'Unfortunate, Chinks In Majesty Of Law Are Wide Open': Allahabad HC Acquits Man U/S 306 IPC Who Underwent Entire 8-Yr Sentence

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted a man who was convicted by the trial court under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years over allegations of instigating/abetting the suicide of his wife.

Having analysed the evidence on record, the Court said that some more overt act, though maybe an indirect one, was required on the part of the accused to bring his acts or conduct within the meaning of the word 'instigation' and therefore, he was entitled to acquittal.

However, before recording his acquittal, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma, with a sense of guilt, noted that the appeal against conviction had come up for hearing after the accused had already undergone the whole of the term of his sentence and was set free.

The Court further observed that the accused was detained for a month over and above the period of imprisonment and the instant case showed that the "chinks in the majesty of law are wide open" and that the "failings and the frailty of justice delivery system is showing by itself".

The case in brief

The deceased, in September 2000, was found to have died by died after setting herself ablaze after being fed up with the household miseries. In her dying declaration, she stated that her husband (accused) was an alcoholic, and he used to torture her every day and had also sold all the property, being fed up with this, she herself burnt her body.

 The accused husband was then tried for the charges of 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of his wife and was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment in April 2003. In that year itself, he moved an appeal against the conviction before the HC

At the outset, the Court noted that for the application of section 306 IPC, the law requires that there should be a proximity between the act of suicide with the acts and conduct or treatment meted out by the accused to the victim or acts which would amount to intentionally aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to take his/her life.

Further, examining the facts of the case, the Court essentially relied upon the evidence given by PW3, to note that the wife/deceased was feeling harassed and exasperated by the conduct of her husband and on the day of the occurrence, there was a dispute over the cooking of the food due to which she got very much disturbed and decided to take her life and put herself on fire.

"She put herself on fire on her own, is a fact which has been clearly proved by her own dying declaration. If the dying declaration is perused, she has simply said that her husband is a drunkard and used to harass her and also squandered/sold off all the property...she has said nothing that could have thrown additional light on the circumstances that compelled her to take her life. The statement given by her in her dying declaration is corroborated by the statement given by PW3. There appears no reason to doubt the above two important pieces of evidence i.e., the dying declaration and the other testimony of PW3," the Court said.

Against this backdrop, the Court deliberated upon the short question of whether these facts and circumstances would constitute the offence under section 306 IPC. 

To come to a conclusion, the Court said that the act of the accused may have been deplorable but the same did not amount to "instigation to commit suicide" unless there was something more to add upon.

"The pain and suffering of a wife who was the mother of small kids, the problem of sustenance she was facing, the inability to mold her husband to see the reason, the problem of poverty, the intricate human equations between husband and wife, the impact of such situations on domestic peace etc. can easily be imagined. The habit of drinking, the act of squandering away the property, physical assault, domestic dispute bickerings or quarrels over not able to make two ends meet, lack of money for taking good care of children are quite unfortunate and arouse empathy and emotions from everyone not merely the people living in the vicinity, near relatives or well-wishers of the deceased and her children," the Court noted, however, it added that the court has a duty to take decisions on the basis of facts not on the basis of sentiments.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order and judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC III, Sultanpur.

Counsel for Appellant: M.S.Khan, Pradeep Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent: Govt.Advocate

Case title - Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari vs. The State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 661 of 2003]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 282

Click Here To Read/Download Order