It is perfectly in order and is entirely in the fitness of things that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ravindra Singh vs The State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary in Criminal Appeal No. 1919 of 2013 that was pronounced on February 13, 2025 has acquitted a man who had been convicted nearly three decades ago for allegedly causing his wife’s suicide. The top court maintained most explicitly that mere allegations of harassment or strained relations were not enough to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which criminalizes abetment of suicide. It also underscored that a conviction for abetment to suicide requires more than past quarrels or emotional strain in the marital relationship.

It is certainly of prime importance to take into account that the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JK Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Aravind Kumar who authored this notable judgment minced absolutely just no words to state unequivocally that:
Merely because there was some dispute between the parties by itself would not establish the act of abetment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased. Hence, the Apex Court deemed it absolutely fit to set aside the findings of the Trial Court and High Court on the ground that there was no direct evidence to prove that the accused had instigated or intentionally driven the deceased to take her own life. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this refreshing, robust, rational and remarkable judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, Present appeal is against impugned judgment dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the Trial Court and acquittal of other three co-accused persons, viz., Bijendra Singh (brother-in-law), Bindra Devi (mother-in-law) and Bimla Devi (sister-in-law). The appellant has been convicted for the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short referred as ‘IPC’) and directed to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default 2 months of imprisonment.

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating briefly on the facts of the prosecution case envisages in para 2 that:
The prosecution case in brief is that the incident was of the intervening night of 15th and 16th May 1997. In the morning around 8 AM on 16.05.1997, Bijendra Singh and Khem Singh reached to informant’s house, who is the father of the deceased and informed about the death of Cheta Devi in her matrimonial house at Pangar. The informant first went to Police Station (P.S.), Tehri and gave oral intimation of the incident, and then visited Pangar. He saw the body of his daughter lying completely in burnt condition.

The officers posted at Police Chowki Bhagirathi Puram reached on the spot and prepared the inquest, and the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on 17.05.1997 by Dr. K. K. Tamta (PW-1), wherein the cause of death was found as shock due to ante-mortem burn injuries. Subsequently, an FIR dated 20.05.1997 was registered for offence under section 306 of IPC against appellant and other three co-accused persons, viz., Bijendra Singh (brother-in-law), Bindra Devi (mother-in-law) and Bimla Devi (sister-in-law). After recording the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for an offence of section 306 of IPC against all the four accused persons. The Trial Court framed the charge of section 306 of IPC and tried all the accused persons for the said charge. Vide judgment dated 03.10.2001, the trial Court acquitted Bijendra Singh, Bindra Devi and Bimla Devi while convicting the appellant and directed to undergo the sentence of seven years which was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

To be sure, the Bench stipulates in para 7 stating that:
In view of the above, the short question falls for our consideration is whether the allegations as alleged and the evidence brought by prosecution in the facts of the present case are sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 107 of IPC by which commission of the offence under section 306 of IPC can be established?

Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 that:
While analyzing the question, it is first necessary to refer to the allegations made in FIR Exhibit Ka-8 lodged by Prem Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased. On perusal, it can be learned that the marriage of the deceased and appellant was solemnized long back. Initially their relations were cordial and two children were born from the wedlock. Later, on appointment of the appellant in a school situated at Nagani, he started to reside at Nagani with two children and his mother, while the deceased was staying alone in their ancestral home at Pangar. The distance between Nagani and Pangar is about 22-23 Kms. In the FIR, it was further said while appellant was staying at Nagani, his relations with deceased became sour.

In fact, a dispute arose two days prior to incident on 14.05.1997, due to which the deceased came to her parental house in Patudi and complained about abusing, spitting on her, beating and threatening by in-laws. Consequent to this, her parents went along with the deceased to Pangar to enquire about and returned to Patudi on next day i.e., 15th May 1997. In the intervening night of 15th May 1997, the incident took place wherein she died due to burn injuries. Information was given by brother Bijendra Singh and one independent person Khem Singh. Initially, the allegation in FIR was of commission of murder. But after investigation, the police found it to be a case of abetment to commit suicide and accordingly filed the chargesheet for the offence under section 306 of IPC.

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 9 that:
For the purpose of the offence of abetment, prosecution relied on two documents Exhibit Ka-2 and Exhibit Ka-3. Exhibit Ka-2 is a complaint made by deceased to Principal of school in which the appellant was working indicating maltreatment by appellant, Bindra Devi and Bhawani Devi. Simultaneously, a police complaint was also made in P.S. Chamba, where a settlement Exhibit Ka-3 took place between them.

It was also alleged by the respondent-State that appellant was having an extra-marital affair with a lady namely Bhawani Devi. It is urged by the respondent-State that the act of instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of offence of suicide was not only because of maltreatment of the deceased by the appellant, but also precipitated by extra-marital affair of appellant with Bhawani Devi. However, if we look at the postmortem report Exhibit Ka-1 as proved by PW1-Dr. K.K. Tamta, the cause of death was shock due to ante-mortem burn injuries by fire, and upon external or internal examination no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. Thus, it is clear that the deceased died as a consequence of burn injuries.

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench points out in para 10 that:
In this context, if we further examine the testimonies of the star witnesses; PW-4, Prem Singh (father of deceased), PW-2 Gabli Devi (mother of deceased) and PW-3 Avval Singh (brother of deceased), who have stated the contents of FIR on the fact of marriage and quarrel dated 14.05.1997; and they have also deposed about old disputes as well. From their statement, it is also clear that appellant and deceased both were staying at different places, i.e., in Nagani and Pangar respectively and there was an ongoing conflict between them. However, from the statements, the allegations of extra-marital affairs have not been proved.

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding that:
On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that an offence of abetment involves mens rea to instigate or intentionally aid a person in doing a thing, and it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, after perusal of the evidence brought on record, it is not proved that appellant had the intention to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased. Further, merely because there was some dispute between the parties by itself would not establish the act of abetment.

Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased. Further, prima facie from the FIR it can be seen that the allegations were of commission of murder and not of abetment to commit suicide. Prosecution on the basis of Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3 had attempted to make a case of abetment, which is not brought to home by the testimonies of the star witnesses and other evidence. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence, the charge under section 306 of IPC against appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment holding clearly that:
Thus, after analyzing the evidence brought on record, Exhibit Ka-2 and Ka-3, and the testimonies of the witnesses PW-2 Gabli Devi, PW-3 Avval Singh and PW-4 Prem Singh we are of the considered view that evidence placed on record are not sufficient to prove the allegations of abetment to commit suicide against appellant under section 306 of IPC. The trial Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment while convicting the appellant has erroneously appreciated the evidence as discussed above. Therefore, the findings of conviction and sentence as directed by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court stands set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 17 holding that:
Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted from the charge of commission of offence under section 306 of IPC. The appellant is on bail and his bail bond shall stand discharged.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 18 that:
The original records received from the High Court/trial Court be returned forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

In conclusion, we thus see that the top court very rightly acquitted the husband. There was no evidence on record to prove that the husband was responsible for instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the deceased. It was very rightly pointed out by the Bench in para 15 that:
From the evidence on record, we find that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. On these aspects, we can take guidance from the judgments of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (supra), Velladurai v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (supra) and Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of Gujarat (supra). So accused was thus finally acquitted by the Supreme Court! Rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh