Judgment reserved on:22.12.2025 Judgment delivered on:18.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2011 Sunil Dutt Pathak ......Appellant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006, whereby the Appellant, Sunil Dutt Pathak, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of ₹10,000/, with a default stipulation.

2. The case, as unfolded in the First Information Report and during trial, is that the deceased, who was the legally wedded wife of the Appellant, committed suicide by hanging on 15.09.2004 at her matrimonial home situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. It was allegedthat the Appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased and, on that account, subjected her to mental harassment and humiliation. Such conduct on the part of the Appellant created an unbearable situation for the deceased, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide.

4. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There was no allegation of homicidal violence.

5. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006.

6. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the Appellant of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, holding that the ingredients of dowry death and cruelty in connection with dowry were not established beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 306 IPC, observing that the conduct of the Appellant in suspecting the character of his wife amounted to abetment of suicide.

7. The conviction under Section 306 IPC is thus founded not on any allegation of dowry demand or physical cruelty, but essentially on the allegation that the Appellant used to doubt the character of the deceased and allegedly subjected her to mental harassment on that basis.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The procedural journey of this appeal, including its admission and interim orders, is reflected in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC have not been established, and therefore, the conviction under Section 306 IPC is legally unsustainable.

10. It is submitted that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove not only the fact of suicide but also that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, coupled with the requisite mens rea.

11. Learned Counsel contends that in the present case, there is no evidence of any specific overt act on the part of the Appellant immediately preceding the suicide. There is no allegation of any direct incitement, exhortation, or conduct compelling the deceased to take the extreme step.

12. It is further argued that the allegation that the Appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased, even if taken at face value, does not constitute “instigation” within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. Suspicion, strained relations, or marital discord, by themselves, do not amount to abetment unless accompanied by active incitement or intentio