Telling Wife Not to Wear Sindoor Is Not Instigation to Commit Suicide: Gujarat High Court Acquits Husband and Mother-in-law in Abetment Case

"A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." With these strong words invoking the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Gujarat High Court quashed the convictions of a husband and his mother under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, finding that the prosecution failed to establish any direct or sustained act of cruelty or incitement that could legally constitute abetment of suicide.

Justice L. S. Pirzada allowed the revision and acquitted Dinesh Bhanushankarbhai and his mother Jayaben, setting aside their concurrent convictions by the trial and appellate courts. The Court held that there was no legally admissible evidence showing cruelty or any positive act amounting to instigation or abetment, as required under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 114 IPC.

"Abetment Requires Active Role—Mere Marital Discord or Hurtful Remarks Not Enough to Attract Section 306 IPC"

The Court’s decisive intervention came in a case where the wife of the applicant allegedly died by suicide by consuming pesticide at her parental home, shortly after a quarrel with her husband. The prosecution’s entire case revolved around a solitary allegation—that the husband had told his wife not to put sindoor in his name—a remark the prosecution claimed led the woman to take her life.

However, the High Court found that this remark, without further evidence of continued cruelty or clear intent to provoke suicide, did not meet the threshold for "instigation" under Section 107 IPC, which is a necessary prerequisite for establishing guilt under Section 306 IPC.

Citing the Supreme Court’s repeated caution in M. Mohan v. State and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that:

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused... conviction cannot be sustained.”

Suicide at Parental Home After Minor Marital Dispute

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Bhavanaben, had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law, which culminated in her suicide on April 2, 2002, at her parental home in Junagadh district.

The complaint was lodged by her brother, who alleged that the accused husband had dropped Bhavanaben at her parents’ house and made the remark that she should “not wear sindoor in his name anymore.” The next day, Bhavanaben consumed pesticide in her father’s field and later succumbed to poisoning in a government hospital.

The Sessions Court, in its judgment dated 04.11.2004, convicted the husband under Section 306 and Section 498A r/w 114 IPC, and the mother-in-law under Section 498A IPC. The appellate court upheld the conviction on 19.11.2005, leading to the present revision application.

Section 306 IPC – Whether Mere Remarks Can Constitute Abetment of Suicide?

Justice Pirzada examined whether a single, isolated comment, allegedly made in a moment of anger, can amount to instigation under Section 107 IPC, thus attracting liability under Section 306.

The Court drew extensively from Supreme Court precedents, particularly: “A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” – Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618

The High Court stressed that no evidence showed that the husband’s conduct created a situation where Bhavanaben felt driven to a dead end, compelling her to take her life.

The Court concluded: "The present case is not one where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide."

Section 498A IPC – No Proof of Sustained Cruelty or Harassment

The Court also held that there was no credible evidence of sustained cruelty, physical or mental, that would satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A IPC, which penalizes “cruelty likely to drive a woman to commit suicide” or cause grave injury or harassment.

The Court noted serious contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of supporting documentary or medical evidence, and absence of corroboration even from the deceased’s immediate family.

“Nothing has been coming from the evidence that the deceased was subjected to any mental or physical cruelty to the extent that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”

Revisional Jurisdiction and Perverse Findings

Reaffirming the scope of its powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the Court emphasized that while revisional courts do not re-appreciate evidence as a matter of routine, they are fully empowered to interfere where findings are perverse, contrary to law, or where essential legal ingredients of the offences are not satisfied.

“The findings recorded by both courts below are not in consonance with the evidence produced by the prosecution... the order is found to be perverse and requires interference.”

Conviction Based on Presumption and Emotion, Not Evidence

The Gujarat High Court found that both the Sessions Court and the Appellate Court had erred in convicting the accused based on presumption, inference, and an emotional reaction to a tragic death, rather than on the legal standards of proof required in criminal law.

“Except the statement that the husband told her not to put sindoor in his name, nothing comes from the evidence of the witness that she was subjected to cruelty to such a level that she had no other option but to commit suicide.”

The High Court, therefore, quashed the judgments of conviction passed by both the Assistant Sessions Judge and the Fast Track Court, Junagadh, and acquitted both applicants of all charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

Date of Decision: October 1, 2025