No Contact With Wife For Over 5 Months Before Suicide: Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband; Says Giving Dowry Is Also An Offence
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a husband who had been convicted of subjecting his wife to cruelty, abetting her suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that when the trial court itself found that the husband had no contact or communication with his wife for more than 5 months before she died by suicide, it could not be said that he had abetted the commission of suicide.
Allowing the Husband's criminal appeal, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also observed that under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Penalty for giving or taking dowry), not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is a punishable offence.
However, finding that since the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased's father had paid ₹6 lakh as dowry, neither the offence relating to taking dowry nor the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out on the facts of the case.
Case in brief
The bench was dealing with the husband's appeal against the judgment of the trial court convicting him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while acquitting him of the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
As per the prosecution's case, the deceased married the appellant on 14 December 2004. It was alleged that after the marriage, the appellant and his family members demanded ₹10 lakh as dowry for purchasing a flat.
The deceased's father allegedly sold a plot of land and paid ₹6 lakh in cash, but the appellant continued to demand the remaining ₹4 lakh and subjected the deceased to harassment. She ultimately died by suicide on 2 October, 2010.
High Court's observations
Taking into account the evidence on record, the High Court found serious discrepancies in the prosecution's case regarding the alleged demand and payment of dowry.
It noted that the prosecution witnesses had given inconsistent versions regarding the alleged payment of ₹6 lakh, and that particulars of the alleged sale of the plot, including the date of sale and the amount of consideration, had not been disclosed.
The Court also found material inconsistencies between the allegations in the FIR and the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
While considering the allegation that ₹6 lakh had been paid as dowry, the Court observed that if such allegation were proved, it would amount to a confession regarding the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalises both the giving and taking of dowry.
The Court observed thus:
"Thus, not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, as I have come to a conclusion that the allegation that the father of the deceased had given Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant as dowry, has not been proved..."
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court concluded that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had not been proved.
Regarding the conviction under Section 306 IPC, the High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions explaining that abetment of suicide requires proof of instigation, incitement or intentional aid, and that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient unless there is a positive act of the accused proximate to the commission of suicide.
The Court noted that the trial court itself had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304-B IPC after finding that the deceased and the appellant had not been in contact since 20 April 2010, when an FIR was lodged by the deceased.
Since the deceased died by suicide on 2 October 2010, the spouses had remained out of contact for five months and twelve days before the incident, the court noted.
Considering the significance of this finding, the Court observed thus:
"When the trial Court has held that the appellant had no contact with the deceased for the past 5 months and 12 days before the incident it cannot be said that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide even without there having been any contact or communication between them".
The High Court further held that the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked in the absence of cogent evidence establishing cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. Justice Chauhan remarked thus:
"In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by straightway invoking Section 113-A so as to presume that he has abetted the commission of suicide".
The Court also held that the trial court had convicted the appellant "merely because the relations between the appellant and his wife had turned sour", while overlooking that there was no contact between them for over 5 months before the suicide and no act during that period amounting to instigation.
Consequently, the bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The Court acquitted the appellant-husband of all charges and directed his release subject to compliance with Section 437-A CrPC.
The Court also directed that the fine deposited by the appellant be refunded.
Case - Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544