The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Wednesday noted that mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks does not attract abetment of suicide. The Court upheld a judgment of a trial court acquitting a husband who was accused by the prosecution of abetment of suicide after his wife’s death.
“There may be various instances of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and at times wife being constantly taunted and subjected to sarcastic remarks in the house of her in-laws may be driven to commit suicide. However, such instances are normal wear and tear of matrimonial life. In my opinion, mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks perse does not attract Section 306 IPC,” Justice Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed.
What is the case?
On June 22, 2008, the police received information from Basohli Hospital that one woman Mumtaz Begam, wife of Tariq Hussain, of Kathua district was admitted to the hospital in a burn case. During the investigation, Mumtaz Begam said that she was married to Hussain for two and half years but they had no child. One day, when her husband had gone for his daily labourer work and did not return, she called him at midnight. As she requested him to return home, he refused and asked her to go “from where she had come.” Annoyed with his response, she poured kerosene oil and set herself ablaze. Later in her complaint, she stated it was only her husband, who pushed her to take the extreme step to end her life. Begam was referred to the Government Medical College, Jammu. But she succumbed on the way to the hospital.
Following her statement, the police registered an FIR under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC against her husband Tariq Hussain.
However, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the “abetment of suicide” against Hussain. The trial court called it as “a case of suicide” and acquitted Hussain of all charges.
What is the judgment?
The government appealed before the High Court on the grounds that there was sufficient documentary and oral evidence available to sustain the conviction of Hussain.
A single-judge Bench of J&K High Court Justice Rajesh Sekhri said a delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses has led “the trial court to turn the tables against the prosecution.” The Court said the incident took place on June 22, 2008, and statements of the witnesses under Section 164 CrPC have been recorded on January 14, 2009, after about six months of the incident.
The Court first raised questions about whether Hussain is guilty of instigating or engaging with anybody in any conspiracy or intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission that led the victim to commit suicide and then answered them as well.
“The victim in the dying declaration has only stated that her husband gave a phone call at 12 o’clock in the night, she requested her husband to come back, but he refused and asked her to go from where she had come. It is evident from the utterance of the respondent that there was neither any intention on his part nor any positive act taken by him to instigate the victim or to aid her in the commission of suicide. It appears that his intention was only to get rid of the victim and he could not have thought of any consequences that his wife would be go and commit suicide due to such utterances,” the Court said.
“The ultimate decision taken by the victim in the present case cannot be said to have a direct nexus with the alleged acts committed by her husband, the respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the commission of suicide by the victim in the present case was the proximate result of the words uttered by the respondent at the relevant point of time, therefore, essentials of the offence under Section 306 of IPC constituting abetment are not made out.”
The court said on careful scrutiny and critical examination of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no evidence or material on record wherefrom an inference of the husband having abetted the commission of the offence of committing suicide by the deceased may be drawn.
“All independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have testified in clear terms that not only the relation between the couple.”
“What comes to the fore, from the conspectus of the prosecution case is that the deceased was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance of matrimonial life.”
The Court said the courts are expected to assess the facts and circumstances of such cases as also evidence of the prosecution during the trial with care and circumspection in order to determine whether cruelty alleged to have been meted out to the wife in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. “If the present case is approached with this principle in mind, there is absolutely no doubt that unfortunately the deceased took the extreme step to end her life on account of a misunderstanding with her husband, the respondent. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence to suggest that respondent ever intended or participated to abet committing of suicide by the deceased.”
