The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has acquitted a husband and his family members of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that general and omnibus allegations of harassment, unsupported by specific instances, cannot form the basis of a conviction for cruelty or abetment of suicide.
Allowing the appeals, Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that “the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”
The Court noted that the informant and witnesses made vague assertions of dowry demands and harassment without specifying dates, amounts, or distinct roles attributable to each accused. The Court further noted the statement of a witness, in cross-examination, that the accused had taken the deceased to the hospital and held that such conduct was inconsistent with an intention to abet suicide. Referring to State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Raj, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 410, the Court reiterated that taking the victim to the hospital is a circumstance consistent with innocence.
The Court held that mere allegations of matrimonial discord or harassment, in the absence of a direct nexus between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide, are insufficient to attract Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
The Court, accordingly, acquitted all the appellants and directed that the fines deposited, if any, be refunded in accordance with law.
Cases Referred
Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184
Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023 INSC 779
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621
Appearances
Appellants- Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, vice Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. (in both the appeals)
Respondent- Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General. (in both the appeals)
