After Wife Lived Apart Over 2 Years, Supreme Court Acquits Husband Of Abetting Her Suicide, Saying Threatening Letters, Even If His, Were Not Instigation

Goverdhan was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting his wife Anju’s suicide and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment; the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the conviction.

The prosecution alleged that he harassed Anju and sent her four abusive and threatening letters.

Anju died from burn injuries at her parental home on 18 January 2011; her mother lodged the complaint underlying the Section 306 FIR on 2 February 2011.

The prosecution relied principally on the letters, but the handwriting expert was not examined, and the comparison writings’ authorship was not reliably established.

The Supreme Court considered the appeal against the concurrent findings of guilt.

Section 306 IPC requires proof of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC; harassment or offensive conduct, without the necessary instigation or other legally sufficient abetment, does not by itself establish the offence.

The prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot substitute an accused’s failure to specifically deny a circumstance under Section 313 CrPC for proof of that circumstance.

Handwriting-expert evidence is opinion evidence and must be approached with caution; the expert’s reasons and the reliability of the comparison writings must be assessed. Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, cautions against basing conviction solely on such evidence.

Where the prosecution relies on an expert report to prove authorship, the expert should be examined so the opinion can be tested in cross-examination; such a report is not admissible under Section 293 CrPC.

The Court also relied on Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 503, concerning the need to examine the expert and the absence of proximate incitement in the circumstances discussed there.

The prosecution did not establish the authorship of the letters through reliable comparison writings, and the handwriting expert was not examined; the letters therefore could not safely support the conviction.

The Court also found the alleged causal link between the letters and the suicide inadequately proved: the inquest statements did not disclose suicide or its circumstances, the complaint followed about fifteen days later without satisfactory explanation, and the witnesses’ evidence about the letters’ effect on Anju was insufficiently persuasive.

Even assuming Goverdhan wrote the letters, the Court read them as a whole: although they contained insults and threats, they also sought reconciliation and withdrawal of the pending proceedings. Given that Anju had been living separately and pursuing litigation, the letters were not shown to constitute the instigation required for abetment or to be the immediate cause of her suicide.

It set aside the judgments of the trial Court and High Court, acquitted Goverdhan of the Section 306 IPC charge, allowed the appeal, and discharged his bail bonds.