Analysis of Abetment in Suicide Case

In a recent court case, a detailed legal analysis was conducted on the issue of abetment in suicide cases. The court examined the requirement of evidence and the parameters set by Section 306 IPC for establishing guilt. The case sheds light on the importance of solid proof before reaching a conviction. Let’s explore the complexities of abetment in the legal framework.


  • Shinder Kaur was beaten and turned out from her matrimonial home by the accused a few days before her death
  • The appellant and his parents were charged under sections 304B and 498A of the IPC
  • Shinder Kaur was harassed for insufficient dowry, specifically to bring Rs. 20,000 from her parents for a plot
  • Witnesses testified to the demand of Rs. 20,000 for a plot, which could not be met, leading to Shinder Kaur’s suicide
  • The appellant and his father were drivers with Punjab police
  • The deceased was admitted to the hospital during delivery time, with medical treatment arranged by the husband and father-in-law
  • Evidence showed no dispute regarding dowry demand or maltreatment during the three years of marriage
  • Complainant suspected foul play in his daughter’s death due to possible poisoning by the accused
  • Post mortem report revealed death was due to consumption of aluminium phosphide
  • The appellant Gurcharan Singh is the only son of his parents who own a big house with a vegetable garden
  • Cash loan of Rs. 20,000 was asked prior to the death of Shinder Kaur
  • FIR No. 177 was registered on 13.8.1997 at P.S. Kotwali, Barnala under sections 304B/34 IPC and 498A IPC
  • The Court was uncertain on the nature of the act to be attributed to the appellant.
  • The husband was convicted under section 306 IPC while all three accused were acquitted of the charged crime under section 304B and 498A of IPC.
  • The deceased accidentally consuming pesticide was brushed aside by the learned Judge.
  • The appellant’s parents were acquitted by the Trial Court.
  • The Trial Court concluded that the deceased committed suicide when her hopes were frustrated by the act of her husband or by his wilful neglect.
  • The Trial Court assumed that section 306 IPC can be applied against the appellant even in the absence of direct evidence of cruelty.
  • The High Court endorsed the Trial Court’s view that the deceased was pushed to commit suicide by the circumstances in the matrimonial home.

Also Read: Insurance Claim Repudiation due to Fire Incident: Court’s Legal Analysis


  • 1.1
  • 1.2
  • 1.3
  • 1.4
  • 1.5
  • 1.6
  • 1.7
  • 1.8
  • 1.9
  • 1.1
  • 1.11
  • 1.12
  • 1.13
  • 1.14
  • 1.15
  • 1.16
  • 1.17
  • 1.18
  • 1.19
  • 1.2
  • 1.21
  • 1.22
  • 1.23
  • 1.24
  • 1.25
  • 1.26
  • 1.27
  • 1.28
  • 1.29
  • 1.3
  • 1.31
  • 1.32
  • 1.33
  • 1.34
  • 1.35
  • 1.36
  • 1.37
  • 1.38
  • 1.39
  • 1.4
  • 1.41
  • 1.42
  • 1.43
  • 1.44
  • 1.45
  • 1.46
  • 1.47
  • 1.48
  • 1.49
  • Appellant has already served two years of sentence
  • Deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home on the same day her father dropped her back
  • Argument questioning the circumstances in the matrimonial home leading to suicide
  • Reference to evidence from Jail Singh (PW2) and Surjit Kaur (PW4)
  • Parents stated the deceased was beaten a week before the incident and sent to bring cash for a plot

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy in Pregnancy: Examining the Inviolable Nature of the Human Personality


  • Absence of evidence to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC
  • Lack of mens rea on part of the accused
  • No direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or in-laws
  • Wilful negligence by the husband not proven by the prosecution
  • No evidence to show harassment of the deceased in the matrimonial home
  • Children of the deceased being raised by the appellant’s family
  • Conjectures cannot be drawn without evidence to suggest the deceased was pushed to suicide
  • Abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC.
  • Abetment involves instigating or intentionally aiding in the commission of a crime.
  • Mens rea must be established to prove the offence of abetment.
  • Instigating or aiding by illegal omission can constitute abetment.
  • The state of mind to commit a crime must be visible for culpability.
  • Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must carefully examine the facts and circumstances of the case.
  • For abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement.
  • The evidence does not suggest persistent harassment from the deceased’s husband in the case being discussed.
  • Abetment requires a mental process of instigating or aiding a person in committing suicide, along with active or direct actions.
  • Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable solely based on allegations of harassment without evidence of a positive act proximate to the time of occurrence by the accused.
  • Without a positive act from the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be upheld.
  • The Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding the appellant’s guilt based on speculation and without evidence.
  • The conclusion of the deceased being driven to suicide by circumstances in the matrimonial home was mere inference without material support.
  • Inference alone cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction under section 306 of the IPC.
  • The decisions under challenge cannot be legally sustained.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Suretech Hospital Medical Negligence Case: A Tale of Negligence and Unnecessary Risk-Taking


  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside and quashed


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000040-000040 / 2011

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *