Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.811 OF 2004

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat  Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are in this case concerned with the question as to  

whether  the  relationship  between  A-1  and A-2  was  extra-

marital  leading  to  cruelty  within  the  meaning  of  Section  

498A IPC and also amounted to abetment leading to the act  

of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.  

2. A-1,  the  first  accused,  along  with  A-2  and  A-3,  were  

charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections  

498A, 304-B and 306 IPC.  The Sessions Court convicted A-1

Page 2

for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  498A  IPC  and  

sentenced him to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine  

of  Rs.5,000/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  further  RI  for  six  

months. A-1 was also convicted for offence punishable under  

Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and  

to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further  

RI  for  six  months.   A-2 and A-3,  the mother  of  A-1 were,  

however, acquitted of the various offences alleged against  

them.  The  trial  Court  also  acquitted  A-1  of  the  offence  

charged against him under Section 304-B IPC.  On appeal by  

A-1,  the  High  Court  though  confirmed  the  conviction,  

modified the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years’  

RI and a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default to undergo further  

RI for six months, and for the offence under Section 306 IPC,  

the sentence was reduced to RI for five years and to pay a  

fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year.  

It  was ordered that the sentences would run concurrently.  

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court,  this appeal  

has been preferred by A-1.

Page 3

3

3. Shri  Sanjay  Visen,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

Appellant, submitted that the allegations raised against the  

accused in respect of the alleged extra-marital relationship  

with second accused would not constitute an offence under  

Section 498A IPC.  Learned counsel also submitted that the  

suicidal death of the deceased was not a direct result of the  

alleged extra-marital  relationship and would not constitute  

an  offence  punishable  under  Section  306  IPC.   Learned  

counsel  also  submitted  that  even  assuming  that  the  

Appellant was maintaining extra-marital relationship with the  

second accused, there is no  mens rea proved to show that  

such relationship  was  maintained by  the  accused with  an  

intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide.  Placing  

reliance  upon  the  suicide  note  Ex.44,  learned  counsel  

submitted that the deceased did not allege any cruelty or  

harassment  on  the  part  of  the  accused  which  led  the  

deceased  to  commit  suicide.   Learned  counsel  submitted  

that in any view, the conduct of the accused or the alleged  

relationship he had with A-2 was not of such a degree that

Page 4

would incite/provoke or push the deceased to a depressed  

situation to end her life.    

4. Mrs. Sumita Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the  

State,  on  the  other  hand  submitted  that  extra-marital  

relationship  between the first  and second accused was of  

such  a  degree  to  disturb  the  mental  balance  of  the  

deceased, which amounted to cruelty within the explanation  

to Section 498A IPC.  Referring to various letters written by  

the deceased to her father, learned counsel pointed out that  

those letters would clearly depict the trauma undergone by  

her, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide. Learned  

counsel also referred to the latter part of the suicide note  

and submitted that the same would indicate that A-1 and A-2  

were in love and that A-1 wanted to marry A-2 and it was for  

their  happiness  that  the  deceased  committed  suicide.  

Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  Courts  below  have  

correctly  appreciated  the  documentary  as  well  as  oral  

evidence of this case, which calls for no interference by this  

Court.   

Page 5

5

5. We may before examining the various legal issues refer  

to  some relevant  facts.   A-1 married the deceased in  the  

year -1989 and was leading a happy married life.  A-1 while  

working as a Field Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of  

India came into contact with A-2, who was then unmarried  

and a colleague, working with him in the Corporation. Official  

relationship and contacts developed into an intimacy, which  

according to  the  prosecution,  was “extra  marital”.  Due to  

this extra marital relationship, the deceased, the wife of A-1,  

developed  a  feeling  of  alienation,  loss  of  companionship,  

etc.,  which  ultimately  drove  her  to  commit  suicide  on  

18.3.1996 by leaping out of the terrace of a flat leaving a  

suicide note Ex.44.    

