The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who had been convicted nearly three decades ago for allegedly causing his wife’s suicide [Ravindra Singh vs. The State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary].A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar held that mere allegations of harassment or strained relations were not enough to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which criminalises abetment of suicide.It emphasised that a conviction for abetment to suicide requires more than past quarrels or emotional strain in the marital relationship."Merely because there was some dispute between the parties by itself would not establish the act of abetment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased," the Court noted in its judgement.Hence, it set aside the findings of the trial court and High Court on the ground that there was no direct evidence to prove that the accused had instigated or intentionally driven the deceased to take her own life..The case concerned the death of a woman by burn injuries at her matrimonial home in Uttarakhand. According to the prosecution, she was deserted by her husband, who was allegedly living with another woman. Her family also referred to a complaint she had written to the principal of the school where her husband was working which was followed by a police settlement. A quarrel was said to have occurred two days before her death.The trial court convicted the husband in 2001 and the High Court affirmed the conviction in 2013. However, the Supreme Court found that the circumstances, even if assumed to be true, were insufficient to support a finding of criminal liability under Section 306 IPC due to lack of intention on the husband's part to abet his wife's suicide. .While setting aside the conviction, the Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot rest on strained relations alone and must be backed by clear, proximate evidence of instigation..The appellant-husband was represented by advocates Rajal Rai Dua, Divyangana, Ankur Parihar, Osheen Bhat and Anupam Raina.The respondents were represented by advocates Suveni Bhagat and Anubha Dhulia. .[Read Judgment]
