“Questioning Husband's Manhood Does Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide”: Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Wife
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her father accused of abetting the suicide of her husband, observing that remarks questioning a man's “manhood” or refusal to continue a matrimonial relationship, by themselves, do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that there was no material showing any...
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her father accused of abetting the suicide of her husband, observing that remarks questioning a man's “manhood” or refusal to continue a matrimonial relationship, by themselves, do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that there was no material showing any direct instigation, intentional aid, or positive act on the part of the accused which could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step.
The Court observed: “Even if the petitioner/wife expressed her disapproval towards restitution of marital relationship with deceased and had allegedly made any remark, such as questioning the manhood of the deceased, it does not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge, in order to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioners.”
The case arose from the suicide of one Arijit Samaddar in September 2022. Following his death, an FIR was lodged against his wife Shreya Basak, her father, and several of her relatives under Sections 306 and 506 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the deceased had left behind a suicide note alleging that his wife and her relatives were responsible for his death. The complainant alleged that the wife had insulted the deceased over medical issues relating to his private parts and had circulated photographs, causing him humiliation and mental trauma.
The petitioners, however, argued that the wife had left the matrimonial home in February 2022 and had no interaction with the deceased after July 2, 2022, nearly two-and-a-half months before the suicide. They contended that there was no “live link” or proximity between any alleged act and the suicide.
Accepting the contention, the Court noted that the suicide note merely named the accused persons without attributing any specific act of instigation or intentional aid.
The Court further observed that ordinary marital discord, emotional hurt, or apprehension of insult could not automatically amount to abetment of suicide.
Referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, and Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, the Court reiterated that mens rea and a direct or proximate act of incitement are essential ingredients for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
The Court observed: “Victim might had hypersensitiveness to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in marital life, which is otherwise quite common to the society to which the victim belonged, but such discord in matrimonial life are not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide.”
The bench also found no material supporting the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court, the Court quashed the criminal case pending before the Sessions Judge, Barasat.
Case Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: CRR 4048 of 2024