Jammu and Kashmir High Court: In an appeal against acquittal on the ground that the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the accused for abetment of suicide, a single-judge bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., upheld the trial court’s judgment based on the lack of direct or strong circumstantial evidence to connect the respondents’ actions to the suicide.
In the instant matter, the police received information, on 01-05-2009, that the deceased had consumed poisonous substances and was referred to the hospital. The police discovered that she had already passed away while taking her to the hospital. A postmortem was conducted, and her body was handed over to her family. Upon investigation, it was revealed that since her marriage, the deceased had been harassed for dowry by her husband (respondent 1), and brother-in-law (respondent 2). On the day of her death, the accused allegedly berated her for not preparing food, which allegedly led her to commit suicide by consuming insecticide. The police registered an FIR under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC) against the accused (respondents 1 and 2), leading to the filing of a charge sheet before the court.
The trial court, after reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, acquitted both the respondents on 30-11-2015. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the State filed the present appeal challenging the decision, in order to overturn the acquittal.
The State contended that the trial court’s decision was against the law and facts, and the judgment was based on conjectures. It was contended that there was sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary, to convict the accused. It was argued that the prosecution had proven harassment and cruelty towards the deceased, which led her to take her life. It was contended that the trial court failed to appreciate key pieces of evidence, adopting a hyper-technical approach.
However, the respondents contended that no direct evidence was presented proving instigation or abetment. It was argued that the prosecution’s case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence and general allegations from family members. It was stated that the alleged quarrels were minor domestic disputes that could not amount to abetment of suicide.
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case largely relied on circumstantial evidence and the key witnesses, including the parents and brother of the deceased, made general allegations of harassment but did not present specific instances of dowry demands or sustained cruelty. It was noted that several witnesses, including neighbors, who were expected to corroborate claims of harassment, turned hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case. The postmortem and forensic reports were presented but did not directly link the accused to the crime.
The Court noted that the trial court found insufficient evidence to prove abetment of suicide as the witnesses’ testimony was largely circumstantial, and no direct evidence showed that the accused had instigated or coerced the deceased into committing suicide. The trial court noted that family disputes and arguments, common in domestic life, could not be construed as abetment.
The Court highlighted that abetment requires more than mere quarrels or domestic discord. The Court stated that there must be a proximate and intentional act that leads to suicide. The Court noted that scolding or altercations, such as the one involving food preparation, do not automatically constitute abetment as such disputes occur in most households and do not justify the extreme action of suicide.
“a heated exchange between the couple or with any other family member would not constitute an abetment so as to drive the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide, as such altercations do take place in every household and this cannot be construed as an abnormal step so as to constitute the abetment of an offence of committing suicide.”
The Court referred to State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, and Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., , were the Supreme Court emphasised that mere harassment, without active involvement leading to suicide, does not amount to abetment.
The Court reaffirmed that conviction under Section 306 RPC requires clear evidence of abetment, which was lacking in this case. The Court held that domestic disputes and allegations of dowry harassment were not sufficiently proximate to the act of suicide to warrant conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal as no merit was found in the prosecution’s evidence to convict the accused and the trial court had correctly assessed the circumstances and facts.
[State of J&K v. Rakesh Kumar, CrlA (AS) No. 11/2021, Decided on 09-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Jatinder Singh, Counsel for the Respondents
The post appeared first on .