6. Prosecution  in  order  to  establish  its  case  examined  

altogether  eleven  witnesses  and  produced  twenty  two  

documents.   Prosecution,  however,  was  not  successful  in  

proving that A-1 or A-3 had caused any physical or mental  

harassment  to  the  deceased  demanding  dowry.   A-3,  the  

mother of A-1, was acquitted of the charge and no evidence

Page 6

whatsoever was adduced to show that A-1 had also caused  

any harassment physically or mentally demanding dowry.   

Prosecution story entirely rests on the nature of relationship  

A-1 had with A-2.    

7. The prosecution in  order  to  prove the relationship as  

“extra  marital”,  made reference  to  few letters  exchanged  

between the deceased and her father.  Ex.27 is letter of the  

deceased written on 2.7.1993 to her father  informing him  

about the relationship A-1 had with A-2, which also disclosed  

that the father of A-1 had gone to the house of A-2 twice to  

persuade A-2 to withdraw from that relationship and advised  

early  marriage  for  A-2.  Ex.28  is  another  letter  dated  

5.7.1993, addressed by the deceased to her father, wherein  

she had stated that she had also gone to the house of A-2  

and told her that she was prepared to part with her husband  

A-1  and  that  A-2  had  told  her  that  deceased  had  blindly  

placed  faith  on  her  husband.    Prosecution  also  made  

reference  to  Ex.29,  letter  dated  26.7.1993,  wherein  the  

deceased had again made a complaint to her father of the

Page 7

7

continued relationship of A-1 and A-2.  Ex.30 is yet another  

letter dated 6.8.1993 written by the deceased again to her  

parents, wherein she had indicated that even her father-in-

law was fed up with the attitude of A-1 and that often he  

used to come to the house late in the night.  Reference was  

made to another letter Ex.31 dated 17.8.1993 written by the  

deceased  to  her  parents  wherein  also  she  had  made  

grievance against the behavior of A-1 and the steps taken by  

the  father-in-law  to  mend  the  ways  of  A-1.   Letter  also  

indicated that A-1 had made a suggestion to include A-2 also  

in their life, which she opposed.   

8. Prosecution stand is that the above mentioned letters  

would disclose the feelings and sufferings of an unfortunate  

wife  having come to  know of  the love affair  between her  

husband A-1 and his colleague A-2, which ultimately led her  

to commit the act of suicide.  Further, it is also the stand of  

the prosecution that the deceased died within seven years of  

marriage and hence under Section 113A of the Evidence Act,  

the  Court  can  presume,  having  regard  to  all  other

Page 8

circumstances  of  the  case,  that  such  suicide  had  been  

abetted by the husband.  

   9. We have to examine the question as to whether A-1 is  

guilty or not under Section 498A and Section 306 IPC, in the  

light of the fact that A-2 was already found not guilty of the  

charges levelled against her under Sections 498A, 306 and  

304-B read with  Section  114 IPC.   Further,  the  Court  has  

recorded a clear finding that the prosecution could not prove  

any immoral or illegal relationship between A-1 and A-2 or  

that  A-1  had  tortured  mentally  or  physically  his  wife  

demanding dowry.  Further, there is also a clear finding of  

the trial Court that A-2 had not contributed or caused any  

mental  harassment to the deceased so as to drive her to  

commit the act of suicide.  Further, the facts would disclose  

that during the period of alleged intimacy between A-1 and  

A-2, A-2 got married in November, 1993.  Prosecution story is  

that the intimacy between A-1 and A-2 developed years prior  

to that and, of course, if the intimacy or relationship between  

A-1  and A-2  was so  strong,  then A-2  would  not  have got

Page 9

9

married in November, 1993.  During the period of alleged  

relationship between A-1 and A-2, it is pertinent to note that  

the deceased  got pregnant twice, once in the year 1992,  

which was aborted,  and the year  following when the wife  

delivered  a  baby  girl,  which  unfortunately  died  two  days  

after  her  birth.   Prosecution has  not  alleged any hand or  

involvement  on  the  part  of  A-1  on  such  abortion.   Facts  

indicate that both A-1 and the deceased were staying under  

the  same  roof  and  that  A-1  was  discharging  his  marital  

obligations and was leading a normal married life.  

