Ordinary Domestic Matrimonial Discord Alone Not Abetment of Suicide: SC

Summary: The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2016, Neutral Citation No. 2026 INSC 948, pronounced on September 3, 2026, held that ordinary domestic discord in a marriage cannot by itself attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had reversed the Sessions Court’s acquittal of the husband and convicted him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution witnesses had made general allegations without referring to specific incidents of torture, harassment or dowry demand, while several material allegations were omissions from their earlier statements. No injury was found on the victim’s body, and evidence showed that the appellant had immediately sought medical assistance after learning that she had consumed poison. The Court further held that an appellate court considering an appeal against acquittal must record that the Trial Court’s view was perverse or impossible on the evidence before reversing the acquittal. The High Court had recorded no such finding and had relied upon assertions of abuse and physical dragging unsupported by the evidence. Finding no evidence of any act of abetment by the appellant, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal, cancelled his bail bonds and allowed the criminal appeal.

Supreme Court on Matrimonial Discord and Abetment of Suicide

It is a matter of paramount importance that none other than the Supreme Court in a most elegant, eloquent, exemplary, erudite and effective judgment titled Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2016 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 948 that was pronounced most recently on September 3, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that ordinary domestic discord in a marriage cannot by itself attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is definitely worth paying singular attention that the top court while setting aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had reversed a Trial Court acquittal and so also had convicted a husband for cruelty and abetment of suicide mandated that an appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal without recording a specific finding that the Trial Court’s view was either perverse or impossible on the evidence on record. It also cannot be lost on us that the Apex Court observed that the High Court had arrived at conclusions unsupported by the record, including assertions of physical dragging and abuses that the witnesses had never stated to the police.

Acquittal by Sessions Court and Appeal Before Supreme Court

At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul S Chandurkar for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short, ‘the Penal Code’) having been overturned by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (For short, ‘the High Court’) into his conviction, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal.”

Facts of the Case and Allegations of Harassment

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The case of the prosecution is that in January 2008, Sanjay Kumar, A1 (For short, ‘the appellant’) got married to Lata (For short, ‘the victim’). On the same day, the younger sister of the victim, Manju was also married. Sometime after their marriage, it was alleged that the mother of the appellant, Kaushalya (‘For short, ‘A2’), sisters Neelam (‘For short, ‘A3’) and Reema (‘For short, ‘A4’) used to harass the victim on one pretext or the other. This fact was noticed by the younger sister of the victim, Diksha. It was further alleged that yet another sister of the victim, namely Mamta also noticed the harassment of the victim when she visited her matrimonial home. The death anniversary of the victim’s father was in May 2008, when all the sisters were present at their parental house. The appellant had accompanied his wife to her parental house. It was stated that on that day, there were arguments between the appellant and the victim, which required the intervention of some of the family members. Sometime in July 2009, the victim gave birth to a daughter and, hence, the victim’s sister had joined her at the matrimonial home. It was alleged that acts of torturing the victim continued and she was not being given proper food. On the fateful day, the family of the victim received a phone call by which they were informed that the victim had consumed poison, as a result of which she was taken to hospital. She, thereafter, died during the course of treatment. A report was, accordingly, lodged with the police authorities and investigation was undertaken. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant along with A2 to A4 were charged of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code. All the accused did not accept their guilt and were, accordingly, tried.”

Sessions Court Acquits All Accused

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 3 that, “The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused. The witnesses included family members of the victim, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the Medical Officer, a pharmacist and the Investigation Officer. The defence of the accused was that of denial. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, held that the demand of dowry as well as the acts of cruelty had not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence brought on record was mostly hearsay and in general terms. With no injuries found on the body of the victim nor any report of her physical torture having been reported to any authority, it was held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges levelled against all the accused. By the judgment dated 10.06.2010, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons.”

High Court Reverses Husband’s Acquittal

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The State of Himachal Pradesh, being aggrieved, challenged the acquittal of all the accused by preferring an appeal before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that though the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against A2 to A4, the said charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. It was on account of the acts of torture and the giving of abuses to the victim that the victim was driven to commit suicide within a short duration of her marriage. Accordingly, the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court was reversed and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code. The appellant was then heard on the quantum of sentence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and also ordered to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code. As regards offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/-. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the appellant has assailed the same before this Court.”

High Court Could Not Reverse Acquittal Without Finding Sessions Court View Perverse

Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have perused the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. We have thereafter given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. In our view, the High Court was in error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant without coming to a finding that the view taken by the Sessions Court in favour of the appellant was either perverse or was impossible in view of the evidence on record.”

