The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the State, thereby upholding the 2016 acquittal of three individuals—a husband and his parents—charged with abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, in a judgment pronounced on November 3, 2025, found “no perversity or infirmity” in the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court held that the prosecution’s evidence was “shaky and unreliable” and failed to establish the core allegation that the deceased was harassed for her inability to bear a child.
The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Parihar.
Background of the Case
The case originates from FIR No. 119/2011, registered at Police Station Jhajjar Kotli on July 27, 2011. The FIR was lodged based on a written report by the father of the deceased (PW-1).
The complainant alleged that his daughter, who had been married to respondent No. 1 (the husband) for about five years, “was being subjected to continuous harassment and taunts by her husband and in-laws for her inability to conceive and bear a child.” The report further alleged that “due to this persistent harassment, the deceased became distraught, and on the fateful day, after a quarrel with respondent No. 1, she ended her life by committing suicide.”
The investigation found that the deceased had committed suicide by tying a “chunni” around her neck, with the post-mortem confirming the cause of death as “asphyxia due to hanging.”
Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the deceased’s husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law for the offence under Section 306 RPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
On November 16, 2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, (the “Trial Court”) acquitted all three accused, concluding there was “no legal evidence connecting the respondents with the commission of the crime.”
State’s Appeal and Arguments
The State of J&K challenged the acquittal, contending that the impugned judgment was “contrary to facts and law” and “rendered mechanically without proper appreciation of the material evidence.” The appellant argued that the Trial Court “failed to weigh the evidence in its proper perspective” and that the prosecution had “successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a full reappraisal of the evidence on record, noting that while it possesses the power to do so, an appellate court must consider the “double presumption” operating in favour of an acquitted accused.
The Bench analyzed the key allegations and witness testimonies:
1. On Alleged Taunts for Childlessness:
The Court found the primary allegation of harassment for infertility to be entirely unsubstantiated by the prosecution’s own witnesses. The judgment states, “a scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim that the deceased was harassed or humiliated by her in-laws or husband for her inability to bear a child.”
The Court highlighted a critical contradiction from the testimony of the deceased’s brother (PW-3), who “in cross-examination… clarified that the accused had never taunted the deceased for not conceiving a child.”
2. On Witness Credibility:
The Court found the testimonies of the deceased’s father (PW-1), cousin brother (PW-2), and brother (PW-3) to be “mutually contradictory and inconsistent.” The judgment observed that their versions were “marred by improvements and embellishments.”
As an example of an “improvement,” the Court noted that the cousin brother (PW-2) “went to the extent of stating that respondent No. 1 might have hanged the deceased,” which contradicted the prosecution’s own case of abetment to suicide.
3. On Other Allegations (Liquor and Concealment):
The Court addressed the claim that the husband (respondent No. 1) was a “habitual drunkard.” It held that while the evidence merely establishes he was a “habitual consumer of liquor,” this “by itself cannot lead to the presumption that such a habit rendered the life of the deceased miserable or drove her to take the extreme step.”
The prosecution also argued that the respondents attempted to conceal the suicide by initially claiming the deceased died of a “heart attack.” The High Court dismissed this, observing that this allegation “appears to have been introduced during the course of the trial, as there is no mention of such an allegation in the written complaint lodged at the time of registration of the FIR.”
4. On the Legal Standard for Section 306 RPC (Abetment):
The High Court reiterated the legal standard for abetment to suicide. It observed that “Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deceased was unable to bear a child and that she was occasionally taunted for it, such an accusation, though distressing, cannot by itself attract the ingredients of Section 306 RPC.”
The judgment further elaborated, “what Section 306 contemplates is intentional instigation or persistent cruelty of such nature as to drive a person to end her life. Domestic discords and differences are common in marital relationships.”
The medical evidence from the Medical Officer (PW-11) confirmed death by hanging but noted “no other external marks of violence on the body of the deceased.” The Court found “no tangible material to suggest that the respondents, in any manner, abetted the deceased to commit suicide.”
Final Decision
Concluding that the prosecution’s case was “shaky and unreliable,” the High Court found that the Trial Court had “meticulously examined the material on record and arrived at a just and proper conclusion.”
The Bench held, “Upon our own reappraisal of the evidence, we find no perversity or infirmity in the findings returned by the Trial Court.” The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the acquittal of all three respondents was upheld.
