The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband’s extramarital affair alone cannot attract charges under Section 306 IPC. Direct or proximate instigation is essential to prove abetment of suicide, setting a crucial legal precedent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the mere existence of an extramarital affair by a spouse is insufficient to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This landmark ruling reinforces the need for direct or proximate instigation before criminal liability can be imposed for abetment.
Case Background
The case involved Hamid, who was accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, Smt. Baby @Nazrin, who tragically died on November 30, 2010, following a suicide attempt at AIIMS a month earlier. The couple had been married since April 11, 2004, and had two children.
Nazrin’s mother alleged that problems in the marriage arose after Hamid intended to marry another woman in the same locality. She claimed that Hamid physically abused Nazrin, threatened her, and allegedly offered monetary compensation to be relieved of marital obligations.
Following the investigation, Hamid was charged under Sections 304-B, 306, and 34 IPC, but the trial court framed charges only under Section 306 IPC, ruling out dowry-related offences due to lack of evidence. Eventually, the trial court acquitted Hamid, citing insufficient evidence of abetment.
Arguments Before the Court
The State argued that the trial court ignored “clear and unambiguous evidence” showing Hamid’s involvement in an extramarital affair, which the prosecution claimed amounted to mental cruelty. Testimonies from the deceased’s parents and brother were cited as proof of harassment.
Conversely, Hamid’s defense emphasized that there was no cruelty or instigation, suggesting that Nazrin had become depressed after a pregnancy termination in June 2010, which affected her mental health.
Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined whether an extramarital affair alone could constitute abetment to suicide.
Requirement for Abetment:
The Court noted that Section 107 IPC defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, which must be proximate to the act of suicide.
Supreme Court Precedents:
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat – Mere intimacy during marriage does not constitute cruelty likely to drive a spouse to suicide.
K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka – Suspicions of an extramarital relationship do not satisfy the mental cruelty standard for Section 306 IPC.
Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat – Even proven illicit relationships do not automatically establish cruelty.
Evidence Assessment:
- The Court highlighted inconsistencies in testimonies and the lack of direct instigation. Notably:
- Testimonies regarding the alleged affair were largely hearsay.
- Claims of monetary offers by the accused showed material improvements and inconsistencies over time.
- The alleged affair had been known to the deceased and her parents for two years, weakening any argument of proximate causation.
Medical Findings:
The post-mortem confirmed septicemic shock due to asphyxia from hanging, ruling out homicide.
The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that:
“The mere existence of an extramarital affair is not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC. There is no material indicating any immediate or direct instigation or conduct compelling Nazrin to commit suicide.”
The judgment reinforces that mental cruelty and instigation must be direct and proximate to the act of suicide to establish liability under Section 306 IPC.
Case Title:
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) vs. Hamid
CRL.A. 80/2017
READ JUDGMENT
Read More Reports On Abetment of Suicides