Supreme Court Examines Prosecution Evidence

General Allegations Without Specific Incidents

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench points out in para 8 that, “When the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is examined in detail, it reveals that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in general terms without referring to any specific incident of either torture or harassment or demand of dowry from the victim. PW1-Kamla Devi, the mother of the victim, deposed that she used to receive telephone calls from her daughter in which she used to state that she was being tortured by the accused. She also stated that her daughter used to be kept hungry for days together by the accused. In her examination-in-chief itself, she admitted that she did not inform any authority about the torture of her daughter. In her cross-examination, she admitted that whenever her daughter and the appellant used to visit them, they were seen to be happy. At the matrimonial house, only her daughter and her mother-in-law were residing while other family members used to go out for their education and employment. Various omissions in her cross-examination were brought out by the defence. These included the incident of the victim being slapped by the appellant in her presence and a telephone call from the victim regarding her torture. She also admitted that the victim had called her husband to take her to her matrimonial house and after that she had gone back with the appellant.”

Relatives’ Depositions Were Also General in Nature

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Other relatives of the victim who were examined were PW4- Manju, her elder sister, PW5-Jaidev, her cousin, PW7-Mamta, her younger sister and PW8-Diksha, her other younger sister. Their depositions are also of a general nature and various omissions were also brought out in their cross-examination. In fact, the victim’s sisters stated that whenever they used to visit the victim’s matrimonial home, they were well received and were treated properly. There is nothing specific deposed by them about any incident of torture or harassment.”

Evidence Regarding Consumption of Poison and Medical Assistance

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 10 that, “PW2-Asha Parihar was residing near the matrimonial house of the victim. In her cross-examination, she stated that all the accused had good social respect and that she had never heard about any dispute between the victim and her husband. She admitted that the appellant had tried his best to save the life of the victim and according to her, the victim had taken poison by mistake. In this regard, if the deposition of PW10, Avinash Parihar, who was a pharmacist is considered, he states that on 16.11.2009 at 09.00 a.m., the appellant had come to his shop and had told him that the victim was not feeling well. He requested him to accompany him and also asked for medicines. This witness had accompanied the appellant to his house and had given her an injection, Decadon. In her cross-examination, he stated that the victim had told him that she had taken medicine from a bottle and when he saw that empty bottle, he found that it was poison. He asked the appellant to take the victim to the hospital immediately. The appellant immediately called for a vehicle and took his wife to the hospital. As per the Post-Mortem Report, the cause of death was on account of ingestion of a poisonous substance. As per the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, traces of Insecticide (Endosulfan) were detected in the contents of the parcels. Pertinently, no injury was found on the body of the victim.”

Sessions Court’s Appreciation of Evidence

It would be worthwhile to also note in para 11 that, “The Sessions Court considered all this evidence in detail. It noted that the allegations of demand of money or asking the victim to take loan were afterthought allegations. It noted that no witness had deposed that the victim was ever threatened with any consequences, whatsoever. There was no evidence at all of any unlawful demand. Mere harassment by itself could not be treated to be cruelty. In fact, it was noted that the victim was treated affectionately by the accused when she was pregnant and also after delivering a child. On that basis, the Sessions Court proceeded to acquit all the accused from the aforesaid charges. It is to be noted that the learned Judge had the occasion to note the demeanour of all the witnesses while recording their evidence.”

High Court Findings Unsupported by Evidence on Record

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The acquittal of all the accused was challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court indicates that it failed to come to close quarters with reasons assigned by the Sessions Court. In its short discussion spreading over only two paragraphs, the acquittal of the appellant was reversed by holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim had been harassed mentally and physically by the appellant. It observed that the appellant had abused and dragged the victim in the presence of her mother and sisters. We, however, do not find any such evidence on record. In fact, these witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that they had not made such statements before the police authorities. In our view, it was necessary for the High Court, as an appellate Court, while considering an appeal against acquittal, to record a finding that the Sessions Court had either misread the entire evidence to arrive at a perverse conclusion or that its conclusion could not be supported by the evidence on record. However, no such finding has been recorded in the impugned judgment.”

Matrimonial Discord Alone Does Not Attract Sections 306 and 107 IPC

It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench observes in para 15 that, “It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim. That, however, would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code. In fact, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment by the appellant. On the contrary, it has been brought on record that the appellant, on realising that the victim had ingested some liquid thinking it to be a medicine, had immediately sought medical aid from PW10. He also shifted the victim immediately to the hospital.”

Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

As a corollary, the Bench then propounds in para 16 directing and holding that, “Thus, on considering the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the Sessions Court was justified in arriving at the correct conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court committed an error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant. Its judgment is, thus, liable to be set aside.”

High Court Judgment Quashed and Set Aside

Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 17 that, “For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 17.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.566 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is presently enlarged on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 18 that, “The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”

Conclusion

All told, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that matrimonial discord alone is not abetment to suicide. It was also made explicitly clear by the Supreme Court that High Court cannot reverse acquittal without finding Trial Court view perverse. It would thus entirely be in order that all the High Courts always pay heed to what the top court has held so clearly in this leading case and in similar such cases act accordingly!