Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Kulwinder Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-28044 of 2025
Decided On : 26-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Verma, Senior DAG Punjab

The absence of a suicide note and lack of evidence for instigation in a marital dispute do not justify a charge under Section 306 IPC, highlighting the need for substantial proof in abetment cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 506, 34 - Grant of bail in a case of alleged instigation to commit suicide - Absence of a suicide note and lack of cogent evidence to establish provocation or instigation on the part of the petitioner leads to a conclusion that the allegations are improbable - Marriage disputes should not automatically imply abetment to suicide - Petitioner has clean antecedents and has already suffered incarceration for over a year - Co-accused granted bail and trial not progressing. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8)

(B) Right to speedy trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to a fair trial cannot be denied, and inordinate delays infringe this right. (Paras 6 and 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a suicide case of her husband, who allegedly consumed poison due to marital discord and her supposed illicit relationship with another individual. The FIR details quarrels leading to the husband's demise.

Findings of Court:
The State failed to present sufficient evidence of provocation for suicide and concluded that the petitioner does not pose a flight risk due to clean antecedents and prior incarceration.

Issues: Whether allegations of marital discord constituted instigation for suicide.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a suicide note and cogent evidence exonerated the petitioner, emphasizing that marital disputes alone do not establish abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Result: Petition for bail granted.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2^nd time under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023 grant of regular bail in FIR No.83 dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 306 , 506, 34 of IPC , 1860 ( Section 506 deleted later on) registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

“Statement of Gurpreet Singh son of Charhat Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Kangan Khera, aged about 24 years, Mobile No. 98784 38639. Stated that I am residing at above noted address and is agriculturist by profession. We are two brothers & one sister. All three are married. The marriage of my elder brother Lovepreet Singh had taken place on 19.2.2024 with Kulwinder Kaur daughter of Ram Chand, resident of Village Burj, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad (Haryana) as per religious rites & ceremonies. After few days from marriage, my sister in law (bharjai) Kulwinder Kaur started having quarrel with my brother Lovpreet Singh. The dispute kept rising with the passage of time. My brother Lovpreet Singh started remaining silent & sad. I asked my brother time & again as to what is reason, on which, he said that my wife Kulwinder Kaur use to have telephonic conversation as well as chatting & video calls with someone, I have tried to persuade her time & again, but she is not mending her ways, due to which reason, 'I am so upset. My brother Lovpreet Singh further told me that I have also asked my mother in law Reshma wife of Ram Chand, resident of Village Burj, Tehsil Ratia that you may persuade your daughter, on which, my mother in law went to say that my daughter is having friendship with Vijay Kumar son of Malkit Singh, resident of Village Raipur, Tehsil Ratia since long period, hence she will keep having conversations with him My brother told me that telephonic conversations often take place between Mobila No. 93504 43619 of my bharjai Kulwinder Kaur, Mobile No. 94180 52371 of said Vijay Kumar & Mobile No.9568567688 belonging to Reshma (his mother in law). After due consideration, we family dropped my bharjai at Village Burj, Tehsil Ratia, but even after that, Kulwinder Kaur & Reshma kept of harassing my brother. Hence my brother Lovpreet Singh, having fed up at the hands of Kulwinder Kaur, Reshma (mother in law) and Vijay Kumar, friend of my bharjai, consumed the insecticide, lying in store, As his condition was so serious, hence we got him admitted in Juneja Hospital, Malout, from where the Doctor, keeping in view his condition, further referred to AdeshHospital, where my brother Lovpreet Singh passed away on 21.5.2024 at about 06.00 Hrs. during the course of treatment. My brother Lovpreet Singh hascommitted suicide by consuming insecticide on having fed up at the hands of his wife Kulwinder Kaur, Reshma, mother in law, residents of village Burj, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad and Vijay Kumar, friend of his wife Kulwinder Kaur, son of Malkit Singh, resident of Village Raipur, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. Hence due legal action may be please taken against all three of them. Statement got recorded with you, heard, it is correct. Sd/ Gurpreet Singh.”

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the story narrated by the complainant is highly improbable since as per the facts narrated in the FIR, there is no allegation of instigation at the hands of the present petitioner for compelling the deceased-Lovepreet Singh to commit suicide and there is no suicide note which would corroborate the version of the complainant, therefore, no offence under Sections mentioned above is made out. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as conclusion of trial would take long time as out of total 14 Pros