a stray remark.”

The Court also recorded: “There is neither any evidence of sustained harassment by the appellant nor any proximate and live link between the alleged remark and the alleged suicide.”

Addressing the evidentiary standard, the Court observed: “Criminal liability under Section 306 IPC requires proof of mens rea and a clear nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.” It further stated: “However strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of evidence.”

The Court also took note of procedural aspects including delay in filing the complaint, recording: “there is an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR… the possibility of deliberation and embellishment cannot be ruled out.”

Also Read: "No Work No Pay" Not Applicable When Employee Kept Away From Higher Post By Administrative Error: Punjab & Haryana High Court

he Court directed: “the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant-Somta Devi cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of all charges. Her bail bonds, if any, shall also stand discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana

Case Title: Gugan Ram and Another v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:029812
Case Number: CRA-S-2198-SB-2004
Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal