S.306 IPC | Ordinary Quarrels In Marriage Can't Constitute Abetment Of Suicide In Absence Of Something More In Form Of 'Instigation': Kerala HC

Quashing the criminal proceedings against the wife, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that other than ordinary quarrels between the spouses, there was no instigation by the wife to commit suicide.

“Quarrels, fights or disputes in a marital relationship is not abnormal or uncommon. Those quarrels cannot be reckoned as conduct amounting to abetment of suicide unless there is something more in the form of instigation or aiding.”

Background

The petitioner's husband ended his life by committing suicide. Both the petitioner and her husband were specialist doctors. A crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC for abetment of the suicide of her husband. She approached the Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

The specific allegation was that the petitioner happened to see some intimate videos of her husband with his former girlfriend due to which there was marital discord between them. It was alleged that the husband committed suicide due to emotional pressure from the problems in their marriage and that he had left two suicide notes also.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegedly recovered suicide notes do not indicate any act on the part of the petitioner proving abetment to suicide. It was also argued that if a spouse decides to end life due to quarrels in their marriage life, that would not amount to abetment of suicide against the other spouse.

On the other hand, the respondents relied upon Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Another (2022) to contend that repeated and continued acts of mental cruelty and torture would amount to abetment to suicide. It was also alleged that suicide notes prove abetment to suicide.

Court Findings

The court stated that the suicide notes left by the husband would only indicate that there were quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased. It said that the suicide note does not indicate that the petitioner had instigated or committed the offence of abetment to suicide. It said, “The letters indicate that a few incidents prior to their marriage have been haunting them, leading to bickerings and quarrels between them. There is nothing to indicate any nexus between any act of the accused and the suicide of her husband, to term it as instigation.”

The term abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC. It stated that for committing the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the ingredients under Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied. It stated that as per Section 107 of IPC, instigation with an intent to drive the other person to suicide would amount to abetment. It said, “Unless the instigation is done with the intention to prod the other person to commit suicide, the offence under section 306 IPC read along with clause 'First” of section 107 IPC will not be attracted.”

The Court referring to Sections 113A (presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman) and 113B (presumption as to dowry death) of the IPC, stated that the legislature provides certain presumptions when the wife commits suicide. It stated that abetment to suicide would be inferred from the facts of each case and there was no straight jacket formula to be adopted. “Therefore the yardstick while considering the case of abetment of suicide of a wife in a marriage can be different from that to be adopted when the husband had committed suicide”, added the Court.

Relying upon decisions, the Court stated there should be an active or direct act with an intent to instigate the deceased to commit suicide for attracting an offence of abetment to suicide.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the suicide notes do not indicate any sort of abetment or instigation from the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate C C Thomas, Advocate Nireesh Mathew

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Advocates P Vijaya Bhanu, Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi, Public Prosecutor Ashi M C

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 196

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 3412 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment