Mere Quarrel or Derogatory Remarks by In-Laws Don't Amount to Suicide Abetment: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently acquitted a man and his father in a 12-year-old matrimonial suicide case, ruling that mere quarrels and derogatory remarks in a marriage cannot amount to abetment of suicide unless there is extraordinary provocation or sustained cruelty.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Kamal Kumar Sahu and his father Kaliram Sahu, who were convicted in 2016 by a Raipur sessions court for abetting the suicide of Kamal's wife, Sunita Sahu. The trial court had sentenced both to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Sunita had died on January 5, 2014, after sustaining severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home on December 31, 2013. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was humiliated and called 'Charkat' (a derogatory term) by her husband and father-in-law after she served food to a mason, which drove her to take the extreme step.

However, setting aside the conviction, the bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the evidence on record did not satisfy the legal requirements to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC.

“Derogatory remark or quarrel by husband/in-laws in matrimonial life alone cannot be considered sufficient to the extent to constitute abetment unless something extraordinary, more than normal wear and tear of married life, is shown on or just before the date of incident,” the court observed.

The judge relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2024), to clarify that for a conviction under Section 306, the prosecution must prove a clear and proximate link between the alleged act of instigation and the suicide.

The high court noted that Sunita and Kamal had been married for over 12 years and had two children. “Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide that the suicide has been committed within 7 years from the date of her marriage were not proved,” the court added.

Further, court found no evidence of dowry demands or sustained cruelty. The only allegation was of repeated quarrels and the utterance of a derogatory term, which, according to the court, fell within the realm of “normal wear and tear” of matrimonial life.

Therefore, setting aside the trial court’s judgment, the high court stated, “I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence".

Court allowed the appeal, acquitting both appellants and directing that their bail bonds remain valid for six more months under Section 437A CrPC.

Case Title: Kamal Kumar Sahu and Another vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Download judgment here