10 July 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Shiv Shankar, the father of deceased Vijay Singh, challenging the acquittal of his daughter-in-law and her family members in a suicide abetment case. The appeal sought to overturn a 2020 judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge that had acquitted Ram Avtar, Layak Singh, Bihari Lal, Jaiveer Singh, and Urmila Dhandevi of charges under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case stemmed from the suicide of Vijay Singh on May 2, 2010. While no suicide note was initially found at the scene, his father later handed one over to the police on May 3, 2010. This note, later confirmed by a handwriting expert to be in Vijay Singh's handwriting, accused his wife and her family of harassment, compelling him to take his own life. An FIR was subsequently registered on March 21, 2011, following a court directive.

The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimony of Vijay Singh's parents, Shiv Shankar (PW-1) and Gayatri Devi (PW-2), who detailed a history of marital discord and alleged harassment by Urmila Dhandevi and her brothers. They claimed Urmila refused to cook, created a hostile home environment, and threatened false dowry cases. They also testified about a quarrel between Vijay Singh and Urmila just hours before his death.

However, during cross-examination, inconsistencies emerged. PW-1 admitted that no police complaint about the alleged threats or harassment was ever filed. While he mentioned Urmila's past suicide attempts (consuming acid, attempting to burn herself), these incidents were not reported to the police at the time and, paradoxically, were presented as acts of "cruelty" by Urmila towards the family. The court observed that these attempts likely reflected Urmila's own distress, rather than instigation of Vijay Singh.

The High Court meticulously reviewed the concept of "abetment of suicide" under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that mere harassment or vague allegations without a "positive action proximate to the time of occurrence" that compels a person to commit suicide are insufficient for conviction. The required "mens rea" (guilty intent) for instigation must also be present.

Crucially, the court scrutinized the suicide note. While its authenticity was confirmed, the note itself was undated, raising doubts about its proximity to the actual time of suicide. More significantly, the court found that the note contained only general allegations of continuous threats and did not specify any direct act of incitement or a proximate reason for Vijay Singh's suicide.

The High Court concurred with the trial court's finding that there was no "positive action" by the accused that could be deemed to have created a situation forcing Vijay Singh to end his life. The appeal, therefore, was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of all respondents.

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860