10. A-1 had not caused any physical or mental torture on  

the deceased, but for the alleged relationship between A-1  

and A-2.   Parents of the deceased also did not make any  

allegation  against  A-1  of  ill-treatment  of  wife  or  of  dowry  

demand.  Possibly, he might have caught up in a one-sided  

love affair with some liking towards A-2.  Can it be branded  

as an “extra-marital affair” of that degree to fall within the  

expression “cruelty”?   Extra-marital  affair  is  a  term which  

has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and rightly not

Page 10

ventured  since  to  give  a  clear  definition  of  the  term  is  

difficult, as the situation may change from case to case.  

ALIENATION OF AFFECTION

11. We are not prepared to say that there was any willful or  

malicious  interference  by  A-2  in  the  marital  relationship  

between A-1 and the deceased.   A-2, it has not been proved,  

had in any way caused any kind of mental harassment by  

maintaining  any  relationship  with  A-1  so  as  to  cause  any  

emotional distress on the deceased.  No evidence had been  

adduced or proved to show that A-2 had alienated A-1, the  

husband from the deceased.   Further, no evidence had been  

adduced to show that due to the wrongful conduct of A-2,  

the deceased had lost companionship, affection, love, sexual  

relationship.  No evidence has been adduced to show that  

there has been any attempt on the part of A-2 to disrupt the  

marital relationship between A-1 and the deceased.   

12. Alienation of  affection by a stranger,  if  proved,  is  an  

intentional  tort  i.e.  interference in  the marital  relationship

Page 11

11

with intent to alienate one spouse from the other.  Alienation  

of affection is known as “Heart Balm” action.   Anglo-Saxon  

common law on alienation of affection has not much roots in  

this country,  the law is still  in its  nascent stage.    Anglo-

Saxon based action against third parties involving tortuous  

interference  with  the  marital  relationship  was  mainly  

compensatory in nature which was earlier available to the  

husband,  but,  of  late,  a  wife  could  also  lay  such  a  claim  

complaining  of  alienation  of  affection.    The  object  is  to  

preserve  marital  harmony  by  deterring  wrongful  

interference,  thereby  to  save  the  institution  of  marriage.  

Both the spouses have a  valuable  interest  in  the married  

relationship, including its intimacy, companionship, support,  

duties, affection, welfare of children etc.   

13. We notice, in this country, if the marital relationship is  

strained and if the wife lives separately due to valid reasons,  

the wife can lay a claim only for maintenance against the  

husband and if a third party is instrumental for disrupting her  

marriage,  by  alienating  her  spouse’s  affection,

Page 12

companionship,  including  marital  obligations,  seldom,  we  

find the disgusted spouse proceeds against the intruder into  

her matrimonial home.  Possibly, in a given case, she could  

question  the  extent,  that  such injuries  can  be adequately  

compensated,  by  a  monetary  award.   Such  an  action,  of  

course,  may  not  protect  a  marriage,  but  it  compensates  

those who have been harmed.  

14. We  are,  however,  of  the  view  that  for  a  successful  

prosecution of such an action for alienation of affection, the  

loss of marital relationship, companionship, assistance, loss  

of consortium, etc. as such may not be sufficient, but there  

must  be  clear  evidence  to  show  active  participation,  

initiation or encouragement on the part of a third party that  

he/she must have played a substantial part in inducing or  

causing one spouse’s loss of other spouse’s affection.  Mere  

acts,  association,  liking  as  such  do  not  become tortuous.  

Few  countries  and  several  States  in  the  United  States  of  

America  have  passed  legislation  against  bringing  in  an  

action  for  alienation  of  affection,  due  to  various  reasons,

Page 13

13

including  the  difficulties  experienced  in  assessing  the  

monetary  damages  and  few  States  have  also  abolished  

“criminal conversation” action as well.    

15. We  may,  however,  indicate  that  few  States  and  

countries strongly support such an action, with the object of  

maintaining  and  preserving  the  marriage  as  a  sacred  

institution.   Strong  support  comes  from  the  State  of  

Mississippi in the United States.  In  Knight Vs. Woodfield  

50 So. 3d 995 (Miss. 2011), the husband filed a suit for  

alienation against his wife.  The wife alleged paramour after  

gaining access  to a phone call.   Facts  disclosed they had  

exchanged  930  text  messages  and  talked  more  than  16  

hours in two months. In that case jurisdictional issues were  

raised,  but  Court  reaffirmed  that  law  of  alienation  of  

affection is firmly established in State of Mississippi.  Another  

case of some importance is  Dare Vs. Stokes, 62 So, 3d  

858  (Miss.  2011), where  in  a  property  settlement  

agreement of divorced couple,  a provision was made that  

the husband would not bring suit against any other person

Page 14

for alienation of affection.  Agreement was reduced to a final  

order by the trial Court.  Later husband came to know that  

his wife had a love affair with one Dare and hence sought for  

a modification of the agreement.  He also sent a notice to  

Dare as well of his intention to file a suit for alienation of  

affection.   Dare’s  attempt  to  intervene  and  oppose  the  

application  for  modification  of  the  agreement  was  not  

favourably considered by the Court on the ground that he  

cannot middle with the marital relationship.   

16. Action  for  alienation  of  affection  lies  for  all  improper  

intrusions  or  assaults  on  the  marriage  relationship  by  

another, whether or not associated with “extramarital sex”,  

his  or  her  continued  overtures  or  sexual  liaisons  can  be  

construed as something akin to an assumption of risk that  

his/her conduct will injure the marriage and give rise to an  

action.   But all the same, a person is not liable for alienation  

of  affection  for  merely  becoming  a  passive  object  of  

affection.   The  liability  arises  only  if  there  is  any  active  

participation, initiation or encouragement on the part of the

Page 15

15

defendant.  Acts which lead to the loss of affection must be  

wrongful,  intentional,  calculated  to  entice  the  affection  of  

one spouse away  from  the  other,  in order to support a  

cause of action for alienation  of  affection.   For proving  a  

claim  for  alienation of affection it is not necessary for a  

party to prove an adulterous relationship.   

17. We have on facts found that A-2 has not intruded into  

the family life of A-1 and his deceased wife, and the Court on  

evidence acquitted A-2 of  all  the charges levelled against  

her.  Consequently, it cannot be said that A-2 had in any way  

contributed or abetted the deceased in committing the act of  

suicide,  or  had attempted to alienate the affection of  A-1  

towards  his  deceased  wife.   If  that  be  so,  we  have  to  

examine what type of relationship A-1 had with A-2.  Can it  

be said as an “extra-marital relationship” of such a degree  

which amounted to “cruelty” falling within the explanation to  

Section 498A and also leading to an offence under Section  

306 IPC.

EXTRA-MARITAL RELATIONSHIP  

Page 16

18. Marital relationship means the legally protected marital  

interest  of  one  spouse  to  another  which  include  marital  

obligation to  another  like companionship,  living under  the  

same roof,  sexual  relation and the exclusive enjoyment of  

them,  to  have  children,  their  up-bringing,  services  in  the  

home,  support,  affection,  love,  liking  and  so  on.   Extra-

marital  relationship  as  such  is  not  defined  in  the  IPC.  

Though, according to the prosecution in this case, it was that  

relationship which ultimately led to mental harassment and  

cruelty within the explanation to Section 498-

A and that A-1 had abetted the wife to commit suicide.  We  

have to examine whether the relationship between A-1 and  

A-2 amounted to mental harassment and cruelty.  

19. We have to examine the correctness or otherwise of the  

findings recorded by the trial  Court,  affirmed by the High  

Court,  as to whether the alleged relationship between A-1  

and  A-2  has  in  any  way  constituted  cruelty  within  the  

meaning of explanation to Section 498A IPC. The facts in this  

case have clearly proved that the A-1 has not ill-treated the

Page 17

17

deceased,  either  physically  or  mentally  demanding  dowry  

and was  living  with  A-1,  in  the  matrimonial  home till  the  

date, she committed suicide.  Cruelty includes both physical  

and mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A.  Section  

498A IPC reads as under :-  

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of  a  woman  subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband  or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects  such  woman  to  cruelty  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment for  a term which may extend to three  years and shall also be liable to fine.  

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," cruelty"  means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is  likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause  grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether  mental or physical) of the woman; or  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment  is with a view to coercing her or any person related to  her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or  valuable security or is on account of failure by her or  any person related to her to meet such demand.  

20. This Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of  

Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177, examined the scope of  

the explanation and held as follows :-

Page 18

“3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is  to  avoid  “cruelty”  which  stands  defined  by  attributing a specific statutory meaning attached  thereto  as  noticed  hereinbefore.  Two  specific  instances  have  been  taken  note  of  in  order  to  ascribe  a  meaning  to  the  word  “cruelty”  as  is  expressed  by  the  legislatures:  whereas  Explanation  (a)  involves  three  specific  situations  viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii)  to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or  health, both mental and - physical, and thus involving a physical torture or  atrocity,  in  Explanation  (b)  there  is  absence  of  physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to  include only coercive harassment which obviously  as  the  legislative  intent  expressed  is  equally  heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one  is  patent,  the  other  one  is  latent  but  equally  serious in terms of  the provisions of the statute  since the same would also embrace the attributes  of “cruelty” in terms of Section 498A.”

21. In Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 2  

SCC 619, this Court held that the concept of cruelty under  

Section 498A IPC and its effect under Section 306 IPC varies  

from individual to individual also depending upon the social  

and  economic  status  to  which  such  person  belongs.  This  

Court held that cruelty for the purpose of offence and the  

said Section need not be physical.  Even mental torture or

Page 19

19

abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty or harassment in  

a given case.   

22. We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband  

has  developed  some  intimacy  with  another,  during  the  

subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital  

obligations,  as such would not amount to “cruelty”,  but it  

must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to  

commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A  

IPC.   Harassment,  of  course,  need  not  be  in  the  form of  

physical  assault  and  even  mental  harassment  also  would  

come  within  the  purview  of  Section  498A  IPC.   Mental  

cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending  

upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may  

meet  with  courage  and  some  others  suffer  in  silence,  to  

some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of  

ending one’s life.  We, on facts, found that the alleged extra  

marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the  

wife  to  commit  suicide  or  that  A-1  had  ever  intended  or

Page 20

acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances,  

would drive the wife to commit suicide.

23.   We also notice in this case that the wife committed  

suicide  within  seven  years  of  the  date  of  the  marriage.  

Hence, a presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence  

Act could be drawn.   

24.  Section 113A which was inserted by the Criminal Law  

(Second Amendment) Act, 1983, w.e.f. 26.12.1983, is given  

below for easy reference :-

“113A.  Presumption as to abetment of suicide  by  a  married  woman.-  When  the  question  is  whether the commission of suicide by a woman had  been abetted by her husband or any relative of her  husband  and  it  is  shown  that  she  had  committed  suicide within a period of seven years from the date  of  her  marriage  and  that  her  husband  or  such  relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty,  the  court  may  presume,  having  regard  to  all  the  other  circumstances of  the case,  that  such suicide  had been abetted by her husband or by such relative  of her husband.  

Explanation.--  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section  498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).

Page 21

21

25. Section 113A only deals with a presumption which the  

Court may draw in a particular fact situation which may arise  

when necessary ingredients in order to attract that provision  

are established.   Criminal  law amendment and the rule of  

procedure  was   necessitated  so  as  to  meet  the  social  

challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated  

or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives,  

demanding dowry.    Legislative mandate of  the Section is  

that when a woman commits suicide within seven years of  

her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative  

of her husband had subjected her to cruelty as per the terms  

defined in Section 498A IPC, the Court may presume having  

regard  to  all  other  circumstances  of  the  case  that  such  

suicide has been abetted by the husband or  such person.  

Though a presumption could be drawn, the burden of proof of  

showing that such an offence has been committed by the  

accused under Section 498A IPC is on the prosecution.  On  

facts,  we have already found that the prosecution has not  

discharged the burden that A-1 had instigated, conspired or  

intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide

Page 22

or that the alleged extra marital affair was of such a degree  

which was likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.

26. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide.  It says that if  

any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission  

of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a  

term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable  

to fine.  The action for committing suicide is also on account  

of  mental  disturbance  caused  by  mental  and  physical  

cruelty.   To  constitute  an  offence  under  Section  306,  the  

prosecution has to establish that  a person has committed  

suicide  and  the  suicide  was  abetted  by  the  accused.  

Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that  

the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted  

the commission of suicide.   But for the alleged extra marital  

relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral,  

nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show  

that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife  

to commit suicide.

Page 23

23

27. We have on facts found that at best the relationship of  

A-1 and A-2 was a one-sided love affair, the accused might  

have developed some likings towards A-2, his colleague, all  

the  same,  the  facts  disclose  that  A-1  had  discharged  his  

marital  obligations  towards  the  deceased.  There  is  no  

evidence  of  physical  or  mental  torture  demanding  dowry.  

Deceased might have been under serious “emotional stress”  

in the sense that she had undergone an abortion in the year  

1992, and the year following that, though a daughter was  

born to her, the daughter also died few days of its birth. After  

one or two years, she committed suicide. Evidence, in any  

way, is lacking in this case to hold, that due to the alleged  

relationship  between  A-1  and  A-2,  A-1  had  intended  or  

intentionally inflicted any emotional stress on the deceased  

wife, so as to drive her to the extreme step of ending her life.  

In the suicide note she had not made any accusations as  

such against A-1 or A-2, on the other hand she stated that it  

was she who was selfish and egoist.  Suicide note (Ex.44),  

which was translated by the High Court, reads as under :-

Page 24

“My husband Pinakin is a very good man and he is  not responsible.  I  also love him.  However,  I  am  extremely bad, selfish and egoist and, therefore,  not a match to him. He is in love with Priti  Bhakt, serving in LIC and  wants  to  marry  her  and,  therefore,  for  their  happiness, I am taking this step.   No one of my house is responsible. Therefore, they  may  not  be  harassed.  Kindly  arrange  their  marriage with all pomp and gaiety.  I gift my dead  body  to  the  medical  students  and  I  donate  my  eyes to the blinds.

Yours          Jagruti  

This is my last wish which be fulfilled for the peace  of my soul.”

28. Suicide note completely  exonerates A-1,  which states  

that he was not responsible for death of the deceased.  On  

the other hand, the deceased described herself as extremely  

selfish,  egoist  and,  therefore,  not  a  match  for  A-1.    She  

entertained the belief that her husband A-1 was in love with  

A-2 and wanted to marry A-2.  Note states it was for their  

happiness she had decided to end her life.  She also wanted  

to have the marriage of A-1 and A-2 solemnized with pomp  

and gaiety.   On reading the suicide note, one can infer that  

the deceased was so possessive of her husband, and was

Page 25

25

always under an emotional stress that she might lose her  

husband.   Too much of  possessiveness  could  also  lead to  

serious emotional stress, over and above the fact that she  

had one abortion and her daughter died after few days of  

birth.  No evidence is forthcoming in this case to show that  

A-2 ever evinced any interest to marry A-1.  On the other  

hand, during the subsistence of the alleged relationship, A-2  

herself got married.  

29. We  are,  therefore,  of  the  considered  view  that  the  

relationship A-1 had with A-2 was not of such a nature which  

under  normal  circumstances  would  drive  one  to  commit  

suicide or that A-1 by his conduct or otherwise ever abetted  

or  intended  to  abet  the  wife  to  commit  suicide.   Courts  

below, in our view, have committed serious error in holding  

that it was due to the extra marital relationship A-1 had with  

A-2  that  led  the  deceased  to  take  the  extreme  step  to  

commit suicide, and A-1 was instrumental for the said act.  

In  the circumstances,  we are inclined to allow this  appeal  

and set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed  

on the appellant, and he is set at liberty.  Ordered as above.

Page 26

………..………………….J.                                                     (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………J.                   (Pinaki Chandra  

Ghose) New Delhi, September 09, 2013.