HP High Court: Discharge Order in Abetment of Suicide Case Set Aside, Cites Detailed Suicide Notes as Prima Facie Evidence

Shimla , HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla , which had discharged three individuals accused of abetment of suicide. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , presiding over the matter, found that the detailed suicide notes left by the deceased, Nitin Chauhan , provided sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against his wife and in-laws under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The judgment, dated May 28, 2025, addresses two criminal revision petitions (Cr. Revision Nos. 426 & 324 of 2019) filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and Joginder Singh Chauhan (father of the deceased), respectively.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic suicide of Nitin Chauhan on December 2, 2016. The police investigation, initiated after a complaint by Nitin 's father, revealed that Nitin was found dead in his car with a gunshot wound to his head. Crucially, multiple suicide notes were recovered – one from the dashboard of his car and others from his room.

These notes accused his wife, Parveen Chauhan (née Dulta), his father-in-law, Prem Singh Dulta , and his mother-in-law, Salochna Dulta, of persistent harassment, mental torture, and blackmail. The deceased detailed marital discord stemming from unmet promises regarding his wife's employment, threats of false dowry and domestic violence cases, demands for money and property, and the alleged use of their son, Vedant , as a pawn in these disputes. Divorce proceedings were ongoing at the time of his death.

The Trial Court, on May 14, 2019, discharged the accused, reasoning that no witness had spoken of instigation or abetment, that seeking alimony was a legal right, and that there was no proximity between the accused's alleged acts and the suicide.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners (State and Informant): Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, argued that the Trial Court erred by:

* Ignoring the explicit contents of the suicide notes, which detailed mental torture, blackmail, and how the deceased was allegedly driven to depression and suicide.

* Failing to recognize that a prima facie case, or even a strong suspicion, is sufficient for framing charges.

* Not considering the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

* Applying an incorrect legal standard by discharging the accused even if two views were possible.

For the Respondents (Accused): Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, contended that:

* The suicide notes merely indicated pending litigation and demands for alimony, which do not constitute abetment.

* Accused Parveen Dulta was not residing with the deceased and thus had no opportunity to instigate the suicide.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

Justice Rakesh Kainthla meticulously examined the legal position on framing charges and abetment of suicide, referencing several Supreme Court judgments.

On Framing of Charges: The Court reiterated principles from State of Gujarat v. Dilip Singh Kishor Singh Rao and State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan , emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court must assume the prosecution's material to be true and evaluate if a prima facie case exists. A "mini-trial" is not permissible, and the probative value is not to be deeply assessed. If there is a "grave suspicion," charges must be framed. The High Court found that the Trial Court had "applied the wrong principle of law" by suggesting discharge even if there was suspicion.

On Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC): The judgment extensively quoted the suicide notes, highlighting passages where Nitin Chauhan described being "harassed," "depressed," "sad," and "mentally tortured and blackmailed." He explicitly stated that his wife and in-laws "instigated me to I should take such a step" and were "completely responsible for the steps which I am taking."

The Court distinguished this from merely seeking alimony, stating: > "They continuously threatened the deceased and his family members to get them arrested. They demanded money from the deceased and his family members by using his son as a pawn. The deceased specifically mentioned that he was harassed, depressed and sad due to all these acts. Therefore, prima facie, the material on record was sufficient to infer that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide."

Citing Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal , the Court noted that where the accused's conduct leaves the deceased with no other option, or where harassment is persistent and creates a situation of utter frustration, it can constitute abetment. Further reliance was placed on Naresh Kumar versus the State of Haryana (2024) and Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 322) , which underscore that the prosecution must show the accused created circumstances compelling suicide and that there must be clear mens rea.

The Court found that the detailed accounts in the suicide notes, alleging persistent pressure and torment, provided sufficient material for framing charges. It differentiated the present case from precedents cited by the defense where abetment was not found due to solitary incidents or the deceased's hypersensitivity.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed both revision petitions, setting aside the Trial Court's order dated May 14, 2019, which had discharged Parveen Chauhan , Prem Singh Dulta , and Salochna Dulta.

The matter has been remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla , for further proceedings, presumably the framing of charges. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on July 8, 2025.

The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the disposal of the revision petitions and will not bear on the merits of the case during trial. This ruling underscores the significance of suicide notes as evidence in abetment cases and reiterates the threshold for framing charges, which relies on a prima facie case and grave suspicion rather than conclusive proof of guilt.