Nagpur: Clarifying the legal threshold for abetment of suicide, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court last week held that a woman cannot be held criminally liable for her husband’s suicide solely on account of marital discord. The court quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings against her.Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke underscored that ordinary marital conflicts do not meet the legal threshold for abetment. “Suicide cannot be attributed to any of the spouses, merely because there is a matrimonial dispute,” the court observed, adding that at best such discord may cause “frustration” but does not establish criminal intent.The case stemmed from a 2019 incident in Amravati, where a man died by suicide after allegedly jumping in front of a train. His father accused the wife of harassment, leading to charges under provisions related to abetment of suicide. Examining the material on record, the court found that both husband and the wife filed complaints against each other, alleging ill-treatment, suspicion over character and strained relations. “The nature of the dispute was matrimonial in nature as there was discord between them due to difference of opinion,” it noted.The suicide note recovered from the deceased mentioned that he was under “torture” but clearly stated that “nobody is responsible for the said suicide”. The judge held that this weakened the prosecution’s claim of abetment.The judgment explained that “instigation” requires active conduct such as “goading, urging forward, provoking, inciting or encouraging to do an act”. It emphasised that a conviction under abetment laws requires a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.The court held that “merely because the victim was continuously harassed cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation,” adding that “nobody knows what goes on in the mind of the victim.”The judge further observed that even if any words are uttered in a fit of anger, they would not be sufficient to constitute the abetment. The court also noted the absence of any evidence showing the deceased had “no other option” but to take his life.Finding no “direct or indirect acts which would constitute incitement,” the high court concluded that essential ingredients of abetment were not met and quashed proceedings against the woman.
