Husband Can Not Be Held Responsible For Wife’s Suicide : SC

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has said in one of its decisions that if wife commits suicide then it can’t be said that she did so on the instigation of her husband. There should be clear evidence for this, which can prove this. In this case, the husband cannot be held responsible for abetment to suicide. Saying this, a bench of Justice NV Raman acquitted the husband accused of abetting the wife to suicide.

Gurcharan and his parents were charged under section 304B, 498 and 34 of the IPC for their wife’s suicide. However, the Trial Court held that there was not enough evidence to punish the accused under sections 304B and 498. But he can be tried under section 306 for abetting his wife for suicide. The trial court said that the married woman expects that she will get love and financial security from her husband. If these requirements are violated by the husband through willful negligence, then it will become an offense under section 307 and he will be punished under section 306. The Punjab High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision. The Punjab court had said that the circumstances and atmosphere created in the marital house made her compelled to commit suicide.

This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by Gurcharan. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no direct evidence of abetment to suicide. Nor is there any evidence to show that the husband and in-laws have done any harassment to the deceased. It is not even known what special expectation of the deceased he broke, which made her so disappointed with her husband. Also, it is not revealed that the husband deliberately ignored her.

The bench said that it is necessary to have intent in all offenses. Under Section 307, it is necessary to present a mental intent to prove a crime, in which the intention is to commit a particular crime. It should appear that the accused had a malicious mind and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In the case of suicide, it cannot be assumed that there was an intention. The intention should be clear and visible. In this case both the trial court and the High Court did not investigate this point.

The court said that it does not appear from the evidence presented that the husband had left any effort in taking care of the wife. Or he did something that the wife was disappointed with. There is no evidence that he used to torture his wife constantly. The trial and the High Court, on an unnatural death, without evidence themselves held that the appellant was responsible for abetment to suicide. It is wrong to draw such a conclusion without concrete evidence.