Taunts Over Childlessness And Marital Discord Not Abetment To Suicide; Contemporary Women Are More Resilient: J&K&L High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband And In-Laws
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar upheld the acquittal of a man and his parents who had been tried on allegations that the woman’s suicide was linked to pressure over her inability to conceive after several years of marriage. The Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed that the material on record did not demonstrate any conduct amounting to instigation or participation in the act of suicide. It noted that disagreements within a household or isolated remarks, even if unpleasant, do not satisfy the threshold required for abetment under Section 306 RPC. Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the offence, the Bench declined to interfere with the trial court’s findings.
The matter originated from a written report submitted on 27.07.2011 by the father of the deceased to the local police station, stating that his daughter, married for about five years, had been found dead at her matrimonial home. He alleged that she had been subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws due to her inability to conceive a child and that this treatment had compelled her to take her life.
During investigation, it was established that the deceased had died by hanging. The Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem reported a ligature mark on the neck and concluded that death had occurred due to asphyxia caused by hanging, with no other external injuries present on the body.
The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the deceased’s father, brother, cousin, neighbours, police officials, and the medical expert. The family members spoke about occasional disputes, the husband’s drinking habit, and alleged taunts relating to childlessness, though they acknowledged that no previous complaints had been lodged. Some witnesses also stated that they initially received information that the deceased had died of a heart attack but later suspected suicide after observing marks on her neck.
The accused were charged with the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code. They denied the allegations during their statements and did not present defence evidence.
The Court recorded that “in the case of an acquittal, a ‘double presumption’ operates in favour of the accused” and stated that “if two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence available on record, the appellate court should refrain from disturbing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.”
While assessing the allegations, the Bench observed that “none of the witnesses has deposed any specific instance or occasion when such taunts or acts of cruelty were made, thereby rendering this allegation unproven.” It further stated that “while consumption of liquor is undoubtedly an undesirable habit, its implications vary from person to person, depending upon the domestic atmosphere and social context, and therefore cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of abetment to suicide.”
The Court observed: “Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deceased was unable to bear a child and that she was occasionally taunted for it, such an accusation, though distressing, cannot by itself attract the ingredients of Section 306 RPC. Undoubtedly, a woman expects dignity and respect in her matrimonial home, yet, what Section 306 contemplates is intentional instigation or persistent cruelty of such nature as to drive a person to end her life. Domestic discords and differences are common in marital relationships.”
The Bench added: “The inability to conceive may arise from various causes, and individuals react differently to emotional stress. It often happens that temporary disputes or misunderstandings make a spouse feel uncomfortable within the matrimonial setting. However, an ordinary prudent person is expected not to take an extreme step merely on that account. In contemporary times, women are more aware, independent, and resilient in addressing such domestic issues.”
The Court recorded that “this case does not qualify as one warranting conviction under Section 306 RPC” and that the “Trial Court has meticulously examined the material on record and arrived at a just and proper conclusion in acquitting the respondents. We find no perversity or infirmity in the findings returned by the Trial Court” and therefore “Appeal is therefore dismissed and sent for records.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
For the Respondents: Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate
Case Title: State of J&K through SHO Police Station Jhajjar Kotli v. Sanjay Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CrlA (AD) No. 7/2020
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar
