The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and abetment of suicide case, ruling that vague and omnibus allegations of harassment are insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla allowed the criminal appeals filed by Meenki Devi and Ram Pal, overturning the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated November 30, 2012. The High Court acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case stemmed from the death of Sapna alias Kiran, who was married to the accused, Ram Pal, on March 8, 2007. According to the informant, Kashmir Singh (PW1), the brother of the deceased, Sapna was treated well for about one month after the marriage. Thereafter, the accused—identified as Ram Pal (husband), Meenki Devi, and Sanjeev Kumar—allegedly began harassing and beating her in connection with demands for dowry and money.
The prosecution alleged that due to this continuous harassment, Sapna consumed poison and committed suicide. The Trial Court, in its 2012 judgment, had accepted the prosecution’s version, holding that the testimonies of the witnesses corroborated each other regarding the harassment. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused preferred separate appeals before the High Court.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. The defense contended that the allegations leveled against them were “sadly vague” and general in nature. They argued that no specific instances of cruelty were cited, and no complaint had ever been made to the Panchayat or police prior to the incident. The defense further submitted that mere discord in matrimonial life does not amount to abetment of suicide.
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, supported the Trial Court’s judgment, arguing that the death occurred within seven years of marriage and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act should apply against the accused.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Rakesh Kainthla minutely scanned the evidence and the legal position regarding abetment. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear proof of “instigation” or a “positive act” by the accused that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
On Vague Allegations
The High Court observed that the complaint and witness statements were general and lacked specificity regarding the role of each accused.
“When we see the complaint, it is sadly vague. It does not show as to which of the accused has committed what offence, and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of the offence.”
On Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC)
The Court reiterated the established legal principle that “instigation” requires an active intent (mens rea) to goad or provoke the deceased. The Judge noted that harassment or cruelty alone does not automatically equate to abetment.
“Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.”
On Section 113A of the Evidence Act
Addressing the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, the Court clarified that Section 113A gives the court the discretion (“may presume”) rather than a mandate (“shall presume”). The Court held that the prosecution must first establish a foundational case of cruelty or harassment to trigger this presumption, which it failed to do beyond reasonable doubt in the present case.
Decision
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants had instigated or aided the commission of suicide by the deceased. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra.
“The appellants/accused are acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC,” the Court ordered.
In compliance with the new provisions under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C (Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants were directed to furnish personal bonds of ₹25,000 each to ensure their appearance before the Supreme Court should an appeal be filed against this acquittal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Meenki Devi vs. State of H.P. (and connected appeal Ram Pal & Anr. vs. State of H.P.)
- Case No: Cr. Appeal Nos. 526 & 528 of 2012
- Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
- Citation: 2026:HHC:6
