Mere domestic quarrels do not constitute abetment of suicide without proximate intentional instigation.

Suman, the appellant’s wife, consumed poison at her mother’s residence on 8 September 2008 after an alleged quarrel with the appellant and subsequently died on 9 September 2008.

The complainant alleged that the appellant regularly beat Suman and demanded money for purchasing a tempo.

An FIR was initially registered under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 304-B IPC was added after her death.

The post-mortem found no external injuries, while the viscera report detected aluminium phosphide.

During trial, the prosecution witnesses alleged harassment but admitted that the marriage had been a love marriage solemnised in a temple without dowry, that there had been no prior complaint, and that the parties had a loving relationship before marriage.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but convicted him under Section 306 IPC on the ground that strained relations and harassment had led Suman to commit suicide.

Whether the evidence established the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, including instigation, intentional aid, or participation in a conspiracy?

Whether proof of domestic quarrels, strained relations, or alleged harassment, without proof of a proximate and intentional act compelling the deceased to commit suicide, was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 306 IPC?

The Court applied Sections 306 and 107 IPC. Section 306 requires proof that the accused abetted the commission of suicide, while Section 107 defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid.

Relying on State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, the Court held that ordinary domestic discord or conduct to which a person may be hypersensitive does not, by itself, establish abetment.

Under Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), instigation requires an intention to provoke, incite, urge, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.

Ude Singh v. State of Haryana requires cogent proof of a direct or indirect act of incitement, ordinarily proximate to the suicide, and holds that mere harassment is insufficient unless the accused’s conduct compelled the deceased to take her life.

The Court also relied on Nipun Aneja v. State of U.P., which requires direct and alarming encouragement or incitement leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

The Court held that the trial court had inferred abetment merely from the existence of strained relations, alleged harassment, a quarrel, and the subsequent suicide.

However, the evidence did not establish any specific, intentional, or proximate act of instigation, incitement, or intentional aid by the appellant.

The prosecution had failed to prove the dowry allegations, and its witnesses acknowledged the temple marriage without dowry, the parties’ prior loving relationship, the absence of any earlier complaint, and the existence of ordinary domestic quarrels.

Applying the principles governing Section 306 IPC, the Court found no evidence that the appellant’s conduct created a situation in which Suman had no option but to commit suicide, or that the quarrel was of a nature ordinarily likely to induce a similarly situated person to take her life.

Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea and causal nexus between the appellant’s conduct and the suicide.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 306 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant was directed to comply with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. by executing a personal bond within two weeks, to remain operative for six months, undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court if required.