The Karnataka High Court ruled that telling someone to “go and die” does not constitute abetment of suicide, granting bail to a man accused of his wife’s death, citing a lack of dowry harassment or prior complaints.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: In a ruling, the Karnataka High Court has observed that merely asking someone to “go and die” does not constitute abetment of suicide, while granting bail to a man accused in his wife’s suicide case.
Delivering the verdict, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated that such a remark, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient evidence of instigation under the law.
“Mainly because the petitioner asking the deceased to go and die does not amount to abetment,”
the judge observed.
The case involved a man accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, who died in her rented house in 2025, less than two years after their marriage in November 2023.
The husband had been booked under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deal with cruelty towards a woman and dowry death.
However, Justice Amarannavar noted that the suicide note left by the deceased did not mention any dowry demand or harassment. Furthermore, the court observed that there were no prior complaints lodged by the woman against her husband before her death.
Arguments from Both Sides
Additional State Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha B argued that the death note and the statement of the deceased’s landlady indicated that the woman was unhappy with her marriage. The landlady also claimed that the husband often told his wife to “go and die,” which, according to the prosecution, amounted to abetment.
However, defense counsel Mahesh S, representing the husband, contended that it was a love-cum-arranged marriage with no dowry involvement. He argued that the deceased was of a sensitive disposition and was personally unhappy with the marital relationship, not because of any cruelty or dowry harassment.
Court’s Observations and Order
After reviewing the evidence, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the remarks alone were not sufficient to establish abetment. The court emphasized that the absence of direct harassment, dowry demand, or prior complaints weakened the prosecution’s case.
Accordingly, the court granted bail to the accused husband, instructing him to cooperate with the trial court and ensure speedy disposal of the case.
Legal Context
- Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Punishment for giving, taking, or demanding dowry.
- Section 80(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his relatives.
- Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Pertains to punishment for dowry death.
