In a criminal appeal filed before the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to challenge a judgment and order dated 30-08-2011 by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the appellant had been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with Rs. 10,000/- as fine, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellant.
On 15-09-2004, the appellant’s wife (deceased) committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home. It was alleged that the appellant was suspicious of his wife’s character and subjected her to mental harassment, which created an unbearable situation for the deceased, ultimately driving her to commit suicide. The Post Mortem Report was silent on the aspect of homicidal violence. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of offences under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, holding that the ingredients of dowry death and cruelty had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted him under Section 306.
The Court stated that to establish a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish that a person committed suicide and that the accused abetted the commission of said suicide. It was said that, as per the Supreme Court, mere harassment, ordinary domestic discord, or casual remarks cannot amount to instigation unless there is a clear mens rea and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
Further, the Court said that it must be shown that the accused intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide, but in the present matter, the entire case rests on the allegation that the appellant used to suspect his wife and subjected her to mental harassment. It was stated that the acquittal by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A indicated that the evidence was insufficient to establish cruelty or dowry-related harassment.
The Court stated that the impugned judgment failed to identify any distinct act of instigation or intentional aiding beyond the allegation of suspicion regarding the deceased’s character, and that criminal liability could not be fastened merely because the relationship between the spouses was strained.
It was said that the absence of any suicide note implicating the appellant was a significant fact since the evidence was otherwise general in nature and there was no material to show that the deceased blamed the appellant for her extreme step. The Court said that the tendency to convert moral blame into criminal liability must be guarded against by the courts unless statutory ingredients are strictly satisfied.
The Court stated that the Trial Court’s approach diluted the stringent requirements of Section 107 of the IPC and expanded the scope of Section 306 beyond its legislative intent. Hence, it was held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court opined that the State had failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment to sustain the appellant’s conviction and set aside the impugned judgment while allowing the appeal. Thus, the appellant was acquitted.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Siddharth Sah
For Respondent – Mr. Vijay Khanduri
