The Delhi High Court has held that the mere existence of an extramarital affair by a husband is not sufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of an accused, observing that there was no material on record indicating any immediate or direct instigation compelling the deceased to commit suicide.
Case Background
The State had approached the High Court challenging the order dated April 21, 2016, passed by the Trial Court, whereby the respondent, Hamid, was acquitted of charges under Section 306 IPC.
The case dates back to October 30, 2010, when Smt. Baby @ Nazrin, the wife of the accused, was admitted to AIIMS in a gasping state with a history of ‘attempted hanging’. She succumbed a month later on November 30, 2010.
During the investigation, the mother of the deceased, Smt. Jaitoon (PW2), stated before the SDM that her daughter had been married to the accused on April 11, 2004, and the couple had two children. She alleged that problems arose in the last two years of the marriage as the accused intended to marry another woman residing in the same locality. It was alleged that the accused beat his wife, threatened her, and offered her Rs. 2 to 4 lakhs to relieve him of his marital obligations so he could remarry.
Based on statements from the deceased’s relatives, an FIR was recommended. However, the police charge-sheeted only Hamid under Sections 304-B/306/34 IPC. The Trial Court framed charges only under Section 306 IPC, ruling out Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) due to the lack of dowry demands. Subsequently, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding no evidence of abetment.
Arguments Placed Before the Court
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the “clear and unambiguous evidence” suggesting the accused’s involvement in an extramarital affair, which amounted to cruelty. The prosecution contended that the testimony of the victim’s parents and brother regarding the affair and harassment should not have been discarded.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent argued that there was no cruelty on the part of the accused. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence, claiming that his wife became depressed after getting a pregnancy aborted in June 2010, which led to a change in her behavior.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court examined whether the alleged extramarital affair constituted instigation or abetment to commit suicide. The Bench emphasized that under Section 107 IPC, abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.
The Court observed: “We need to stress that to attract offence of abetment to suicide, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish proof of direct or indirect act(s) of instigation or incitement of suicide, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide. Such instigation or incitement should be reflective of clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.”
Regarding the allegation of an extramarital affair, the Bench referred to several Supreme Court judgments:
- Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat: The Apex Court held that mere intimacy with another person during the subsistence of marriage does not amount to “cruelty” of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide.
- K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka: The Supreme Court held: “Solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.”
- Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat: It was held that even if an illicit relationship is proven, it would not automatically establish cruelty.
Assessment of Evidence
The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide concrete material suggesting instigation.
- Testimony on Affair: PW2 (mother) admitted she never met the “other lady.” PW8 (father of the other lady) admitted that while a marriage proposal existed, he had never seen his daughter meeting the accused, making his testimony hearsay.
- Improvements in Statement: The Court pointed out material improvements in PW2’s testimony. While she initially told the SDM that the accused offered Rs. 2-4 lakhs to be set free, in court she claimed the accused demanded Rs. 20 lakhs. The Bench noted, “There is no plausible explanation to the abovesaid huge improvement.”
- Proximity and Causation: The Court observed that the alleged affair was in the knowledge of the deceased and her parents for two years. “Thus, in the present factual matrix, even if the extramarital affair is believed to be true, it did not act as a catalyst for committing suicide,” the Judges noted.
Medical Findings
The Court also addressed the cause of death. The post-mortem report confirmed death due to septicemic shock resulting from asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The Bench rejected the prosecution’s suggestion to the doctor that it was a case of strangulation, stating, “Nothing has been pointed out to us which may even remotely indicate it to be a case of homicide.”
Verdict
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove any act of the accused that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
The Bench held: “In view of the foregoing discussion, it thus becomes evident that mere existence of extramarital affair is not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC. There is no material indicating any immediate or direct instigation or conduct of a nature, compelling Nazrin to commit suicide.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) vs. Hamid
- Case Number: CRL.A. 80/2017
- Citation: 2025:DHC:11261-DB
- Coram: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Raghuraj Bhati
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mittal and Ms. Chatiyna Jain, Advocates
