Pressure concerning abortion alone does not establish abetment of suicide without proof of instigation or intentional aid.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), arising from the suicide by hanging of the first appellant’s wife, who was pregnant at the time and had been married for approximately seven months.

The prosecution alleged dowry-related cruelty and pressure on the deceased to terminate her pregnancy.

The trial court convicted the appellants; the investigating officer (IO), though cited as a prosecution witness, was not examined.

The appellants argued that the evidence did not prove cruelty or abetment and that the IO’s absence prevented effective testing of alleged omissions and contradictions.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC

Whether the evidence established that the appellants abetted the deceased’s suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC

Whether the non-examination of the IO caused prejudice to the appellants in the circumstances of this case

Section 498A IPC criminalises a husband’s or relative’s subjecting a woman to “cruelty,” including wilful conduct likely to drive her to suicide or harassment connected with an unlawful demand for property or valuable security; the court relied on the explanation to that section as discussed in Wasim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 7 SCC 435

Under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, abetment of suicide requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; Wasim further states that Section 306 requires the requisite mens rea and an active or direct act leading to suicide

Non-examination of an IO is not automatically fatal to a prosecution; its effect depends on whether the accused suffered prejudice in the particular case, as stated in Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996 Cri LJ 1653

The court found material discrepancies in the close relatives’ accounts of alleged dowry demands: the father’s evidence about a mangalsutra and household goods was not corroborated by the mother, while the mother’s evidence about a motorcycle, ring, and employment-related payment was not mentioned by the father.

Independent witnesses did not corroborate the dowry allegations, and no documentary evidence supported the claimed withdrawal of savings to meet demands.

Although witnesses alleged pressure to abort the pregnancy, the prosecution produced no official evidence that the deceased had been selected for the ANM post; in any event, the court held that alleged pressure concerning abortion, without evidence connecting it to the suicide through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, did not establish abetment.

The court also considered the IO’s non-examination in context: material trial testimony had not been stated to the police, and the appellants could not test those omissions through the IO.

On the whole, the evidence did not prove either statutory cruelty or abetment beyond reasonable doubt.

It set aside the convictions and sentences, allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants, and directed that they be released forthwith unless required in another case and discharged from their bail bonds.