Matrimonial Discord Alone Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court

InSanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 948, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a husband under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC (Sections 108 and 85 of the BNS) and restored the Sessions Court’s order of acquittal. The Court found that the prosecution evidence consisted largely of general allegations and failed to establish any specific act of abetment by the appellant.

The Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also reiterated an important principle governing appeals against acquittal: an appellate court must give due weight to the presumption of innocence and should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sanjay Kumar, married Lata in January 2008. According to the prosecution, after the marriage, the victim was allegedly subjected to harassment by members of her matrimonial family. Her relatives claimed that she was harassed on different pretexts and was not treated properly.

An incident was alleged to have occurred in May 2008 when the victim and the appellant visited her parental home on the occasion of her father’s death anniversary. Arguments allegedly took place between the couple, requiring intervention by family members.

In July 2009, the victim gave birth to a daughter. The prosecution alleged that even thereafter she continued to be subjected to torture and was not provided proper food. Subsequently, the victim consumed poison and was taken to hospital, where she died during treatment.

Following investigation, the appellant, his mother and his two sisters were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

Sessions Court Acquits All Accused

The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including the victim’s family members, a medical officer, a pharmacist, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the investigating officer.

After examining the evidence, the Sessions Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish either the alleged demand for dowry or acts amounting to cruelty.

The trial court found that much of the prosecution evidence was hearsay and couched in general terms. It also noted that no injuries were found on the body of the deceased and that no complaint regarding physical torture had previously been made to any authority.

Accordingly, by its judgment dated June 10, 2010, the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC (Sections 85 and 108 BNS).

High Court Reverses Husband’s Acquittal

The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the acquittal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. While the High Court maintained the acquittal of the appellant’s mother and sisters, it reached a different conclusion regarding the husband. It held that the prosecution had proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that the victim had been driven to suicide because of acts of torture and abuse.

The High Court consequently convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC (Sections 85 and 108 BNS). For the offence under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS), he was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. For the offence under Section 498-A IPC (Section 85 BNS), he was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court and convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC (Sections 85 and 108 BNS).

In particular, the Court had to examine whether the evidence established any specific act of abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS) sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for abetment of suicide.

The case also raised the broader question of the approach that an appellate court must adopt while dealing with an appeal against acquittal.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant

The appellant contended that the High Court had reversed a well-reasoned acquittal without properly considering the reasons recorded by the Sessions Court.

It was argued that the prosecution witnesses had made material omissions and improvements in their depositions and that these weaknesses had been appropriately considered by the trial court.

The appellant further relied upon his conduct immediately after the victim consumed poison. According to the defence, he had taken immediate steps to secure medical assistance for his wife, which was inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory that he had intentionally driven her to suicide.

Most importantly, it was argued that there was no evidence of abetment as contemplated under Sections 306 and 107 IPC (Sections 108 and 45 BNS).

State Defends the Conviction

The State supported the High Court’s judgment and argued that the Sessions Court had failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence.

It contended that the testimony of the victim’s relatives established ill-treatment and harassment. The State further argued that the absence of an earlier complaint regarding torture could not, by itself, justify acquittal.

Reliance was also placed upon the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 117 BSA), with the State contending that the provision was attracted in the circumstances of the case.

Supreme Court Finds Allegations General and Unsubstantiated

After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution case. The Court observed that the prosecution witnesses had spoken in general terms without referring to specific incidents of torture, harassment or dowry demand.

The victim’s mother stated that her daughter had told her over telephone that she was being tortured and kept hungry. However, she admitted that no authority had been informed about the alleged torture. Significantly, she also acknowledged that whenever the victim and the appellant visited the parental home, they appeared happy.

The defence was also able to bring out various omissions in her testimony. Similar weaknesses were found in the evidence of the victim’s sisters and cousin. Their allegations were general in nature, and the victim’s sisters themselves stated that whenever they visited her matrimonial home, they were properly received and treated well. The Court found no specific evidence from them regarding any particular incident of torture or harassment.

Husband’s Conduct After Poisoning Becomes Relevant

The Supreme Court also considered the evidence concerning the appellant’s conduct after the victim consumed poison.

A neighbour stated that she had never heard of any dispute between the appellant and the victim and that the appellant had tried his best to save his wife’s life.

The evidence of the pharmacist was particularly significant. He stated that the appellant came to his shop on the morning of November 16, 2009, informed him that his wife was unwell and requested him to accompany him.

When the pharmacist realised that the bottle from which the victim had consumed liquid contained poison, he advised the appellant to immediately take her to hospital. The appellant promptly arranged a vehicle and shifted his wife to the hospital.

The post-mortem established death due to ingestion of a poisonous substance, while the forensic examination detected Endosulfan insecticide. Importantly, no injury was found on the victim’s body.

Mere Harassment Cannot Automatically Be Treated as Cruelty

The Supreme Court noted that the Sessions Court had carefully examined the evidence and found the allegations relating to demand for money or asking the victim to take a loan to be afterthoughts.

There was no evidence that the victim had been threatened with any consequences and no unlawful demand had been established.

