The Uttarakhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted for abetment of suicide, holding that however strong suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of legal evidence required to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Ashish Naithani passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Sunil Dutt Pathak against the judgment of the Udham Singh Nagar sessions court, which had sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 for abetment of his wife’s suicide.
The incident dates back to September 15, 2004, when Pathak’s wife died by suicide by hanging at her parental home in Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar district. The post-mortem report did not indicate any signs of homicide.
The prosecution alleged that the husband suspected his wife’s character and subjected her to mental harassment, which allegedly drove her to take the extreme step.
The trial court had acquitted Pathak of charges of dowry death and cruelty but convicted him under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide.
Challenging the conviction, counsel for Pathak argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct instigation, provocation, or intentional act on the part of the husband immediately preceding the suicide.
It was further submitted that no suicide note was recovered and that mere marital discord or suspicion regarding character could not amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.
The High Court examined the evidentiary record and reiterated the settled principle that conviction for abetment of suicide requires clear proof of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation.
The court observed that the allegations were based largely on suspicion and general assertions of mental harassment, without any specific act proximate to the time of suicide that could be construed as incitement.
Emphasising the standard of proof in criminal law, the court held that strong suspicion, however grave, cannot replace evidence necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction for abetment of suicide, the High Court set aside the sessions court’s judgment and acquitted Sunil Dutt Pathak of the charge under Section 306 IPC.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
