Kolkata: Thirty-six years after being convicted for abetting the suicide of his pregnant wife through repeated dowry demands and physical harassment, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday quashed the case against the Midnapore man, stating that the prosecution could not produce evidence showing that the husband or mother-in-law “instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided” in the suicide.“Abetment of suicide is intrinsically linked to the mental process of instigating, encouraging, or intentionally aiding a person to commit self-destruction. Mere allegations of harassment, strained relations, or ordinary domestic discord do not by themselves constitute abetment unless such conduct is of such severity and intensity that it leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative but to end life. In other words, a proximate and direct causal connection between the acts of the accused and the suicide is indispensable. Remote, indirect, or generalised conduct, unaccompanied by a clear causal link, falls short of the statutory threshold,” Justice Prasenjit Biswas held.The husband was on bail, and his mother died during the pendency of the appeal before the HC. The single-judge bench of Justice Biswas directed the quashing of the 1990 conviction of the man and his mother in the death of the woman, which took place in 1987.The victim’s brother filed a complaint against the duo, stating that repeated demands for dowry, physical harassment, and mental cruelty drove his sister to die by suicide. The same testimony was given by the victim’s father, mother, and sister-in-law. However, Justice Biswas noted that none of the 4 family members of the victim did anything to stop the harassment when the victim was alive. “An allegation that a married woman conveyed her intention to end life due to dowry-related harassment is an extremely serious matter. The natural and expected conduct of a responsible family member was to immediately approach the authorities or at least attempt some form of intervention,” the single judge observed.It was further noted that certain elements, such as a demand for additional dowry or physical harassment, were told by the witnesses to the magistrate and not to the cops who probed the case. The judge also noted that the medical records or autopsy report were not exhibited. Instead, reliance was placed on the doctor’s oral statement that it was an unnatural death and that the cause of death was “ante-mortem hanging, which was likely suicidal”.“Such omission cannot be treated as a mere technical defect; rather, it goes to the root of the matter… In forensic and medico-legal practice, an opinion regarding the unnatural nature of death must ordinarily be supported by visible injuries, external signs, or circumstances observed upon examination…,” Justice Biswas held.
