Selling Wife’s Gold Ornaments Followed By Discord & Harassment Does Not Reflect On Intention To Instigate To Commit Suicide: SC Discharges Husband & In-Laws U/s. 306 IPC
The Supreme Court discharged a husband and the in-laws for the abetment of suicide of the wife while observing that selling her ornaments followed by an alleged discord and harassment does not reflect on any intention to “instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide.”
The Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the husband and the in-laws (Appellants), discharging them from charges under Section 306 of the IPC while upholding the charges under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court held that the materials on record do not establish the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide but directed the trial to continue for the offence of cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “Selling of gold ornaments and the same was followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.”
Senior Advocate Tejas Barot represented the Appellants, while AOR Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the Respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the wife had committed suicide after 12 years of marriage. It was alleged that the deceased had faced physical and mental harassment from the Appellants which included instances of them selling her gold ornaments, which constituted her streedhan, and further harassment when she demanded their return.
The Supreme Court explained that mere harassment, by itself, was not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. “The Court examines whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused’s intent and its impact on the victim,” the Bench explained.
“The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide,” it remarked.
The Bench also explained that “these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused’s behavior and the tragic outcome.”
Consequently, the Court discharged the Appellants from the charges under Section 306 of the IPC, however, the charge under Section 498A of the IPC was upheld.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 960)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Tejas Barot; AOR Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala; Advocate Aditya Tripathi
Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal; Advocates Devyani Bhatt and Neha Singh
