Last week, the Supreme Court recently acquitted a husband in an abetment of suicide case, highlighting the importance of evidence scrutiny and legal principles. The case, spanning over three decades, saw the Court dismiss the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC due to insufficient evidence linking the accused’s actions to the deceased’s suicide.
NEW DELHI: Last week, the Supreme Court brought relief to a husband who was convicted of abetting the suicide of his wife back in 1993.
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed dismay at the prolonged suffering endured by the accused within the criminal justice system.
READ ALSO: Petition Filed in Supreme Court Against Demolition of Shops in Akbar Nagar, Lucknow
“The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. It is exactly what has happened in this case. It did not take more than 10 minutes for this Court to reach to an inevitable conclusion that the conviction of the appellant convict for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable in law. The ordeal for the appellant started some time in 1993 and is coming to the end in 2024, i.e. almost after a period of 30 years of suffering”,
the bench observed.
While acknowledging the tragedy of the young woman’s death and the responsibility to ensure justice, the Court stressed the importance of determining guilt within the confines of the law.
“But at the same time, the guilt of the accused has to be determined in accordance with law,”
the Court added.
READ ALSO: #BREAKING AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal Found Guilty of “Abetment of Suicide” Case
The Court’s decision reversed a 2008 Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling against the accused husband, who was accused of abetment or suicide of his wife through harassment.
Initially convicted in 1998 by a trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court, the husband’s conviction was challenged before the Supreme Court, which found insufficient evidence to support the charge of abetment of suicide.
“It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous,”
the Court explained.
The apex court clarified that mere allegations of harassment do not suffice to establish guilt for the abetment of suicide. It emphasized the need for direct evidence linking the accused’s actions to the deceased’s suicide, emphasizing the requirement of mens rea, or criminal intent.
The Court also underscored that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be automatically applied solely based on the duration of marriage. It emphasized the need for careful evaluation of evidence of cruelty, highlighting the commonality of domestic discord and the importance of distinguishing between ordinary marital issues and circumstances that drive a person to suicide.
“Before the presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard … If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty,”
the Supreme Court.
The ruling ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the accused husband, Naresh Kumar, whose appeal was filed by advocates SD Singh, Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh, Siddharth Singh, and Aparna Jha.
Representing the Haryana government, Additional Advocate General Raj Singh Rana and advocates Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Sabarni Som, and Fateh Singh were present during the proceedings.
[CASE TITLE: Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana]
