The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a husband sentenced to seven years in prison for allegedly abetting his wife's suicide, ruling that matrimonial harassment or remarks such as “go and die” cannot automatically amount to abetment of suicide. Justice Zafeer Ahmad held that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of intentional instigation or assistance, along with a proximate link between the accused's conduct and the suicide. Setting aside the trial court's conviction, the Court emphasised that suicide alone cannot be treated as proof of another person's criminal guilt.
Background
The case arose from the death of a woman who had been married to Shiv Ram for approximately 20 years. The couple had no children. According to the prosecution, her husband allegedly taunted and harassed her over childlessness and repeatedly told her to end her life.
Her brother, Lallu, lodged an FIR on September 15, 2023, alleging that the harassment had driven his sister to suicide by hanging on the intervening night of September 9 and 10, 2023.
The Sessions Court convicted Shiv Ram under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹20,000. He challenged the conviction before the High Court.
After examining the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court found material inconsistencies in their accounts. It noted that the alleged telephone conversation in which the deceased reportedly complained of immediate harassment had not been mentioned by her brother in his earliest statement to the police.
The Court also considered the fact that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident. The investigating officer had stated that the husband himself first informed the police about the occurrence and that no villager had attributed the suicide to alleged harassment during the inquest proceedings.
The medical evidence established death by hanging but did not reveal injuries other than the ligature mark around the neck.
The Court clarified that Section 306 IPC must be read alongside Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy or intentional assistance. It emphasised that the prosecution must establish the accused's intention and a close connection between the alleged conduct and the suicide.
Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed:
“An expression such as ‘die’ or ‘go and die’, even if proved to have been uttered, cannot invariably be treated as an act of instigation. The Court must examine the surrounding circumstances, the manner in which the words were uttered, the occasion, the conduct preceding and following the utterance, its proximity to the suicide, and whether the utterance, viewed objectively, was intended to provoke or encourage the deceased to take her own life.”
The Court further explained:
“The distinction between harassment and abetment of suicide is not merely semantic. Matrimonial life may involve discord, disagreements, allegations of ill-treatment and even conduct which may be blameworthy in a social or domestic sense. Such conduct does not automatically become abetment of suicide.”
It also stressed the importance of identifying the specific act that legally constitutes abetment:
“Suicide is not synonymous with abetment of suicide. The former establishes the occurrence, the latter requires proof of the accused's legally culpable participation in bringing about that occurrence.”
Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's conviction and sentence.
The Court acquitted Shiv Ram of all charges and directed his release forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing bonds under Section 437-A CrPC.
Case Details
Case Title: Shiv Ram v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2026