The Sessions Court had further observed that mere harassment by itself could not be treated as cruelty and that the evidence showed that the victim had been treated affectionately during her pregnancy and after the birth of the child.

These findings, according to the Supreme Court, were based on an assessment of the evidence and could not simply be displaced without demonstrating that they were perverse or impossible.

High Court Relied on Material Not Supported by Evidence

A significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision was its criticism of the manner in which the High Court reversed the acquittal.

The High Court had observed that the appellant abused and dragged the victim in the presence of her mother and sisters. However, the Supreme Court found no such evidence on record.

On the contrary, the relevant witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they had not made such statements before the police.

The Supreme Court observed that when an appellate court considers an appeal against acquittal, it must examine the reasoning of the trial court and determine whether its conclusions are perverse or unsupported by the evidence.

The High Court had recorded no such finding before reversing the appellant’s acquittal.

Principles Governing Appeals Against Acquittal

The judgment also reiterates the safeguards applicable when an appellate court is asked to interfere with an acquittal.

Referring to Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the Court emphasised that although an appellate court has the power to reassess the evidence, that power must be exercised while giving proper weight to:

• the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility;
• the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused;
• the accused’s entitlement to the benefit of reasonable doubt; and
• the advantage enjoyed by the trial judge in observing the demeanour of witnesses.

The Court also reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused should ordinarily prevail.

What Constitutes Abetment of Suicide?

The most significant part of the judgment concerns the ingredients necessary to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS).

Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) cannot operate in isolation. The prosecution must establish abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS).

Relying upon Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, the Supreme Court reiterated that a prosecution under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) requires specific abetment on the part of the accused together with the necessary intention.

The Court reproduced the principle that:

“The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must…”

Thus, the mere fact that a person committed suicide following disputes or difficulties with another person cannot automatically make the latter criminally liable for abetment.

There must be evidence establishing the legally required connection between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.

Matrimonial Discord Alone Is Not Abetment

Applying these principles to the facts, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there might have been disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the deceased.

However, that circumstance was insufficient to constitute abetment of suicide. The Court categorically observed:

“It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim.”

It immediately clarified that such discord “would not be sufficient in itself” to attract Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) read with Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS).

The Court found no evidence whatsoever indicating an act of abetment by the appellant. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that when the appellant realised that his wife had consumed a liquid believing it to be medicine, he immediately sought medical assistance and shifted her to hospital.

This distinction is important. Matrimonial relationships may involve arguments, disagreements, incompatibility or discord. The existence of such circumstances cannot dispense with the statutory requirements of the offence of abetment.

For criminal liability under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS), the prosecution must still prove conduct satisfying the requirements of Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS) and establish the requisite intention attributable to the accused.

Why the Supreme Court Restored the Acquittal

The Supreme Court’s conclusion rested on two interconnected grounds.

First, the prosecution had failed on evidence. The allegations of harassment and cruelty were largely general, specific incidents were not satisfactorily established, and material omissions emerged during cross-examination. More importantly, there was no evidence of a specific act amounting to abetment of suicide.

Second, the High Court had applied an incorrect approach while reversing the acquittal. The Sessions Court had considered the evidence in detail and arrived at a plausible conclusion. Before disturbing that acquittal, the High Court was required to demonstrate why the trial court’s view was perverse or impossible on the evidence available.

The Supreme Court found that it had failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court held that the Sessions Court was justified in concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and quashed and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated August 17, 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 2010.

The appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Since he was already on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled.

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces the distinction between matrimonial discord and criminal abetment. The death of a spouse by suicide is unquestionably a serious circumstance requiring careful investigation. However, the seriousness of the consequence cannot substitute proof of the ingredients of the criminal offence alleged against the accused.

For Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS), the prosecution must establish abetment within the framework of Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS). General allegations of an unhappy matrimonial relationship, disagreements or harassment, without proof of the legally required act and intention, cannot automatically result in conviction for abetment of suicide.

At the same time, the judgment should not be understood as laying down that matrimonial cruelty can never constitute abetment. Rather, the Court’s reasoning emphasises that criminal liability depends upon the evidence in each case and the fulfilment of the statutory ingredients of the offence.

The decision is equally significant for its reiteration of the principles governing appeals against acquittal. A trial court’s acquittal cannot be displaced merely because the appellate court prefers another interpretation of the evidence. Where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible and supported by the record, the reinforced presumption of innocence assumes considerable importance.

Click Here to Read the Judgment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh draws an important line between ordinary or even serious matrimonial discord and the criminal offence of abetment of suicide.

The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any specific act by which the appellant had intentionally aided, instigated or abetted his wife to commit suicide. The evidence consisted substantially of general allegations, while the appellant’s conduct immediately after the poisoning showed that he sought medical assistance and took the victim to hospital.

By restoring the Sessions Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that matrimonial discord, standing alone, is not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS). A conviction for abetment of suicide must rest on proof of the ingredients of abetment and the requisite intention, not merely upon the existence of a troubled marital relationship or the tragic fact of suicide.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams