Wife Attending Midnight Calls Despite Husband's Repeated Objections, Doesn't Amount to Abetment of Suicide: J&K High Court

Justice Sanjeev Kumar made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by Kunti Devi, the mother of the deceased, Surinder Kumar, against the discharge of her daughter-in-law Neelam Devi from the case.

Background of the Case:

Neelam Devi and Surinder Kumar were married in 2019. The couple reportedly had a troubled marriage with arguments erupting frequently over Neelam Devi receiving calls from unknown numbers late at night. Surinder Kumar allegedly objected to these calls, but Neelam Devi continued to answer them. The arguments escalated, and eventually, Surinder Kumar died by suicide.

Assailing the discharge, Kunti Devi, the petitioner, argued that the trial court, by discharging Neelam Devi, had failed to appreciate the evidence and reached a conclusion based on mere speculation. She contended that the court should have considered the evidence collected by the prosecution and determined if a prima facie case existed against Neelam Devi.

Neelam Devi's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the trial court had rightly evaluated all the evidence, both oral and documentary, and concluded that the prosecution couldn't establish a case of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. He argued that while Neelam Devi's actions might have caused emotional distress, they didn't amount to instigating or aiding the suicide.

Court's Observations:

After examining the arguments presented by both parties Justice Kumar emphasised that while the deceased's suspicions regarding his wife's behavior may have been a contributing factor to his decision, they did not meet the legal threshold for abetment under Section 107 IPC.

“It is true that the deceased doubted the character of the respondent No. 1 who had been allegedly attending the phone calls from unknown numbers during mid-night hours. She had been doing so despite the fact that it was objected to by the deceased many a times. Such act or omission of the respondent No. 1 may be a cause or reason for the deceased to take his own life but certainly would not fall within the ambit of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC”, the bench remarked.

The court reiterated that abetment entails instigation, engagement in conspiracy, or intentional aid, and observed that the prosecution hadn't established any of these elements in this case.

“It is a clear case where respondent No. 1 may, on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, be held responsible for the extreme step of ending his own life taken by the deceased, yet it cannot be, by any stretch of reasoning, said that the suicide committed by the deceased was abetted by the respondent No. 1”, the bench reasoned.

In alignment with these observations, the bench dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Kunti Devi Vs Neelam Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 105

Click Here To Read/Download