The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for abetting his wife's suicide, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable connection between his alleged conduct and her death. The Court also emphasised that a handwriting expert's opinion cannot be relied upon without proper proof and an opportunity for cross-examination.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya allowed the appeal filed by Goverdhan against his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background
Goverdhan married Anju on November 21, 1996, and the couple had a son. According to the prosecution, Anju faced harassment over dowry-related demands and was forced to leave her matrimonial home in February 2009.
She subsequently initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC, along with proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance.
The prosecution alleged that Goverdhan continued to harass her and sent four letters containing abusive language and threats. On January 18, 2011, Anju sustained burn injuries at her parental home and died the same day.
Her mother lodged a complaint on February 2, 2011, alleging that the appellant's conduct had driven her daughter to commit suicide.
The trial court convicted Goverdhan under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Examining the evidence, the Bench found serious shortcomings in the prosecution's reliance on four postcard letters allegedly written by the appellant.
The Court noted that the investigating officer had not obtained specimen handwriting from Goverdhan. Moreover, the handwriting expert was not examined during the trial, depriving the defence of an opportunity to challenge the expert's opinion through cross-examination.
The Bench reiterated that handwriting comparison is not an infallible science and such evidence requires careful judicial scrutiny.
The Court observed:
"Hence, if, at all, the prosecution wishes to rely upon the report of a handwriting expert in order to prove and attribute the handwriting on a particular document to that of another person, 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."
The Bench also considered the delay of approximately 15 days in lodging the complaint and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for it.
Further, the Court observed that even if the letters were assumed to have been written by the appellant, their contents, considered as a whole, did not establish the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC.
It held:
"We feel that the contents of the letters, even if admitted to be in the handwriting of the accused, were not such which could have constituted the necessary ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC."
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and Rajasthan High Court.
Accordingly, Goverdhan was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The appeal was allowed, and since he was already on bail, the Court directed that he need not surrender and discharged his bail bonds.
Case Details
Case Title: Goverdhan v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1394 of 2017
Judges: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Decision Date: November 03, 2026
