Parveen Kumar married Raksha Devi on October 10, 1992. Their union saw the birth of a son on December 18, 1993. However, the relationship quickly deteriorated as allegations of domestic violence surfaced. Raksha Devi reported her husband’s abuse, filing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498-A IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives. In addition, she sought maintenance through a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and filed a complaint under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C.

In May 1994, Kumar reportedly reconciled with Raksha Devi, who subsequently retracted her allegations in court, stating she was living happily with her husband. Tragically, just days later, on September 26, 1994, she ingested aluminum phosphide—an insecticide—resulting in her death. The circumstances surrounding her death prompted her brother to file an FIR against Kumar, alleging that his sister was driven to suicide due to his cruelty.

The Sessions Court ultimately convicted Kumar under Section 498-A, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. This decision led to appeals by both parties: Kumar sought to overturn his conviction, while the State appealed against his acquittal for abetment of suicide.

In its judgment, the High Court upheld the conviction for cruelty but found sufficient grounds to convict Kumar for abetting his wife’s suicide, increasing his sentence to five years in prison. The court relied on Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits a presumption of abetment in cases where a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and has been subjected to cruelty.

The High Court noted several undisputed facts: Kumar and Raksha Devi's marriage, her complaints against him, and her subsequent suicide. It emphasized that the allegations of cruelty had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the history of Raksha Devi's complaints. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defense witnesses' testimonies, which sought to portray a harmonious relationship, as lacking credibility in light of the documented history of abuse. The court also rejected the notion that Raksha Devi’s suicide was solely a result of her "intolerable pain and illness," pointing out Kumar’s failure to inform her family after her death—a detail that cast doubt on his claims of innocence.

In conclusion, the High Court's ruling reinforces the legal stance against domestic violence and underscores the responsibility of husbands in cases of cruelty that lead to tragic outcomes. The case serves as a somber reminder of the importance of safeguarding the rights of women and the serious implications of domestic abuse. As the appeals were dismissed, the judgment stands as a pivotal moment in addressing such grievous offenses in the legal system.