[IPC 498A] Kerala High Court Acquits Husband For Abetment Of Wife's Suicide Due To Lack Of Mens Rea, Upholds Conviction For Cruelty

The appellant who was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC preferred an appeal before the High Court.

Justice P G Atjithkumar set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC on finding that the prosecution was unable to establish mens rea required for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide. While upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC, the Court stated that the wife committed suicide unbearable of the acts of the husband, amounting to cruelty. It held:

“While commission of an offence of abetment to commit suicide depends upon the mens rea of the indictee, cruelty as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of the IPC is the conduct of the indictee in a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. Hence, what amounts to cruelty is dependent on the consequence of the act of the indictee. That depends on the attitude, reflection and reaction of the victim. Here, the acts perpetrated by the appellant although he had no mens rea to impel (wife) to commit suicide, she, unbearable by such acts, had committed suicide. The said acts although does not amount to an offence of abetment to commit a suicide, amounted to an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the said offence is confirmed.”

The allegation was that the appellant used to mentally and physically harass his wife and that she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself.

It was argued that on February 09, 2006, the appellant assaulted his wife asking why could not she die herself, subsequently, she sustained burn injuries and succumbed to death on February 13, 2006.

The appellant contended that he never harassed his wife and that she had a suicidal tendency. It was also submitted that he had tried to save her and sustained burn injuries himself.

It was argued that the appellant had no mens rea, and that intention was necessary to constitute an offence of abetment to commit suicide.

The Court noted that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant had physically and mentally tortured his wife. It noted that the dying declaration also corroborates the statement of the witnesses supporting the prosecution case.

Relying upon various Apex Court decisions, the Court elucidated upon the ingredients for constituting an offence of abetment of suicide.

“It emerges therefore that for constituting an offence under Section 306 of the IPC the prosecution must establish firstly that a suicide has been committed, and secondly that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same with such a mens rea”, the Court stated.

The Court found that although the appellant was short-tempered and had slapped his wife out of sudden provocation, this would not mean that the appellant had instigated her to commit suicide.

The Court observed that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove the required mens reas for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide. On the above findings, the Court stated that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 306 IPC.

The Court stated that the wife committed suicide due to unbearable conduct of the husband, and held that the conduct of the husband would establish cruelty for sustaining a conviction under Section 498A IPC.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part.

“In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and the sentence thereof are set aside. Conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is confirmed and the sentence is modified. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years. Set off allowable under Section 428 of the Code is allowed. The appellant shall surrender before the court below within one month,” it concluded.

Counsel for the appellant: Advocates C.Harikumar, Aravinda Kumar Babu T.K.

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

Case title: Jose v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.APPEAL NO. 2759 OF 2008

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment