The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a woman and her family members in a case alleging abetment to suicide of her husband, ruling that neither the suicide note nor the testimonies presented in court established any proximate or actionable instigation that could be termed abetment under law.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in a judgment delivered on July 10, dismissed the appeal filed by the deceased husband’s parents challenging a trial court order that had acquitted the woman and her four brothers.
The deceased, Vijay Singh, had married Urmila in April 2008 and died by suicide in May 2010. His parents alleged that their son was driven to take his life due to constant harassment and threats by his wife and her family, including threats of false implication in a dowry case. A suicide note was submitted to the police by the father a day after the incident.

However, the court found that the note did not indicate any specific incidents or immediate provocation leading to the suicide. “The suicide note neither spells out any circumstance, which can be labelled as abetment on the part of the respondents nor does it disclose any proximate reason for the suicide,” the court said.
Justice Krishna observed that general allegations of threats and unhappiness in the marriage could not, without concrete and specific evidence, amount to abetment. “It may be a case where the deceased was unhappy and dejected with his marriage but definitely, no act of abetment can be made out either from the suicide note or from the testimony of his parents,” the court noted.
The high court also pointed out that the wife’s alleged suicidal behavior—such as consuming acid or attempting self-immolation—indicated she too faced difficulties within the marriage, undermining the claim that she was solely responsible for the deceased’s mental distress.
The judgment emphasized that vague assertions and absence of specific dates or incidents make it legally unsustainable to establish the offence of abetment. Upholding the trial court’s conclusions, the high court ruled that there was no merit in the appeal and affirmed the acquittal of all five accused.