Stray Remark Like “Take Poison And Die” Not Abetment To Suicide Without Mens Rea: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a woman convicted for abetment of suicide of her step-daughter, holding that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that stray remarks, without intention to provoke suicide, do not amount to abetment under law.

The Court found that the only allegation against stud accused was that when the deceased complained about her father's conduct, she allegedly told her that if she felt ashamed, she could “take poison and die”.

Even assuming this statement to be true, the Court held that it amounted at best to a stray remark, lacking the mens rea or direct nexus necessary to constitute abetment.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal said, "Even assuming for the sake of argument that the death was suicidal, the prosecution must further establish abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC.”

The prosecution case was that the deceased, Sushma, aged around 16 years and daughter of Gugan Ram from his first marriage, had been living with her maternal relatives after her mother's death. In April 2003, she began living with her father and stepmother at Village Nangal Sirohi.

It was alleged that on July 6, 2003, the girl telephoned her maternal relatives claiming that her father had been making immoral advances towards her and that she feared danger to her life. The next day, relatives learnt that she had died and her body had already been cremated. An FIR was registered on July 12, 2003 under Sections 306, 354 and 201 IPC.

The trial court relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and relatives regarding the alleged telephonic disclosure and convicted both accused for abetment of suicide.

However, the High Court found multiple gaps in the prosecution case. Firstly, the Court noted that no post-mortem examination was conducted, and the ashes and remains sent to the forensic laboratory did not reveal the presence of poison. In the absence of medical or scientific evidence, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the death was suicidal.

The Court also highlighted that the complainant himself admitted in cross-examination that he did not know how the deceased had died and that it was possible she might have consumed poison or might have been killed.

Justice Chahal observed that in a prosecution under Section 306 IPC, proof that the deceased committed suicide is a foundational requirement, which cannot be presumed merely on suspicion.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of a clear act of instigation or intentional aid that pushed the victim to commit suicide.

The Court further noted an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR, observing that such delay raised the possibility of deliberation and embellishment.

Considering the absence of medical evidence, failure to prove suicide, lack of proximate instigation, and credible defence evidence regarding telephonic intimation to relatives, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Somta Devi and acquitted her of all charges, granting her the benefit of doubt.

Mr. Nikhil Ghai,Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Title: GUGAN RAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA

Click here to read order