Marital discord alone insufficient for abetment to suicide charge: High Court

Disputes and misunderstandings between a husband and wife, even if frequent, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without credible and substantial evidence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.

“Such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed.

The ruling came on a wife’s petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered on May 22, 2024, for abetment to suicide, criminal intimidation and another offence under Sections 306, 506, and 34 of the at Lambi police station in Muktsar.

The State’s stand in the matter was that the husband used to remain depressed due to alleged illicit relations of the petitioner-wife with another man. Opposing the bail plea, the State contended there were direct allegations against the petitioner.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the case record, Justice Moudgil held that allegations of quarrels or strained relations alone were insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306. “Be that as it may, the State has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish immediate provocation or instigation on the part of the petitioner, particularly in the absence of a suicide note. As for the other contentions namely, that there were direct allegations and frequent quarrels between petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord, these alone are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC,” the Bench asserted.

The court added the fundamental right to speedy trial could not be denied to an accused. “This court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex Court,” Justice Moudgil added.

Allowing the petition, Justice Moudgil added the petitioner had already suffered incarceration of more than a year and was a person of clean antecedents. Besides this, co-accused had already been granted the concession of regular bail.”

“Investigation is complete, challan stands presented on July 20, 2024, and charges stand framed on September 24, 2024, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose,” the court concluded.

Punjab