Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct instigation or a positive act proximate to the suicide; mere allegations of mental harassment or marital discord, without evidence that the deceased was left with no other option, do not constitute abetment.

Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/12/2025

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 08/12/2025

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/12/2025.

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the judgment dated 01.05.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.40/97 (109/97)whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo six years’ RI with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to further undergo three months RI.

2. The prosecution case originates from an incident dated 08.11.1996, when Smt. Lal Kunwar was admitted in a critical condition at Badi Sadri Hospital. On receiving medical intimation, Head Constable Devilal recorded her statement (Ex. P-6) in the presence of the attending doctor, wherein she alleged that due to persistent marital discord arising from an alleged illicit relationship between her husband, accused Govind Singh, and a tenant named Annu Madam, she was subjected to mental harassment.

2.1. According to the deceased, owing to frequent quarrels, she had left her matrimonial home at Badi Sadri and had been residing at her in-laws’ house at Antar. On the evening of the incident, Annu Madam, along with her son and another person, allegedly visited her and insisted that she return to Badi Sadri, which she refused. Soon thereafter, Lal Kunwar consumed a poisonous substance, resulting in serious deterioration of her health. She was taken to the hospital by an unknown person. Lal Kunwar succumbed to her condition on 10.11.1996 at Udaipur Hospital. Post-mortem was conducted and viscera was preserved for chemical examination. Initially, a case was registered and after investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC was filed against accused Govind Singh and Sunita. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

2.2. During trial, charges under Section 306 IPC were framed, which the accused denied. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all allegations. Accused Govind Singh asserted cordial marital relations, while accused Sunita claimed false implication. In defence, two witnesses were examined, who stated that Lal Kunwar had consented to Govind Singh’s second marriage due to absence of children and that there was no history of harassment or discord.

2.3. Upon completion of trial, the learned Court convicted the accused for the offence above and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants’ conviction under Section 306 IPC is wholly unsustainable, as the prosecution has failed to establish any direct act, instigation, or coercion by them that could have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. It is further asserted that the deceased had multiple reasonable alternatives available, including seeking protection, redressal, or severing matrimonial ties, and that suicide was neither inevitable nor the last recourse. He further submit that the dying declaration and other evidence relied upon by the prosecution are insufficient, inconsistent, and contradicted by defence witnesses, who testified that the deceased had consented to the second marriage and there was no history of harassment or discord. Lastly, he argued that the instant appeal maybe allowed as there is no mens rea or proximate conduct on their part to attract criminal liability un