Mere Allegation of Harassment Without Proximate Cause Can’t Sustain Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“There must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Mere allegation of harassment would not suffice unless the accused’s action compelled the deceased to commit suicide,” held Justice Kirti Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while acquitting an elderly mother-in-law convicted under Section 306 IPC. The Court ruled that the absence of mens rea, vague and uncorroborated allegations, and no proximate act of abetment rendered the conviction legally unsustainable.

The judgment reasserts the well-settled principle that instigation or active aid must be demonstrated with proximate link to the suicide, and that harassment in the abstract, without such nexus, cannot constitute abetment of suicide under Indian criminal law.

“Prosecution Must Prove Accused’s Conduct Created Circumstances So Unbearable That the Deceased Was Left With No Option But Suicide”: Court Emphasises Role of Mens Rea

High Court allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 306 IPC passed by the Trial Court in 2006. The appellant, an elderly woman and mother-in-law of the deceased, had been sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹2000 fine after her daughter-in-law allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage.

While setting aside the conviction, the Court held:

“Even if there is allegation of constant harassment, to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment.”

Allegations of Harassment Nine Years After Marriage—Trial Court Convicted Mother-in-Law but Acquitted Co-Accused

The FIR (No. 102 dated 13.04.2004) was registered at Police Station Mohali, based on a complaint by the deceased’s brother, Parveen Walia, alleging that his sister was harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law over dowry and childlessness. The deceased, a teacher by profession, had died on 07.04.2004 in her matrimonial home, after nine years of marriage.

It was alleged that the deceased had previously informed her family of ill-treatment and that at one stage, she had been left at her parental home due to illness. However, the prosecution failed to link any proximate act of cruelty or instigation with the suicide.

The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused—the sister-in-law and another relative—but convicted the mother-in-law, Parkash Kaur, under Section 306 IPC.

What Constitutes ‘Abetment’ in a Suicide? Is General Harassment Sufficient to Attract Section 306 IPC?

The core legal question was whether general, stale, or vague allegations of harassment, unconnected to the immediate circumstances of suicide, can justify a conviction for abetment under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC.

The High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings, especially:

• Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679

• Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024

• Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707

• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190

• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605

Drawing from this jurisprudence, the Court reiterated:

“Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's behavior and the tragic outcome.”

No Active Role, No Mens Rea, No Proximate Cause—Conviction Unwarranted

The Court found the prosecution evidence to be materially deficient. The complainant’s own earlier statement had suggested that the deceased was under depression due to infertility, and had cordial relations with her in-laws.

Additionally:

• PW-4 (father of deceased) was confronted with his prior contradictory statement, where he had made no allegations against the accused.

• Doctor who conducted the post-mortem was not examined, making the medical cause of death uncorroborated.

• Delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR further weakened the prosecution case.

Justice Kirti Singh observed:

“The prosecution was unable to prove any active role on the part of the appellant to instigate or aid in commission of suicide by the deceased… In the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellant had intended by her words or actions to push the deceased into such a position where she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would result in an abuse of process of law.”

Conviction Quashed, Appellant Acquitted—Court Emphasises Need for Proximate Instigation and Mens Rea in 306 IPC Cases

The appeal was allowed in full. The Court ruled:

“The impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against her. The fine, if deposited, be refunded. If the appellant is in custody and not required in any other case, she be set at liberty forthwith.”

This judgment provides clarity on the standards of proof required under Section 306 IPC. It reinforces that abetment of suicide is not a crime to be inferred from vague grievances or long-past differences, but must be founded on concrete, proximate, and intentional acts or omissions of the accused.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2025