The Supreme Court of India, through a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, has ruled that ordinary domestic discord in a marriage cannot by itself attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Setting aside a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh that had reversed a trial court acquittal and convicted a husband for cruelty and abetment of suicide, the bench held that an appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal without recording a specific finding that the trial court’s view was either perverse or impossible on the evidence on record.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to January 2008, when the appellant, Sanjay Kumar, married the victim, Lata. Following the marriage, allegations were levelled by the victim’s family that the appellant’s mother and sisters subjected her to harassment. A family argument was also reported to have taken place during the death anniversary of the victim’s father in May 2008. In July 2009, the victim gave birth to a daughter, after which the victim’s family alleged that torture continued and she was denied proper food.
On November 16, 2009, the victim consumed poison (later identified by the State Forensic Science Laboratory as Endosulfan, an insecticide) at her matrimonial home. She was taken to the hospital by the appellant but died during treatment. The police subsequently registered a case and filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and three of his family members under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Sessions Court, after examining fifteen prosecution witnesses—including relatives, neighbors, a medical officer, and a pharmacist—acquitted all accused on June 10, 2010. The trial court observed that allegations of dowry demands and cruelty were unproven, the evidence led was largely hearsay and general, no physical injuries were detected on the victim, and the husband had taken immediate steps to seek medical assistance.
On appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the acquittal of the appellant’s mother and sisters, but reversed the appellant’s acquittal. Convicting him under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code, the High Court sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 306, and two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 498-A. Challenging this conviction, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, appearing for the appellant, contended that the High Court committed a grave error in overturning the acquittal without addressing the detailed reasoning of the Sessions Court. He argued that material omissions and improvements were extracted during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the appellant’s prompt conduct in securing medical help was overlooked by the High Court. Relying on decisions such as Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, Bhubneshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, State of U.P. v. Samman Dass, and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, counsel submitted that there was no evidence demonstrating any instigation or abetment under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code.
Opposing the appeal, Advocate Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, representing the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that the High Court rightly appreciated the depositions of the victim’s relatives regarding harassment and ill-treatment. He argued that minor contradictions did not dismantle the prosecution case, the absence of a prior police complaint was not fatal, and the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was squarely attracted and remained unrebutted.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
Delivering the judgment, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the prosecution witnesses deposed only in general terms without demonstrating any specific incident of harassment, torture, or unlawful dowry demand.
The Court noted significant concessions in the cross-examinations. The victim’s mother (PW1) admitted that she had never reported any torture to any authority, acknowledged that the couple appeared happy during visits, and omitted key allegations in her earlier police statements. Similarly, the victim’s sisters testified that they were well received and treated properly whenever they visited the matrimonial home.
Furthermore, independent witnesses undermined the prosecution’s narrative. A neighbour (PW2) deposed that the family enjoyed good social standing, that she had never heard of any marital dispute, and stated that the victim took poison by mistake while the appellant made every effort to save her. A local pharmacist (PW10) affirmed that the appellant rushed to his shop at 9:00 a.m. seeking immediate medical help. Upon reaching the house and discovering an empty poison bottle after the victim stated she had consumed medicine from it, the pharmacist advised hospitalisation, whereupon the appellant immediately arranged a vehicle and took her to the hospital.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had arrived at conclusions unsupported by the record, including assertions of physical dragging and abuses that the witnesses had never stated to the police. Emphasising the settled parameters governing appeals against acquittal, the bench cited the classic rule from the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, as affirmed in Bhubneshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar:
“Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.”
Reiterating the principles from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Dass, the bench noted that appellate courts must give primacy to the presumption of innocence and adhere to the view favourable to the accused where two views are reasonably possible:
“…There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal. Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by the court below; secondly, if two views of the matter are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken; thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial judge, the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt…”
Addressing the charge of abetment of suicide, the Court referred to Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, stressing:
“…In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC…”
Applying these tests, the Supreme Court held:
“It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim. That, however, would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code. In fact, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment by the appellant.”
Decision
Finding that the Sessions Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and that the High Court’s reversal was wholly unsustainable, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment of conviction dated August 17, 2016.
The appellant, Sanjay Kumar, was acquitted of all charges framed against him, and his bail bonds were ordered cancelled as the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2016
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: September 03, 2026
