Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant, father of deceased husband, challenging the Trial Court’s judgment acquitting Respondents 2 to 6 (‘wife and her brothers’) accused of abetting the husband’s suicide, punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Neena Bansal Krishna J., found no act of incitement by the wife and her brothers, proximate to the day on which the deceased committed suicide. The Court stated that it might be a case where the deceased was unhappy and dejected with his marriage, but no act of abetment can be made out either from the suicide note or from the testimony of the parents. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Trial Court rightly concluded that there was no positive action by the wife that created a situation for the deceased to put an end to his life.
Background:
In the present case, the deceased committed suicide on 2-5-2010 by hanging himself. On 3-5-2010, the deceased’s father handed over suicide note to Assistant Sub-Inspector, in which the deceased accused his wife and her family of harassing him and compelling him to take this extreme step, seeking their punishment. The deceased’s parents deposed that their daughter-in-law had refused to cook, and when they raised the matter with her family, they said she had never cooked and could not be compelled. The deceased’s parents did not file any formal complaint hoping that things would improve in future. They also stated that the wife had attempted to commit suicide many times, which was proved by medical documents.
The Trial Court judgment dated 24-2-2020 acquitted the wife and her brothers for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment.
The grounds of appeal were that the suicide note, in the deceased’s handwriting, clearly stated that he took the extreme step due to the conduct of his wife and her family members. It was also contended that the trial court wrongly observed that the deceased did not mention about any act of his wife or her relatives on the day of suicide. Additionally, the trial court erred in concluding that wife’s non-filing of any complaint against deceased or his family members after she tried to commit suicide, raises a probability that no such threat extended.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the offence under Section 306 IPC dealt with abetment of suicide and the most essential ingredient required to be established was abetment. The Court relied on various judgments and held that it was clear that to constitute abetment, there had to be instigation, encouragement or aid in committing of an act, which led to the commission of suicide.
Further the Court noted that both the father and mother of the deceased had deposed that on 2-5-2010, the deceased quarrelled with his wife and then thereafter committed suicide. However, in the absence of any evidence of there being any kind of instigation, encouragement or aiding on the part of the wife and her brothers, it could not be said that they were guilty of any act, which could be termed as abetment to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
The Court further noted that the suicide note was not recovered on the day the deceased committed suicide, and the Police commenced investigations. The appellant had handed over the suicide note to the police the next day. However, the manner in which the suicide note had been recovered on the next day was overlooked, since a handwriting expert had confirmed it was in deceased’s handwriting.
From the perusal of the suicide note, the Court observed that there was no act of incitement on the part of the wife and her brothers, proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The suicide note had no date, creating doubt about when it was written. It neither spelled out any circumstance, which could be labelled as abetment nor did it disclose any proximate reason for the suicide. The deceased might have been unhappy and dejected with his marriage but definitely, no act of abetment could be made out either from the suicide note or from the testimony of the parents.
The Court held that vague assertions, without specific incident or dates to conclude them to be acts of abetment were insufficient to prove abetment. The Trial Court had rightly concluded that there was no positive act by the wife that had created a situation for the deceased to put an end to his life. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
[Shiv Shankar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4822, decided on 10-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Shoaib Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Satish Kumar for Respondent-State, Aashish George, Jibin Jose, Advocates for Respondents 2 to 6
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
