Heated argument between couple/family members over unprepared food is not enough to prove abetment to suicide: J&K High Court

Judge M.A. Choudhary made these observations while dismissing the State’s criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused, Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal, by the Chief Justice of Rajouri.

The case was related to the suicide of Sanjokta Kumari, wife of Rakesh Kumar, on May 1, 2009. According to the police report, Sanjokta consumed poison after allegedly being harassed by her husband and brother-in-law, especially for dowry and household demands. matters.

On the day of the incident, a religious function (Ramayana Path) was organized at the accused’s house and an argument ensued when Sanjokta was scolded for not preparing food on time. Later that day, she ingested insecticide and died while being transported to the hospital.

Police initially charged the husband and brother-in-law under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide. However, the trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. Unsatisfied, the State filed an appeal, leading to the present proceedings.

The State argued that the trial court ignored important evidence, including testimony showing continued harassment of the deceased by the defendants. It was alleged that witnesses had testified that Sanjokta was mistreated because she had not fulfilled dowry demands and also because she considered herself incapable of doing household chores. State further argued that the trial court’s decision was “hypertechnical” due to a failure to evaluate circumstantial evidence.

After carefully examining the findings of the trial court, the panel found that the prosecution failed to prove abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized:

“Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime as no witness was produced who could prove that the deceased was instigated, coerced or incited to take poison in the presence of anyone.”

Moreover, the Court emphasized that a dispute between the deceased and her family over the preparation of food for a religious event cannot be construed as incitement.

“..Even though they may have scolded the deceased for not preparing food at home, when the father of the accused was organizing a “trail”, and the reaction of the deceased was that in case they urgently needed food, they should prepare it themselves food, but such heated exchanges between the couple or any other family member will not constitute incitement.” the court expressed its opinion.

He added:

“… such quarrels occur in every home and this cannot be construed as an abnormal step that may constitute incitement to the crime of committing suicide.”

The court cited several Supreme Court precedents to emphasize that mere domestic disagreements or petty quarrels are not sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting unless a clear and immediate act of incitement can be proven.

Moreover, the High Court noted that other allegations, including those related to dowry demands, were vague as the statements made by the family of the deceased were general in nature, without any specific details or evidence about dowry demands or gross cruelty. The court held that the victim’s frustrations, including her employment problems, were also not plausibly linked to any incitement on the part of the accused.

Stating that to support a conviction under Section 306, there must be concrete evidence that the accused actively contributed to the suicide of the victim. Justice Choudhary found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision.

Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.

Case Name: State Of J&K v. Rakesh Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281

Click here to read/download solution