Words 'Go and Die' Uttered in a Quarrel Do Not Constitute Instigation for Suicide Under S.306 IPC: Gujarat High Court - 2025-10-08

‘Go and Die’ Uttered in Anger Not Instigation for Suicide: Gujarat HC Acquits Husband in Abetment Case

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has acquitted a man convicted for abetting his wife's suicide, holding that words like "go and die" uttered in a fit of anger during a domestic quarrel do not constitute 'instigation' under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Gita Gopi set aside the 2007 conviction and sentence of Shantibhai Mohanbhai Jethwa, who was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court for cruelty (Section 498A IPC) and abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) following the death of his wife, Prabhaben.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to October 15, 1997, when Prabhaben, married to the appellant for seven months in a love marriage, set herself on fire after a domestic dispute. Before succumbing to her injuries 14 days later, she gave two separate dying declarations (DDs).

The first declaration, treated as a complaint and recorded by a police constable at the hospital, stated that on the morning of the incident, she had a quarrel with her husband over purchasing household items. He allegedly refused and told her, "if she wanted to die then can do so by burning herself," which prompted her to take the extreme step.

The second declaration, recorded an hour later by an Executive Magistrate, presented a different narrative. In this statement, Prabhaben alleged that her husband "was beating her daily" and she committed suicide due to this continuous suffering, making no mention of the specific quarrel on that day.

The trial court convicted the husband based on these declarations. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing the conviction was legally flawed.

Arguments in Court

Appellant's Counsel, Ms. Shaily Kapadia , argued that the two dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. - It was contended that the second DD, recorded by the magistrate, was highly suspicious. It was on a pre-printed (cyclostyle) form, the certifying doctor was never examined as he was "untraceable," and the magistrate's testimony appeared mechanical. - Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the defense argued that words uttered in a "spur of the moment" during a quarrel, without the requisite mens rea (guilty intent), cannot be termed as instigation. - The counsel highlighted that neighbours did not support the prosecution's claim of regular quarrels or cruelty, and the appellant himself had rushed his wife to the hospital.

The State, represented by APP Ms. Monali Bhatt , argued that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. - She submitted that since it was a love marriage and the couple lived separately, the absence of testimony from relatives was understandable and should not weaken the prosecution's case. - The prosecution invoked Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption of abetment of suicide if a woman dies within seven years of marriage and has been subjected to cruelty.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Gita Gopi conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence, particularly the two conflicting dying declarations. The Court found the second DD recorded by the Executive Magistrate to be unreliable and lacking in credibility.

The Court observed, "The DD does not inspire confidence, and it cannot be stated to be proved in absence of the Doctor who had certified the DD before the Executive Magistrate... The deposition of Executive Magistrate appears to be in mechanical manner."

However, the Court found the first declaration, recorded by the police constable immediately after Prabhaben's hospital admission, to be more believable as it captured the immediate cause of the incident. This declaration pointed to a specific quarrel and the husband's angry words.

The pivotal legal question was whether these words amounted to abetment. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh , the High Court reiterated a crucial legal principle:

"A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation... Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea."

The Court concluded that the husband's statement, made during a domestic tiff, was an emotional outburst rather than a deliberate act of incitement intended to cause his wife to end her life.

Final Decision

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of cruelty under Section 498A or instigation for suicide under Section 306 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment.

"The charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is not sustainable nor any case of cruelty as expressed under Section 498A is proved," the Court ordered, acquitting Shantibhai Mohanbhai Jethwa of all charges.