Deceased 'Found Hanging' Not Enough To Prove Suicide: P&H High Court Acquits Husband, In-Laws In Abetment Case

Justice Mandeep Pannu observed that “seeing a person hanging and establishing that the person had committed suicide are two different matters.” Since commission of suicide is the foundation of a Section 306 IPC charge, the Court held that the discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence could not be brushed aside.

The woman was married in February 2003. She allegedly told her parents that her husband, his elder brother, sister-in-law and sister were taunting her and her mother over their character. On August 13, 2003, her parents accompanied her to the matrimonial home. According to the prosecution, all four accused told her to return to her parental home, calling her a woman of bad character. She allegedly asked her parents to take her back, fearing she might otherwise end her life, but they consoled her and left.

The next evening, her parents returned and found the four accused coming out of the house. Inside, they allegedly found the woman hanging from an iron rod. An FIR was registered under Sections 306/34 IPC and the Sessions Court convicted all four and sentenced each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

Suicide Itself Not Proved

The High Court held that the prosecution first had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death was suicidal and only thereafter could the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act concerning abetment by a husband or his relatives arise.

The post-mortem doctor did not opine that the death was suicidal; instead, he attributed the cause of death to strangulation. The Court noted that the parents had reached the house only after the occurrence and merely saw the deceased hanging. They had not witnessed her taking her own life.

Relying on Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that although ocular evidence ordinarily carries greater weight, medical evidence that makes the ocular version improbable is relevant, and where it completely rules out that version, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

The Court also held that the accused being present at or around the house did not, by itself, establish either suicide or abetment. The prosecution could not rely on Section 113-A to fill the fundamental gap left by its failure to prove suicide.

Abetment Also Not Proved

Even assuming the death was suicidal, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish abetment.

The deceased's father admitted that she was living happily about three days before the incident. The allegation of her being accused of an illicit relationship was also unsupported by specific evidence.

The Court held that even if objectionable remarks about the deceased's character were accepted, they could not by themselves establish abetment. The prosecution had failed to establish a clear nexus between the alleged conduct and the death.

No Specific Role Of In-Laws

The Court separately noted that the in-laws were living separately from the deceased and her husband. There was no convincing evidence that they exercised control over the deceased's matrimonial life or subjected her to a continuous course of harassment.

Holding that the prosecution failed to prove both the suicidal nature of the death and the ingredients of abetment, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences and acquitted all four accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.