SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has recently made a significant ruling in the case of State of J&K vs Tariq Hussain. The court stated that simply harassing a wife by her husband or in-laws due to marital discord or making sarcastic remarks alone would not be sufficient to charge them with ‘abetment of suicide’ under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
Justice Rajesh Sekhri emphasised that to establish the offence of abetment, it is crucial to demonstrate intentional aid and active participation by the abettor. In other words, a mere act of harassment or sarcastic comments should not be equated with abetting suicide.
The court further clarified that instances of matrimonial discord, which are common in married life and may cause strain, cannot automatically be considered as abetment of suicide. This ruling highlights the importance of proving direct and intentional involvement by the accused to be charged with the serious offense of abetment of suicide.
“There may be various instances of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and at times wife being constantly taunted and subjected to sarcastic remarks in the house of her in-laws may be driven to commit suicide. However, such instances are normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. In my opinion mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks per se does not attract Section 306 of RPC (abetment of suicide)”, stated the order.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the State against a trial court judgment acquitting a man (respondent) of charges under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty of the RPC.
The High Court focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the husband was guilty of instigating, engaging in a conspiracy or intentionally aiding the victim to commit suicide.
The respondent’s wife had died by suicide after dousing herself with kerosene and setting herself ablaze.
The incident was stated to have occurred after a midnight phone call with her husband, during which conversation the husband refused to accede to the victim’s plea to “come back” to a certain place. The husband is stated to have responded by telling his wife to go back to the place she came from.
The prosecution submitted that the wife set herself ablaze after being enraged by her husband’s response.
The victim died from her injuries on the way to the hospital. In a statement made before her death, she said that it was her husband who was responsible for driving her to take the extreme step of ending her life.
The High Court, however, noted that there was nothing to indicate that the husband anticipated that his wife would die by suicide owing to his remarks.
“It is evident from the utterance of the respondent that there was neither any intention on his part nor any positive act taken by him to instigate the victim or to aid her in the commission of suicide. It appears that his intention was only to get rid of the victim and he could not have thought of any consequences that his wife would be go and commit suicide due to such utterances,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that the prosecution’s version indicated that the deceased victim was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance of matrimonial life.
The Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, while opining that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent ever intended or participated to abet the victim’s suicide.
Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma appeared for the State, while advocate Sidhant Gupta appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband. (BarandBench)
