Stale Allegations and Absence of Proximate Cause Defeat Conviction for Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Husband

“Mere Harassment Without Proximity to Suicide Is Not Abetment”— In a landmark judgment delivered on 21st July 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Deepak Gupta, set aside the conviction of Ajay Kohli under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that “mere allegations of past cruelty or harassment, unconnected to the act of suicide, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.”

The Court observed that the alleged incidents of cruelty dated back to 1999–2000, whereas the suicide occurred in 2005. This significant time gap, coupled with lack of proximate acts of incitement or cruelty, undermined the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, holding that no legal presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked due to the lapse of seven years since marriage.

“A Conviction Cannot Rest on Memories of a Marriage Gone Sour Years Ago”

The appellant, Ajay Kohli, had been convicted by the Sessions Court in 2008 for allegedly abetting the suicide of his wife, Anju @ Kirti, who died by hanging on 1st June 2005, seven years after their marriage in 1998. He was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC, along with a fine of ₹3.5 lakhs, and two years under Section 498A IPC.

Rejecting the conviction, the High Court ruled:

“The prosecution failed to prove any act of cruelty or harassment proximate to the suicide… Incidents relied upon are stale and disconnected from the act of suicide.” [Para 33]

Justice Deepak Gupta further noted: “To sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a proximate act of abetment. Mere harassment or cruelty in the remote past cannot ipso facto amount to instigation or abetment unless the conduct is proximate to the act of suicide.” [Para 30]

“No Presumption, No Proximity, No Mens Rea—No Conviction”

Central to the acquittal was the Court’s analysis of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of abetment when a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage. But as the suicide occurred more than seven years after the marriage, the Court held:

“Since the death occurred after more than seven years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A… is not attracted.” [Para 19]

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving abetment under Section 306 IPC remained firmly with the prosecution, which failed to present any direct or indirect act of instigation, encouragement, or aid that was proximate to the suicide.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court affirmed: “To bring a charge under Section 306 IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding… Without such mens rea… a charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained.” [Para 11]

“Child Witness Was Tutored, Testimony Unreliable”

The prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of PW21—Sehaj, the minor daughter of the deceased and the accused, who claimed that her father frequently beat her mother. However, the Court found her evidence unreliable and likely influenced, observing: “She was brought to court by her maternal grandfather and uncle… her statement was not recorded during investigation. Cross-examination revealed the deceased exhibited erratic behavior… suggesting tutoring.” [Para 28]

The Court held that unverified testimony, especially when contradicted by contemporaneous records and bereft of corroboration, could not support a conviction for such a serious offence.

“Letters Written Years Before Suicide Cannot Establish Abetment”

The prosecution relied on three letters written by the deceased in 1999 and 2000, alleging harassment and dowry demands. However, Justice Gupta ruled that these were too remote in time to support a conviction: “These incidents are stale… and there is no proximate act or incident connecting them to the suicide dated 01.06.2005.” [Para 22]

The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s warning in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State (2023), stating: “In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement… harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence cannot sustain conviction.” [Para 24]

The Court also criticised the prosecution for introducing alleged incidents of cruelty just days before the suicide, observing that these were absent from initial complaints and police statements, and likely afterthoughts: “Material omissions… raise doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses.” [Para 33]

“Section 106 Cannot Fill the Blanks Left by a Weak Prosecution”

Rejecting the trial court’s reliance on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with exclusive knowledge, the Court found that the appellant had a proven alibi, stating:

“The appellant was not at home at the time of the incident… no evidence has been led by the prosecution to rebut this assertion. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn.” [Para 31]

Setting aside the conviction, the Court ruled: “The conviction and sentence of the appellant Ajay Kohli under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, as recorded by the trial court… are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges.” [Para 35]

Accordingly, the Court also disposed of the connected revision petition and appeal for sentence enhancement as infructuous.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that prosecution under Section 306 IPC requires a clear, proximate, and intentional act of abetment, and not merely vague or dated allegations. The ruling underscores that the burden of proving mental cruelty must meet a high threshold, and judicial presumptions cannot substitute for missing evidence.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2025