Mere Allegations Without Specific Instances of Cruelty Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Vague and General Allegations of Harassment Are Not Sufficient to Prove Abetment of Suicide - In a significant judgment Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction of Ashok Kumar and Bimla Devi, who were found guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abetting the suicide of Ashok Kumar’s wife, Shashi Bala. The Court ruled that mere allegations of harassment, without specific details regarding time, date, and nature of cruelty, are insufficient to convict an accused for abetment of suicide.
Reversing the Sessions Court’s 2011 judgment, which had sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and one year under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court observed: "To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. Mere accusations of cruelty, without clear and specific evidence, cannot establish abetment."
"Dowry Dispute Allegations Must Be Substantiated With Specific Evidence—Vague Statements Cannot Lead to Conviction"
The case originated from an FIR registered on June 1, 2010, at Police Station Nadaun, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, after Shashi Bala allegedly consumed poison and died while being taken to the hospital. The prosecution alleged that Shashi Bala had been harassed by her husband, Ashok Kumar, and her mother-in-law, Bimla Devi, over dowry demands, which ultimately led her to commit suicide.
According to the complainant, Raghunath Singh (PW-3), Shashi Bala had frequently complained about being beaten and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. Her relatives testified that she had sustained injuries due to physical abuse and that her in-laws had allegedly misappropriated the dowry items given to her at the time of marriage.
However, the High Court noted that no medical records supported the allegations of physical abuse, and there were significant contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the alleged harassment and dowry demands. The Court observed: "The statements of the prosecution witnesses contain only general allegations without any particulars of time, place, or nature of demands made by the accused. In the absence of clear evidence of instigation or coercion, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained."
"Mere Suicide Within Seven Years of Marriage Does Not Automatically Prove Cruelty—Section 113A Evidence Act Is Discretionary, Not Mandatory"
The prosecution invoked the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that if a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage, and there is evidence of cruelty by her husband or in-laws, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by them.

Rejecting the automatic application of this presumption, the High Court held: "The presumption under Section 113A does not apply merely because a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage. The prosecution must establish that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty. Vague allegations without supporting evidence cannot justify a conviction."
The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573, where the Supreme Court ruled that presumption under Section 113A applies only when there is sufficient proof of cruelty—suicide alone is not enough.
"No Specific Allegations, No Direct Evidence—Witness Testimonies Contradict Prosecution’s Case"
The High Court found serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the victim’s father, Hardev Singh (PW-6), her uncle, Virender Singh (PW-4), and her aunt, Sikendra Devi (PW-5).
The Court noted that while PW-6 claimed to have given ₹1,00,000 to Ashok Kumar in 2008 and another ₹1,00,000 in 2010, these allegations were absent in the original FIR and appeared to be later additions. Furthermore, no financial records proved that the alleged dowry payments were made.
Additionally, the Court observed: The statements of the witnesses are contradictory and lack specificity. If Shashi Bala was continuously harassed and beaten, why were no complaints made to the authorities before her death? If she suffered injuries due to beatings, why were no medical records produced? The failure to establish these key facts creates serious doubts about the prosecution’s version."
"If a Husband and Wife Appear Happy in Their Relationship, Harassment Cannot Be Presumed"
The Court further noted that several witnesses, including PW-4 and PW-5, admitted during cross-examination that: Shashi Bala was regularly taken to her parental home by her husband, Ashok Kumar, in his vehicle.
She never refused to return to her matrimonial home.
There were no instances of fights or quarrels between the couple in front of others.
The Court observed: "If a woman voluntarily visits her parental home and happily returns with her husband, it raises serious doubts about allegations of continuous harassment and cruelty. A strained marital relationship alone does not amount to abetment of suicide."
"Legal Standard for Abetment of Suicide—Instigation Must Be Clear and Direct"
Reiterating well-settled legal principles, the High Court ruled that: "To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement, coercion, or provocation that led the deceased to take her own life. Mere quarrels or domestic discord do not constitute abetment."
Referring to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court emphasized: "Instigation must be active and proximate to the suicide. If a person commits suicide due to a long-standing issue or personal reasons, the accused cannot be held liable unless a clear, direct act of incitement is proven."
The Court also cited Mariano Anto Bruno v. State (2023) 15 SCC 560, where the Supreme Court held: "Mere allegations of harassment without any specific acts of incitement or cruelty are insufficient to convict a person under Section 306 IPC."
"General Allegations in Matrimonial Cases Must Be Scrutinized Carefully—False Implication Cannot Be Ruled Out"
Expressing concern over the rising misuse of Section 498-A IPC in matrimonial disputes, the Court emphasized: "It is common in matrimonial disputes to make omnibus allegations against in-laws and the husband, often without substantive proof. Courts must exercise caution in convicting accused persons based solely on uncorroborated accusations."
The Court referred to Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, which cautioned against "the tendency to falsely implicate in-laws in cases of matrimonial disputes."
Convictions Set Aside, Accused Acquitted
Finding no credible evidence of cruelty or abetment of suicide, the High Court set aside the conviction of Ashok Kumar and Bimla Devi, ruling that:
"The prosecution has failed to establish a clear link between the alleged harassment and the suicide of Shashi Bala. The contradictions in witness testimonies, absence of medical proof, and lack of specific allegations create serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused."
The appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2025