Mere Weeping Or Unhappiness Not Enough To Prove Cruelty Or Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband In 1997 Suicide Case

“No evidence of instigation, cruelty, or unlawful demand — allegations vague, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt” - Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced in 1998 for abetment of suicide and cruelty to his wife, holding that “mere unhappiness, silence, or weeping cannot substitute proof of cruelty or abetment as defined in law.” Justice M. M. Sathaye found that the prosecution failed to establish any specific, proximate, or instigative conduct by the husband that could have legally justified his conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The case, which dated back to 1997, involved the suicide of the Appellant’s wife, Rekha. The trial court had convicted him based on general allegations of harassment, supposed dowry demand, and emotional distress of the deceased. The High Court, however, held that no direct or indirect act of instigation was proved, and the legal thresholds of both cruelty and abetment were not met.

“Instigation Must Be Clear, Proximate And Intentional — Not Inferred From Vague Emotional Signs”: Bombay HC Applies Supreme Court Precedents

In a detailed 26-page judgment, Justice Sathaye relied on settled Supreme Court precedent to reiterate that instigation or abetment to suicide requires clear and provable acts intended to push the victim toward taking their life. Observing that Rekha’s “unhappiness” and “weeping” during visits to her parental home were the main emotional indicators relied upon by the prosecution, the Court said:

“Mere statements that the deceased daughter used to be unhappy and used to weep is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there was harassment or conduct of such nature and degree that it will drive a woman to commit suicide.” [Para 14]

The Court also found the evidence of alleged dowry demand (a sewing machine and Rs. 1000) to be either weak or unreliable, particularly since the seizure witness had turned hostile, and there was no credible proof that the machine was either demanded or received as dowry.

“The case of sewing machine being supplied by PW-1 as a result of harassment is full of doubt... by no stretch of imagination it can be brought in the ambit of Section 498-A.” [Para 23]

“Appellant Himself Filed Missing Complaint — No Suicide Note, No Witness, No Evidence Of Torture”: Conviction Reversed After 27 Years

The case dated back to 13th November 1997, when Rekha, aged 20, reportedly left her matrimonial home and was found dead in a river four days later. Her father lodged a complaint alleging harassment and cruelty by the husband and mother-in-law, including demands for money and a sewing machine. The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment.

The Bombay High Court, however, highlighted the lack of legal evidence:

“There is nothing on record to indicate that the Appellant had instigated deceased-Rekha to commit suicide or had engaged in any conspiracy... In fact, the Appellant had lodged missing report on the same day... clearly indicating that Rekha had left behind her ornaments at home.” [Para 18]

The Court took note of the absence of any suicide note, lack of independent or neighbour witnesses, and non-disclosure of any cruelty in initial police statements, to hold that the prosecution case was riddled with doubt.

Supreme Court Judgments Reinforce Acquittal — No Mens Rea, No Proximity, No Abetment

Justice Sathaye referred to several authoritative Supreme Court judgments to support the acquittal, including:

• M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626, where the apex court held that abetment must involve clear mens rea and a direct or active act leading to suicide
• Sanju v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, where the Court held that even words like “go and die” did not constitute abetment unless suicide was immediate and proximate
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, where the concept of “instigation” was clarified to require deliberate provocation or encouragement, not mere irritation or hurtful words

Quoting from Ramesh Kumar, the High Court observed:

“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” [Para 24]

In this case, the Court found no words, acts, or incidents that could qualify as instigation or even deliberate cruelty. The appellant was said to be unemployed, lived in a poor neighbourhood, and there was nothing to show persistent dowry harassment.

Setting aside the 1998 conviction, the Bombay High Court held:

“There is sufficient doubt against the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant deserves the benefit of such doubt. The impugned Judgment and order requires interference.” [Para 25]

Accordingly, the Court acquitted the Appellant of all charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, and directed him to execute a bond of Rs.15,000/- under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 437A Cr.P.C.), to ensure his appearance if the State files an appeal.

This judgment reaffirms that criminal conviction, especially in sensitive cases like abetment of suicide, cannot be sustained on emotional testimony or general allegations alone. It must meet the strict legal standards of evidence, intention, and causation as laid down in law.

Date of Decision: 4 November 2025