Yardstick to examine abetment of suicide of wife can be different from that of husband: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the yardstick used to consider a case of abetment of suicide of a wife can be different to that used to in case of abetment of suicide of a husband. .Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas opined that this was especially the case since Sections 113A and 113B were incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act in 1983 which provide presumptions as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman and dowry deaths.."It is appropriate to mention that a straightjacket formula cannot be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Unlike the wife in a marriage committing suicide, the husband’s suicide may stand on a different footing, especially after Section 113A and section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were incorporated, providing for certain presumptions. Therefore the yardstick while considering the case of abetment of suicide of a wife in a marriage can be different from that to be adopted when the husband had committed suicide," the Court said in its order..The order was passed on a petition moved by a woman seeking to quash the proceedings in a crime registered against her alleging that she abetted the suicide of her husband.Initially, a crime was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for unnatural death, and subsequently, the provision of law was altered to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which penalises abetment of suicide. The prosecution case was that the petitioner saw some intimate videos of her husband with his former girlfriend which led to marital discord between the couple which took a heavy toll on the husband, resulting in his suicide.However, the petitioner argued that the two alleged suicide notes left by her husband did not indicate that any act was done by the petitioner which would have fallen within the purview of abetment of suicide law..The Court noted that the two notes were written by the husband 58 and 14 days respectively before he took his life. Moreover, they only indicated that there were repeated quarrels between the couple."There is no reference, at all, to any act done by the petitioner to aid or instigate her husband to commit suicide... Quarrels, fights or disputes in a marital relationship is not abnormal or uncommon. Those quarrels cannot be reckoned as conduct amounting to abetment of suicide unless there is something more in the form of instigation or aiding," the Court said. Referring to the provisions of Section 306 IPC, the Court observed that mens rea or criminal intent would be required to establish abetment of suicide. In the present case, the Court opined that the material on record do not indicate any intention on the part of the petitioner to goad her husband to commit suicide.Therefore, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. .The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate CC Thomas and advocate Nireesh Mathew. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates P Vijayabhanu and Joseph Kodianthara, and advocate Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi. Public Prosecutor Ashi MC represented the State. .[Read order]