Uttarakhand High Court stays conviction of vaccine scientist booked for abetting wife’s suicide, citing public health and national interest concerns over hindrance to his research work.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTARAKHAND: The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the conviction of vaccine scientist Dr. Akash Yadav, highlighting that national interest and public health could suffer if he is prevented from continuing his critical research work.
Background of the Case
Dr. Akash Yadav, a PhD holder in Biotechnology from IIT Kharagpur and a Senior Manager at Indian Immunologicals Limited, was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide) by the Sessions Court in January 2025. The conviction arose from allegations that he abetted the suicide of his wife, who left behind a note allegedly blaming him for her death.
Interestingly, the trial court acquitted him of charges under Sections 304-B IPC (dowry death) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, he was convicted solely under Section 306 IPC.
Yadav challenged the conviction before the High Court through Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025, also seeking a stay on the conviction and sentence, which were proving to be a barrier to his rejoining vital vaccine research initiatives.
His counsel, Advocate Harshit Sanwal, emphasized that his client’s professional role directly impacts public health and national interest, particularly given his work in vaccine development.
High Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning
Justice Ravindra Maithani, while delivering the order on July 11, 2025, took note of Yadav’s distinguished scientific career and the potential consequences of depriving the country of his expertise. The Court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court, including:
- Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513, which allows suspension of conviction when it causes disqualification or irreparable harm.
- Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (2007) 2 SCC 574, where the apex court clarified that such relief may be granted in rare and exceptional cases based on specific consequences of the conviction.
Justice Maithani held:
“The appellant is a Scientist, who is into the research work of vaccine development, and due to his conviction, he is not allowed to join his duties, which, otherwise, is also a greater issue of public health and national interest.”
The Court was convinced that the case met the rare threshold required for staying a conviction. Accordingly, it suspended both the conviction and execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Appearance:
Advocate Harshit Sanwal appeared for the appellant
Additional Government Advocate VS Rawat appeared for the State
Case Title: Akash Yadav vs State of Uttarakhand
IA No.2 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Abetment
