The Allahabad High Court ruled that ordinary marital quarrels and routine domestic discord cannot be treated as abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without clear intent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified an important aspect of criminal law by setting aside criminal proceedings against a woman and her parents, who were accused of abetting the suicide of her husband. The Court ruled that routine matrimonial disputes and casual remarks cannot, by themselves, be considered as abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The matter arose from an FIR lodged on November 14, 2022, in Auraiya district. The complainant, father of the deceased, alleged that his son died by suicide due to constant harassment and humiliation by his wife, Rachana Devi, and her parents.
According to the FIR:
- The deceased and Rachana Devi had been married for about seven years.
- Disputes arose soon after marriage, leading Rachana Devi to file criminal complaints against her husband and in-laws on allegations of cruelty, intimidation, and dowry harassment.
- Although a partial settlement was reached, she did not withdraw her case, and tensions continued to persist.
- On November 8, 2022, the deceased’s in-laws allegedly insulted him and told him, “Why don’t you die?”
- Five days later, on November 13, 2022, the man died by suicide.
Following the investigation, police filed a charge sheet under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The trial court rejected the discharge plea of the accused and framed charges, prompting them to approach the Allahabad High Court.
ALSO READ: Championing Justice Over ‘Bulldozer Rule’: CJI Gavai’s Mauritius Lecture on Rule of Law
High Court Proceedings
The defence argued that:
- Allegations were vague and lacked concrete evidence.
- Domestic quarrels are common in married life and cannot automatically amount to abetment.
- Even independent witnesses only spoke of routine disputes, not deliberate provocation.
- The alleged remark by the in-laws was a casual comment made in anger, not a calculated instigation to end life.
The prosecution, however, insisted that persistent humiliation and harassment had driven the deceased to suicide.
ALSO READ: Mumbai Court Quashes Summons Against Cricketer Robin Uthappa in 2019 Cheque Bounce Case
Court’s Observations
Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the case, sided with the accused and relied on several Supreme Court precedents:
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) – Instigation requires active encouragement or provocation; mere casual remarks do not suffice.
- Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995) – Angry or casual comments made in a fit of emotion cannot constitute instigation.
- Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) – Ordinary domestic disputes without evidence of intent cannot meet the threshold for abetment.
The Court stressed that mens rea (criminal intent) is a vital ingredient of abetment. Unless there is clear evidence showing that the accused intended to drive the deceased to suicide, charges under Section 306 IPC cannot stand.
The Court stated:
“If a husband or wife, or their relatives, are harassed or quarrel in the ordinary course of domestic life, without an intention to provoke suicide, the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be made out.”
Verdict:
The High Court held that neither the FIR allegations nor the witness statements demonstrated the required intent to abet suicide. Consequently, the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge plea.
The Court:
- Discharged Rachana Devi and her parents from the abetment of suicide case.
- Set aside the Auraiya trial court’s order dated October 19, 2023
- Allowed the criminal revision
Appearance:
Counsel for Revisionist: Manoj Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party: Anand Pati Tiwari, G.A
Case Title:
Rachana Devi And 2 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another
CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 5794 of 2023
Read Judgment:
