The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of abetment of suicide of his wife. It held that letters containing abuse and threats, but also appeals for reconciliation, could not be treated as instigation to suicide. The Court also held that the prosecution never proved the appellant wrote the letters, as the handwriting expert was not examined in court.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC and the ten-year sentence imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the Rajasthan High Court.
Background
The appellant, Goverdhan, married Anju in 1996. The prosecution alleged that he and his father harassed her over dowry and turned her out of the matrimonial home in February 2009. She then filed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC and also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant sent her four letters containing abusive language and threats to kill her. She set herself on fire at her parental home on 18 January 2011 and died the same day. Her mother lodged a complaint on 2 February 2011, leading to an FIR under Section 306 IPC.
The trial Court sentenced the appellant to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000. The High Court dismissed his appeal on 11 May 2017.
Defence and Counsel
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant stated that his wife had likely died an accidental death in a sudden fire, and that his in-laws had tried to give it the colour of suicide to falsely implicate him.
Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain appeared for the appellant. Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak represented the State of Rajasthan.
Handwriting Expert Must Be Examined
The Court noted that the four letters were the only palpable evidence of abetment. However, no specimen handwriting of the appellant was obtained, and the handwriting expert was never examined.
Relying on Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab and Patel Babubhai Manohardas vs State of Gujarat, the Bench held that “it is essential to examine the handwriting expert in evidence because handwriting comparison is not a perfect science and may be the subject matter of different interpretations.”
It added, “Such reports are not admissible under Section 293 CrPC (corresponding to Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and hence, have to be proved as any other report by examining the expert in evidence.”
The Court rejected the reasoning that the appellant had not specifically denied writing the letters in his Section 313 statement, holding that “the prosecution must stand on its own legs and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Letters Read as a Whole
Even assuming the appellant wrote the letters, the Court said they must be read in their entirety. Alongside the abuse and threats, the letters contained appeals to withdraw the pending cases and resume cohabitation. The Bench observed, “The communications thus disclose a combination of hostility, coercive threats and an explicit desire for reconciliation.”
Noting that the deceased had been living at her father’s house for more than two years and was actively pursuing litigation, the Court held that “the letters by themselves cannot be construed to be the instigating material which was the immediate cause for the victim to have committed suicide.”
Other Gaps in Prosecution Case
The Court pointed out that the hospital case history recorded a sudden fire, and that the father and brother did not indicate suicide during inquest proceedings. The forensic report recorded no smell of kerosene, and police records referred to a short circuit and a gas cylinder. No charge under Section 498A IPC was framed.
On the 15-day delay in lodging the complaint, the Court said, “Had there been an iota of truth in the said allegation, the complainant would not have waited for 15 days before filing the report.”
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant. As he was on bail, his bail bonds were discharged.
Case Title: Goverdhan vs State of Rajasthan
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 2017
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Date: November 3, 2026
