The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that ordinary quarrels or derogatory remarks made by in-laws in a matrimonial setting are not, by themselves, sufficient to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code unless accompanied by extraordinary circumstances immediately preceding the incident.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made the observation while allowing a criminal appeal filed by two appellants—husband and father-in-law of the deceased—who were previously convicted by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 86/2014. The trial court had sentenced both to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000 under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.
Background
The case originated from an incident on December 31, 2013, when the deceased woman was admitted to a hospital in Raipur with severe burn injuries and later died on January 5, 2014. The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide by self-immolation due to persistent harassment and verbal abuse by her husband (Appellant No. 1) and father-in-law (Appellant No. 2), including calling her “चरकट” after she served food to a mason.
The dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by an Executive Magistrate, stated that she took the extreme step due to such derogatory remarks. Statements by her parents and brother supported this version, asserting that quarrels were frequent and degrading comments were made about her character.
Appellants’ Arguments
Counsel for the appellants, Ms. Anuja Sharma, argued that there was no instigation or immediate provocation leading up to the incident, and that the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold required under Section 306 IPC. She relied on Supreme Court precedents including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2002) 5 SCC 371].
State’s Submissions
The State, represented by Mr. R.C.S. Deo, opposed the appeal and contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to support the conviction, including the dying declaration and witness testimonies.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that Section 306 IPC requires proof of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC—namely instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. It noted the absence of any direct evidence of abetment and further clarified that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides a presumption of abetment for suicides occurring within seven years of marriage due to cruelty, did not apply in this case as the marriage had lasted over 12 years.
The Court further held that mere quarrels or isolated derogatory remarks in a matrimonial relationship, without extraordinary or proximate circumstances, cannot constitute abetment. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [2024 INSC 156], the Court reiterated that:
“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
It concluded that the remarks attributed to the appellants—even if accepted as true—did not create a situation where the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide.
Judgment
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary legal ingredients for conviction under Section 306 IPC, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
The Court also directed that the appellants’ bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in accordance with Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Kamal Kumar Sahu & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: CRA No. 441 of 2016
