A bare “go and die” remark, absent intent to instigate, does not constitute abetment of suicide.

Sheeba married the appellant in 2009 and died after sustaining burn injuries on 31 December 2011; the prosecution case was that she had set herself on fire following marital discord and harassment

The trial court acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted him under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged that conviction. No appeal was filed against the acquittals

1. Whether the evidence established that the appellant abetted Sheeba’s suicide, making his conviction under Section 306 IPC sustainable

2. Whether the dying declaration could support the conviction when its material contents had not been put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, requires proof that the accused abetted the suicide by instigating, conspiring in, or intentionally aiding it. Abetment requires a positive act and the requisite mens rea; harassment or words such as “go and die” do not, without more, establish instigation, and the conduct must be assessed in its context and proximity to the suicide

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., material incriminating circumstances must ordinarily be put to the accused for explanation; an omitted circumstance should ordinarily be excluded from consideration, although the omission may be curable if it has not caused prejudice

The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution witnesses’ evidence of dowry demands and harassment, resulting in acquittals on the related charges

The dying declaration described quarrels, the husband’s repeated statements telling Sheeba to die, and his conduct on the day of the incident, but the High Court held that, on the facts, this did not establish the intention or conduct required to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC

Further, the declaration’s material contents had not been put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; the Court held it could not be relied on to sustain the conviction. Although that defect could be curable, the Court declined to cure it because the evidence did not establish the necessary intention to abet suicide

It set aside the conviction and sentence, discharged the appellant’s bail bond, and directed that any fine paid be refunded