Trivial Domestic Matters Such As Not Preparing Food On Time, Making Husband Do Household Chores Is Not Abetment To Suicide: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in a recent case on abetment of suicide observed that the allegations against the petitioner, such as not preparing food on time, compelling her husband to do household chores, and attending her brother's wedding, were trivial domestic issues which did not meet the threshold of "instigation" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.Justice Hirdesh...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in a recent case on abetment of suicide observed that the allegations against the petitioner, such as not preparing food on time, compelling her husband to do household chores, and attending her brother's wedding, were trivial domestic issues which did not meet the threshold of "instigation" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
Justice Hirdesh acquitted Sangita, who was accused of abetting the suicide of her husband and highlighted the necessity for concrete evidence of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement in cases of abetment of suicide.
It was held that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions or in the cases of abetment
The court noted that there was no evidence of Sangita having the necessary mens rea to provoke or incite her husband to commit suicide. The court emphasized that ordinary domestic disagreements and petulance, common in every household, cannot be equated with abetment of suicide. The prosecution failed to provide cogent and convincing proof of any direct or indirect acts of incitement by Sangita.
The petitioner, Sangita, filed a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated April 3, 2024, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District-Dhar (MP). The trial court had framed charges against her under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abetting her husband's suicide.
Sangita and her husband were married on April 27, 2022, under Hindu rites and rituals, and they had a daughter. Sangita, a government school teacher, and her husband, a labourer, resided in a rented house in Rajgarh, Dhar.
The prosecution alleged that Sangita harassed her husband, compelling him to do household chores, which led to his suicide on December 27, 2023. An FIR was registered against Sangita on January 16, 2024, after initial statements were taken.
Sangita's defence counsel argued that there was no evidence of any complaint or allegation of torture by the deceased before the incident. Furthermore, the absence of a suicide note or dying declaration weakened the prosecution's case. The defence maintained that Sangita was merely performing her marital duties and had no intention or mens rea (guilty mind) to instigate her husband's suicide.
The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that Sangita's harassment led to her husband's suicide, thereby justifying the charges under Section 306 of the IPC.
Justice Hirdesh examined the legal framework governing abetment of suicide under Section 306 and its interpretation under Section 107 of the IPC, which defines "abetment."
The court highlighted that for a conviction under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of "instigation," "conspiracy," or "intentional aid" in committing suicide.
The court referred to several landmark Supreme Court judgments to elucidate the principles of abetment such as Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) in which the Supreme Court emphasized that "instigation" involves provoking, inciting, or encouraging a person to commit an act. It is not necessary for actual words to be used, but there must be a reasonable certainty of incitement.
Further in Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) the court held that the intention of the abettor is crucial, and mere words uttered in anger without intention cannot constitute instigation. The court cited Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the presence of mens rea is essential for instigation, and a hypersensitive reaction to ordinary discord cannot be deemed instigation.
In light of these findings, the court concluded that the charges under Section 306 IPC were not sustainable. The court thus set aside the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge and discharged Sangita from the charges.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 179