'Marital Quarrels Don't Amount To Suicide Abetment': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant order in an abetment to suicide case from Auraiya district of Uttar Pradesh, has observed that marital discord and domestic disputes are quite common, and if a spouse dies by suicide for this reason, it cannot be considered as abetment.

The court clarified that even if, during a quarrel, one spouse or family member says "he/she should die," and the person later dies by suicide, it does not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain made these observations while allowing the criminal revision petition of Rachna Devi and her parents, setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Auraiya.

The case dates back to November 14, 2022, when an FIR under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) IPC was registered against the three in Auraiya. The victim, married to Rachna Devi for about seven years, died by suicide on November 13, 2022. The FIR alleged that he was continuously harassed and humiliated by his wife and in-laws. It was also said that on November 8, 2022, during a quarrel, Rachna Devi's parents came to her matrimonial home and told their son-in-law that "he should die."

It was further stated that Rachna Devi had earlier filed a case against her husband under sections related to dowry. Even after a compromise, she did not withdraw the case. 

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Sessions Court took cognizance of the matter. On October 19, 2023, the Sessions Court rejected the discharge plea of the woman and her parents.

Challenging this decision, the petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that marital quarrels are common, and the allegations of abetment were false. They said that there was no evidence of deliberate provocation, and the alleged statement made during the quarrel could not constitute a case of provocation.

The state and the complainant opposed the plea, stating that the remarks of the in-laws showed torture, humiliation, and provocation, sufficient to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.

After hearing both sides, the High Court ruled that the intention to abet suicide is essential for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The court noted that even though witnesses claimed the in-laws told the man "he should die," such words, spoken in the heat of the moment, did not satisfy the requirement of provocation. The evidence did not show that the victim had no option left but to commit suicide.

The High Court held that the trial court had dismissed the discharge application of Rachna Devi and her parents without proper analysis of the evidence. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Auraiya Sessions Court order and allowed the criminal revision petition.