Summary
The Court set aside the husband’s convictions for abetment of suicide and under the Tamil Nadu women-harassment statute. A quarrel followed by both spouses consuming pesticide did not, on this record, establish instigation or intentional facilitation of the wife’s suicide. Alleged earlier quarrels over another relationship were unproved, and no other abetment material existed. The Evidence Act’s Section 113A presumption did not arise after twenty-five years of marriage. The appeal was allowed and bail bonds discharged.
Issues
- Whether the evidence of a quarrel and the spouses’ pesticide consumption established abetment of suicide.
- Whether Section 113A’s presumption was available given the duration of the marriage.
Provisions considered
- Section 306, read with Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction lacked evidence of an active act of instigation or intentional facilitation; the proved quarrel alone did not establish abetment in these circumstances. (¶¶ 7.1, 9, 9.1, 10)
- Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The statutory presumption concerning suicide within seven years of marriage could not arise where the marriage had lasted twenty-five years. (¶ 8)
Held
- The alleged prior quarrels arising from an extramarital relationship were not established, and the daughter did not support the prosecution. The proved incident was a quarrel followed by both spouses consuming pesticide; the husband survived after hospital treatment and the wife died. (¶¶ 2, 7.1)
- The Section 113A presumption was unavailable because the marriage was twenty-five years old. Abetment therefore required proof on the evidence rather than reliance on that presumption. (¶ 8)
- Section 306 required an active act of instigation or facilitation with the requisite mental element. Harassment without a positive proximate act did not suffice. No material beyond the quarrel indicated abetment here, and the husband had himself also consumed pesticide. The concurrent conviction was erroneous on this record. (¶¶ 9, 9.1)
- The trial and High Court judgments convicting the appellant under Section 306 and the cited Tamil Nadu provision were quashed and set aside. The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s existing bail bonds discharged. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned convictions and judgments set aside, with bail bonds discharged.