Heated Exchange Between Couple Over Food Would Not Constitute Abetment Of Suicide: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the acquittal of charges under Section 306 of the RPC holding that a heated exchange between a couple or with any other family member would not constitute an abetment of suicide.
The Court rejected the appeal filed by the State (now UT) challenging the decision of the trial court (impugned judgment) which acquitted the husband and brother-in-law of the deceased of the charges under Section 306 of the RPC.
A Single Bench of M.A. Chowdhary observed, “Both the accused were stated to be well qualified and were serving as Teachers in the Education Department and 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 so as to drive the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide, as 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.”
GA Bhanu Jasrotia appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Jatinder Singh represented the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the wife (deceased) committed suicide by consuming poisonous medicines due to dowry harassment from her husband and brother-in-law. A specific incident involved a 'Ramayan Path' at the father-in-law's house, where the deceased was preparing food. Her husband and brother-in-law angrily confronted her for not finishing the food, leading to a heated exchange where they pushed her out of the kitchen, calling her a "dirty girl." Unable to bear such an act, the prosecution alleged that the wife committed suicide.
While upholding the decision of the trial court, the High Court pointed out that the presumption under Section 114-C of the Evidence Act with regard to the commission of an offence against the husband, when the married woman dies within seven years of her marriage, was regarding dowry deaths.
The Court explained that “presumption can also be made basis, on some credible evidence otherwise led by the prosecution and there cannot be a sole ground to draw presumption in absence of the credible evidence to record conviction.”
On the allegations of cruelty, the Court noted that there was no incriminating material extracted from the prosecution witnesses incriminating, despite them being declared hostile.
Similarly, the Bench noted that both the parents and brother of the deceased had made general allegations without any specific instance as to when the deceased was subjected to cruelty and had this taken place as to why they had not reported the matter to any community panchayat for resolution or to the police for legal action in the matter.
The Bench referred to the decision in Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017), wherein the Apex Court court held, “A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.”
Consequently, the Court held that “the appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. The impugned judgment is upheld.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the appeal.
Cause Title: State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Rakesh Kumar & Anr.