Heated Exchange Between Couple/Family Members Over Non-Preparedness Of Food Not Sufficient To Prove Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Justice M.A. Chowdhary made these observations while dismissing the state's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused, Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri.

The case stemmed from the suicide of Sanjokta Kumari, wife of Rakesh Kumar, on May 1, 2009. According to the police report, Sanjokta consumed poison after allegedly being harassed by her husband and brother-in-law, particularly over dowry demands and household matters.

The day of the incident, a religious event (Ramayan Path) was organized at the accused's residence, and an argument ensued when Sanjokta was scolded for not preparing food on time. Later that day, she ingested insecticide and passed away while being transported to the hospital.

The police initially charged the husband and brother-in-law under Section 306 RPC, alleging abetment of suicide. However, the trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. Dissatisfied, the state filed an appeal, leading to the present proceedings.

The state argued that the trial court ignored critical evidence, including testimonies suggesting continuous harassment of the deceased by the accused. It was submitted that the witnesses testified that Sanjokta was mistreated for not meeting dowry demands and for her perceived inadequacy in household chores. State further argued that the trial court's judgment was "hyper-technical" for failing to appreciate circumstantial evidence.

Upon meticulous examination of the trial court's findings the bench observed that the prosecution had failed to establish abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized:

“There is admittedly no eyewitness to the commission of the offence as no witness has been cited to depose that the deceased had been instigated, coerced, or abetted to take poison in anyone's presence.”

Furthermore, the Court stressed that the argument between the deceased and her family over preparing food for the religious event could not be interpreted as abetment.

“.. Even if they may have scolded the deceased for not having prepared food at their house when a “path‟ was being organized by the father of the accused and the reaction of the deceased that in case they want food urgently, they should prepare the food themselves but such a heated exchange between the couple or with any other family member would not constitute an abetment” the court opined.

It added,

“.. such altercations do take place in every household and this cannot be construed as an abnormal step so as to constitute the abetment of an offence of committing suicide”

The Court cited several precedents from the Supreme Court to underline that mere domestic disagreements or petty quarrels are insufficient to constitute abetment unless a clear and proximate act of instigation is proven.

Additionally, the High Court noted that other allegations, including those related to dowry demands, were vague as the statements from the deceased's family were general in nature, with no specific details or evidence about dowry demands or severe cruelty. The victim's frustrations, including her employment struggles, also lacked credible linkage to any abetting act by the accused, the court ruled.

Stating that to sustain a conviction under Section 306, there must be concrete evidence that the accused actively facilitated the victim's suicide Justice Chowdhary found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment.

The appeal was thus dismissed and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Rakesh Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment