Thane Court acquits woman in husband's suicide case, says mere harassment insufficient to prove abetment
A Thane court has acquitted a woman and her two friends accused of abetting her husband's suicide in 2018. The court observed that domestic quarrels or harsh words spoken during disputes do not amount to instigation under the law.
Mere harassment is "not sufficient"; there must be clear acts of "instigation or a proximate cause" driving the person to take the extreme step, Additional Sessions Judge V L Bhosale said in the judgment on Tuesday, July 28.
The evidence, even if taken at its highest, shows that there may have been domestic quarrels and some harsh words spoken in the course of those quarrels. However, "such conduct does not amount to abetment of suicide" as required under Indian Penal Code Section 306, particularly in the absence of a proximate and direct link between the alleged conduct of the accused and the deceased's act of suicide, the judge noted.
In the totality of circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The essential ingredients of abetment as defined under IPC Section 107 have not been proved, the court said.
It acquitted the deceased's wife, Sheetal Chandrakant Chalke (44), and her friends Snehal Purushottam Gaokar (54) and Maya Liladhar Gaikwad (57) of charges under sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, Chandrakant Sudhakar Chalke (36) committed suicide by hanging himself at his home at Wagle Estate in Maharashtra's Thane city on September 13, 2018. A note recovered from his trouser pocket blamed his wife and her friends for mentally torturing him.
However, the FIR was registered a year later on September 19, 2019.
While evaluating the evidence, Judge Bhosale noted significant gaps in the prosecution's case.
He said that for a conviction under IPC Section 306, it must be established that the accused, by their act or omission, or by a continued course of conduct, created a situation which was unbearable and led the deceased to take his own life.
"Mere harassment is not sufficient; there must be positive acts of instigation or a proximate cause that drove the person to the extreme act of suicide," the court observed.
It also highlighted the unexplained one-year delay in registering the FIR.
The investigation officer admitted this delay in cross-examination and could not explain why the FIR was registered one year after the incident. "This unexplained and inordinate delay in registering the FIR is a significant circumstance which raises serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case," the court said.
On the suicide note, the court said it is a crucial piece of evidence. "However, the handwriting expert's report, which was sent to verify whether the note was indeed written by the deceased, has not been placed on record or disclosed clearly... Prosecution witness admitted in cross-examination that the handwriting expert's report was possibly negative and was therefore not placed on the charge-sheet," it said.
The judge further noted that the investigation officer admitted in cross-examination that no independent witnesses were examined, the accused had no connection with the incident, and the deceased was unemployed with a liquor drinking habit.
