"No Indian Lady Can Share Her Husband": Allahabad High Court Refuses To Discharge Man Accused Of Abetting Wife's Suicide

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld an order of the Trial Court dismissing a discharge application filed by a man who has been accused of abetting wife's suicide. The wife had died by suicide allegedly on account of the fact that without divorcing her, her husband was going to marry another lady.

Stressing that an Indian lady can't share her husband at any cost, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed thus while dismissing the revision plea filed by the Husband:

"They (Indian wives) are literally possessive about their husband. It would be biggest jolt for any married woman that her husband is being shared by some other lady or he is going to marry some other lady. In such awkward situation, it would be impossible to expect any sanity from them. Exactly, same thing happen in this case too, where soon after coming to know that her husband got married in clandestine way with some other lady, by itself is more than sufficient reason to commit suicide."

The case in brief

During her lifetime, the deceased had lodged the instant FIR against her husband-accused (Sushil Kumar) and all his family members in September 2018, under sections 323, 494, 504, 506, 379 IPC.

She had alleged that the accused was already married with some other lady and having two children from her and without divorcing her, he married for the third time. Soon after their marriage, when this fact came to the knowledge of other family members (other accused persons), they started misbehaving with her, tortured and abused her.

Allegedly, when their atrocities crossed all the limits, and when the accused-husband deserted her and kept a new lady, she decided to filed the instant FIR. However, soon thereafter, she consumed poisonous substance and died.

After the death of the victim, the Police intensified the investigation in the case and filed a chargesheet. Hence, the Husband and his relatives moved a discharge plea before the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi which was dismissed, challenging the same, they moved to the HC with their revision plea.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that the accused-husband had admitted that he got married third time in Sepetmebr 2018. The Court also noted that it was apparent that the sole reason behind the the extreme step taken by the deceased was husban'd third marriage.

Regarding dimisssal of the discharge application, the Court opined that if Sections 227 [Discharge] and 228 [Framing of charge] of Cr.P.C. are read conjointly, it becomes clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at the stage of discharge. 

"...there shall be more than prima facie case against the accused for which he is required to be tried. There is sufficient ample material against the accused. The alleged anomalies or inconsistencies during investigation (a third agency) would not be of much relevance at the stage of discharge. The nature of accusation in the FIR and during investigation material collected by the Investigating Officer and its cumulative effect in its nascent form is the material on which discharge has to be decided," the Court further added.

Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the deceased had lodged the FIR as soon as she got to know about husban'd second marriage and therefore, the FIR could be considered as her dying declaration as the deceased herself is the author of the FIR as after lodging of the FIR, she died by suicide just next day.

The court also stressed that the lady was fixed in an awkward situation, and therefore, it would be impossible to expect any sanity from them.

"Exactly, same thing happen in this case too, where soon after coming to know that her husband got married in clandestine way with some other lady, by itself is more than sufficient reason to commit suicide," the Court said.

Consequently, holding that at the stage of DISCHARGE, the Court are not expected to have roving inquiry about the material collected during investigation or its impact on the trial, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea filed by the husband.

Case title - Sushil Kumar And 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1092 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 223

Click Here To Read/Download Order