Court Finds No Immediate Provocation in Suicide Note. Mere Conflicts Cannot Constitute Abetment
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of abetting her husband’s suicide. The court observed that the alleged suicide note did not indicate any recent serious altercation between the couple leading to abetment of suicide.
Case Background
The couple, married since 2019, had two children. On July 3, 2024, the husband was found unconscious in his car near Punjab’s Khanna after consuming poison. He later died in the Civil Hospital. His father alleged that the wife, Sonika, had persistently pressured him to send his mother to an old age home, leading to his extreme step.
Court’s Observations Regarding Abetment Of Suicide
Justice Sanjay Vashishth noted that while disagreements between spouses are common, the suicide note did not suggest any immediate provocation. The court emphasized that abetment of suicide (Section 108 BNS, previously Section 306 IPC) requires clear evidence of instigation or coercion.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court stated that such provisions should not be misused to satisfy the family’s sentiments. It also highlighted the importance of a practical approach in evaluating the accused’s role.
Bail Granted on Humanitarian Grounds
The court found no significant evidence requiring the petitioner’s custody. Additionally, the court granted bail to the accused, considering her responsibility for two minor children aged four years and one-and-a-half years.
Key Takeaways On Case
The court stressed the need for concrete proof of incitement in suicide cases.
Mere conflicts or hyperbolic exchanges cannot constitute abetment.
The petitioner was granted bail as no substantial material warranted her custody.
This ruling reinforces the importance of a fair legal process, ensuring that personal disputes do not automatically translate into criminal liability.
