The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that mere marital discord does not amount to abetment of suicide. Granting anticipatory bail to XXX , accused of abetting the suicide of her husband Gaurav Sharma, the court emphasized that there must be clear instigation, coercion, or direct involvement to hold an accused liable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 306 IPC).
Justice Sanjay Vashisth, while allowing the petition for anticipatory bail, underscored that while the deceased’s suicide note reflected a troubled marriage, it did not establish any direct provocation or abetment by the wife that could have led him to take his own life. The court held that conflicts in domestic life, even if persistent, cannot automatically translate into criminal liability for abetment of suicide.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR (No. 0153 dated July 29, 2024) filed by Yogesh Sharma, father of the deceased, at Khanna City-2 Police Station, District Khanna, Punjab. His son, Gaurav Sharma, a 36-year-old IT professional, was married to the petitioner, XXX , since January 28, 2019. The couple had two children, born in 2021 and 2023, respectively.
On July 2, 2024, Gaurav left his home in his car without informing his family. The next day, he was found unconscious in his vehicle near Khanna after allegedly consuming poison. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Khanna, but succumbed to the poison.
A WhatsApp message, allegedly sent by Gaurav Sharma before his death, was later presented as his suicide note. The message, addressed to his father, accused his wife, XXX, of persistently pressuring him to send his parents to an old-age home, despite his repeated explanations about his mother’s poor mental health. Some of the key excerpts from the note read:
“I am writing this with a clear mind. I am completely frustrated with XXX. For the past five years, her only desire has been that I shift my parents to an old-age home or somewhere far away.”
“I am exhausted by her constant quarrels. There hasn’t been a single festival where she hasn’t created a scene. If we visit someone’s house, a fight is certain. If someone visits our home, it’s the same story. I can no longer tolerate this.”
“If a wife is understanding, the home is heaven; otherwise, it is hell. If women want husbands who live alone and are not family-oriented, they should find orphaned men.”
The complainant, Yogesh Sharma, handed over a printout of the message along with Gaurav Sharma’s mobile phone to the police, following which XXX was booked under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 for abetment of suicide.
Court Proceedings and Legal Issues
During the bail hearing, Advocate Jasdeep Singh Salooja, representing the petitioner, argued that:
The case was registered after a delay of 25 days, which casts doubt on its authenticity and raises concerns of fabrication.
The WhatsApp message (suicide note) was not verified for authenticity, and until it was corroborated with digital forensic evidence, it could not be used as primary evidence of instigation.
Mere arguments between spouses, even if prolonged or unpleasant, do not amount to abetment of suicide.
The petitioner was the primary caregiver of their two minor children and had no prior criminal record.
The State’s counsel, Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, opposed the bail, arguing that:
The suicide note clearly demonstrated severe mental distress caused by the petitioner’s behavior.
The deceased’s repeated references to his inability to bear the mental pressure from his wife indicated a direct causal link between the marital discord and the suicide.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Sanjay Vashisth extensively analyzed previous Supreme Court rulings on abetment of suicide and emphasized that the law requires a clear and proximate cause-and-effect relationship between the accused’s actions and the victim’s decision to end their life.
The court cited multiple landmark judgments, including:
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190
“Abetment requires a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding. Mere harassment or disputes in a marriage do not suffice to constitute abetment of suicide.”
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
“Instigation requires direct provocation or coercion, not just general distress caused by domestic disputes.”
Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 76)
“A higher threshold is required for proving abetment. Emotional outbursts, disagreements, or pressure within a marriage should not be mechanically equated with abetment.”
The court observed that:
The suicide note did not mention any direct threat, coercion, or specific instigation from the petitioner that compelled the deceased to take his life.
Marital discord, howsoever serious, does not automatically result in liability under abetment laws unless accompanied by active provocation or sustained harassment aimed at pushing the deceased towards suicide.
The petitioner was a mother of two minor children, and her custodial interrogation would serve no real purpose, as there was no weapon, physical evidence, or crucial testimony that needed to be recovered.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth concluded:
“Emotional or mental weakness, work stress, or familial disputes alone cannot be used to hold someone responsible for another person’s independent and unlawful act of suicide.”
Thus, the court granted XXX anticipatory bail and laid down certain conditions:
She must join the investigation by March 21, 2025, and cooperate with the police.
She must surrender her passport and cannot leave the country without prior permission from the court.
She must provide her full residential address and contact details to the investigating officer.
The court clarified that this ruling should not be seen as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the final decision will be made during trial.
