Chandigarh, July 2 — The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that frequent disputes or misunderstandings between a husband and wife, even if serious, do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless supported by credible and substantial evidence.
“Such disputes… may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life,” observed Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while allowing bail to a woman booked for abetment to suicide, criminal intimidation, and common intention under Sections 306, 506, and 34 of the IPC at Lambi police station, Muktsar, in an FIR dated May 22, 2024.
The State opposed the bail, arguing that the husband of the petitioner was driven to depression over her alleged illicit relationship with another man. It claimed there were direct allegations linking the petitioner to his death.
However, after hearing both sides and examining the case file, the court concluded that strained relations or regular quarrels are insufficient to invoke Section 306.
“The State has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish immediate provocation or instigation on the part of the petitioner, particularly in the absence of a suicide note,” the court said. “Direct allegations and frequent quarrels arising out of misunderstandings and discord… are not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.”
The judge also underlined the constitutional right to a speedy trial, calling it an essential aspect of fair and just legal procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. “This right cannot be denied to the accused,” he said, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Justice Moudgil noted that the petitioner had already spent over a year in custody and had no prior criminal record. The co-accused had already been granted regular bail, he added.
The investigation had been completed, and the challan was submitted on July 20, 2024, while charges were framed on September 24, 2024. Out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined till date.
“This is sufficient for the court to infer that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period would serve no purpose,” Justice Moudgil concluded.
