General, Vague Allegations Of Dowry Harassment Insufficient To Prove Cruelty Or Abetment Of Suicide: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband, his mother, and his brother for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that general, vague and non-specific allegations of dowry harassment are insufficient to establish cruelty or abetment of suicide.
The Court further remarked that prosecution in matrimonial disputes must be based on clear particulars, acts, and proof of mens rea, failing which continuation of conviction would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.”
The prosecution submitted that Sapna @ Kiran, who was married to accused Ram Pal in March 2007, was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment by her husband, mother-in-law Meenki Devi, and brother-in-law Sanjeev Kumar
It was alleged that after about one month of marriage, the accused started demanding dowry and money, taunting and beating the deceased. Thereafter in 2008, Sapna consumed insecticide and later died due to phosphide poisoning.
The trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC.
Aggrieved, the accused challenged the conviction contending that the prosecution witnesses made generalized statements regarding the harassment without any particulars of date, place and time.
It was further contended that no complaint was made during the lifetime of the deceased and that the evidence failed to meet the legal requirements of Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
The High Court observed that the statements of the deceased's brother, mother, and relatives were vague and lacking in material particulars.
The Court further remarked that the prosecution failed to establish any positive, proximate act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused. It reiterated that “To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea… Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide.”
Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal.
Case Name: Meenki Devi, Ram Pal & Anr. V/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Appeal Nos. 526 & 528 of 2012
Date of Decision: 01.01.2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, vice Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General.