Back
No Contact for 5 Months Before Wife's Suicide: Acquits Husband
A five-month-and-twelve-day silence between a married couple proved decisive in the as it overturned a husband's conviction for abetting his wife's suicide and subjecting her to cruelty.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the , acquitted Ankur Tandon on all charges, setting aside the trial court's judgment that had convicted him under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 306 ( of suicide) of the , along with Sections 3 and 4 of the . The trial court had already acquitted Tandon of the graver charge under Section 304-B (dowry death).
A Marriage Shadowed by Allegations
The case harked back to , when Monika married Tandon. The prosecution alleged that shortly after the marriage, Tandon and his family members began demanding ₹10 lakh as dowry to purchase a flat. Monika's father allegedly sold a plot of land and paid ₹6 lakh in cash, but the demands allegedly continued for the balance ₹4 lakh.
According to the prosecution, Monika was beaten and turned out of her matrimonial home, subjected to threats, and ultimately committed suicide by hanging on the night of . Two suicide notes recovered from the scene blamed Tandon for his alleged misbehaviour, ill-treatment, and an extramarital relationship.
The trial court, convinced by the prosecution's narrative, convicted Tandon on three counts. He was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹10,000 fine under ; seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹50,000 fine under ; and five years' rigorous imprisonment with a ₹15,000 fine under .
The Dowry Claim Unravels
The High Court's scrutiny exposed what it termed "serious discrepancies" in the prosecution's version of events. PW-1 (the complainant and sister of the deceased) had alleged that there were initially small demands — an air conditioner and roughly ₹1.5 lakh — before the quantum escalated to ₹10 lakh. Yet the deceased's father (PW-2), when examined, made no mention of these earlier demands.
The Court further noted that the prosecution never disclosed the particulars of the alleged plot sale — the date of execution of the sale deed, the amount of consideration, or when exactly the ₹6 lakh was allegedly handed over in cash. The person who allegedly received substantial sums in cash gave no bank records, a detail the Court found telling. The deceased herself had alleged in her FIR that the amounts extracted were deposited in bank accounts — a claim that contradicted the trial court's assumption that such cash is simply not banked.
"The trial Court has rejected the appellant's contention... by stating that such amounts are not deposited in Bank accounts,"
the judgment read,
"whereas the deceased herself had alleged that the amount extracted from her father was deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant and his mother."
A Point Often Overlooked: Giving Dowry Is Also a Crime
In a notable observation, the High Court flagged a provision that rarely surfaces in dowry prosecutions — criminalises giving as well as taking dowry. Had the prosecution actually proven that the deceased's father paid ₹6 lakh to Tandon, it would arguably have amounted to an admission of an offence by the giver, the Court reasoned.
"Thus, not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is an offence under
,"
Justice Vidyarthi observed. However, since the prosecution failed to establish the alleged payment
, neither the offence of giving nor taking dowry was made out.
The Court also noted the timeline of allegations. The first written complaint alleging dowry demand came only on , through an FIR lodged at — nearly six years after the marriage. Prior to that, it was Tandon who had filed a criminal complaint against his wife in , on which a Magistrate had summoned her. He had also filed divorce proceedings, alleging cruelty.
The Critical Silence: Five Months Without Contact
The crux of the High Court's reasoning — and the fatal flaw in the prosecution's case — was the complete absence of contact between the spouses in the period leading up to the suicide.
The trial court itself had acquitted Tandon under , reasoning that the couple had not been in contact since , when Monika lodged her FIR. Since she died on , there had been no communication for 5 months and 12 days .
"When the trial Court has held that the appellant had no contact with the deceased for the past 5 months and 12 days before the incident it cannot be said that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide even without there having been any contact or communication between them,"
the High Court observed.
The Legal Yardstick for
The judgment invoked a solid line of precedents to establish what constitutes of suicide. Relying on
, the Court noted that
"abaetment involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something"
and that there
"must be proof of
to the commission of suicide."
The offending action must be
— a requirement wholly unmet on the facts of this case.
Citing and , the Court emphasised that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient; there must be a , revealing clear , that leaves the victim with no option but to end their life.
"The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong,"
the High Court quoted from
Nipun Aneja
, finding this observation squarely applicable to the trial court's approach.
Presumption Without Foundation
The High Court also addressed the trial court's reliance on , which permits a presumption of of suicide where a married woman dies within seven years of marriage and cruelty is shown. But, as the Court emphasised, this presumption rests on a precondition: cogent evidence of cruelty.
"In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or
in any form like aiding or instigating, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by straightway invoking Section 113-A so as to presume that he has abetted the commission of suicide,"
the judgment held, drawing on the
's ruling in
A Strained Marriage, Not a Criminal Conviction
The High Court was clear that marital unhappiness alone cannot substitute for criminal culpability. The trial court, it said, had convicted Tandon
"merely because the relations between the appellant and his wife had turned sour,"
while overlooking the complete lack of contact in the months preceding the tragedy.
The appellant, the Court noted, was not required to prove his defence — establishing a was sufficient to raise a doubt against the prosecution's case, which he had successfully done. The prosecution, meanwhile, had failed to discharge its heavy burden.
The Final Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order dated passed by Special Judge Rohit Singh was set aside, and Ankur Tandon was acquitted of all charges. He is to be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for his appearance before the should an appeal be filed against this order, as per . The fine deposited by the appellant shall be refunded.
The judgment serves as a firm reminder that even in tragic cases of suicide, the law demands proof of — proximity, intent, and an active role — before a conviction for can be sustained.
